AGENDA
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD) REGULAR MEETING
Friday, July 29, 2011 9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC
Board Members: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Vancouver District Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Heather Anderson, Anmore Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Kim Baird, Tsawwassen Director Gayle Martin, Langley City Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Derek Corrigan. Burnaby Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director George Peary, Abbotsford Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Lou Sekora, Coquitlam Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Charlie Fox, Langley Township Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Peter Frinton, Bowen Island Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster
This page left blank intentionally. Section A 1
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS
9:00 a.m. Friday, July 29, 2011 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
A G E N D A
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. July 29, 2011 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 29, 2011 as circulated.
B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
1. July 15, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held July 15, 2011 as circulated.
C. DELEGATIONS No items presented.
D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
1. Ian Jarvis, Chief Executive Officer, TransLink Subject: TransLink’s Supplemental Plan
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. REGIONAL PLANNING REPORTS
1.1 TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook Note: This item was deferred from the July 15, 2011 Board Meeting. Report to be provided at a later date.
1.2 TransLink’s Supplemental Plan Note: Report to be provided at a later date.
July 21, 2011 RD-1 1.3 UBC Land Use Plan and Regional Context Statement Phase Note: This item will be considered by the Regional Planning Committee on July 22, 2011. Any resulting changes to recommendations will be presented on table at the Board meeting. Staff Recommendation: That the Board request the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to: a) require UBC to submit any future Regional Context Statements or amendments to Metro Vancouver first and Metro Vancouver will transmit the amendments along with the Chief Planning Officer’s comments to the Province for acceptance; b) provide an update on timeline and specific steps for the provincial review of local self-government at UBC.
1.4 Village of Belcarra Regional Context Statement Note: This item will be considered by the Regional Planning Committee on July 22, 2011. Any resulting changes to recommendations will be presented on table at the Board meeting. Staff Recommendation: That the Board accept the Village of Belcarra’s Regional Context Statement.
2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORTS
2.1 Metro Vancouver’s External Board Appointments Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation: That the Board support term limits of a maximum of 6 years or 2 consecutive terms, whichever is greater, for Metro Vancouver appointees to the Boards of Directors for the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.
2.2 Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation That the Board: a) request the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development: i) to make such adjustments to legislation and regulations as are necessary to allow for annual adjustments based on BC Stats population figures to the number of directors positions and the vote allocation that each member local government and First Nation receives on the Metro Vancouver Boards; ii) to make such adjustments to legislation and regulations as are necessary to increase the maximum number of votes a Metro Vancouver board director can hold from 5 to 100; iii) to amend the Greater Vancouver Regional District Letters Patent to change the population deemed to be the voting unit from 20,000 to 1,000; and b) permit directors of each of the GVWD, GVS&DD, and GVRD Boards to remain seated at the table during a District meeting to which they are not a member, but not to participate in debate.
RD-2 2.3 Resilient Cities 2011 Congress and Mayors Adaptation Forum, Bonn, Germany, June 3-5, 2011 Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated June 21, 2011, titled “Resilient Cities 2011 Congress and Mayors Adaptation Forum, Bonn, Germany, June 3-5, 2011”.
2.4 Vancouver Airport Authority Corporate Bylaw Changes Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation: That the Board write a letter to the Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR) Board to express concerns about the proposed governance changes, regarding membership on the Board by non-Canadian citizens or non-residents of British Columbia, and particularly the possibility of the Board Chair being non- resident of British Columbia or non-citizen of Canada.
3. OTHER REPORTS
3.1 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – July 2011 Staff Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated July 14, 2011 titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – July 2011”.
F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA
1. Adoption of the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Regional Planning Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) give third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010” as contained in the Attachment; b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010” as contained in the Attachment; c) notify the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development that the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010; and d) notify all affected local governments and other organizations and governments who participated in the development of the Regional Growth Strategy that the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010.
2.1 Board Budget Workshop Designated Speakers: Johnny Carline, Chief Administrative Officer and Jim Rusnak, Chief Financial Officer
RD-3 2.2 Financial Projections for 2012 to 2016 Finance Committee Recommendation: That the Board endorse the five year financial framework for 2012-2016 for budget and long range planning purposes as outlined in the report titled “Financial Projections for 2012 to 2016” dated July 7, 2011.
H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.
I. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Metro Vancouver Events Calendar – August-September 2011
J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.
K. ADJOURNMENT Staff Recommendation: That the Board conclude its regular meeting of July 29, 2011.
RD-4
MINUTES
RD-5
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-6 Section B 1
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 9:03 a.m. on Friday, July 15, 2011 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, Alternate Director Michael Lewis, West North Vancouver District Vancouver, for Pamela Goldsmith-Jones Director Heather Anderson, Anmore Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver (departed at 11:14 a.m.) Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Alternate Director Mary-Wade Anderson, Director Gayle Martin, Langley City White Rock, for Catherine Ferguson Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Director Kim Baird, Tsawwassen Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Director George Peary, Abbotsford Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Lou Sekora, Coquitlam Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Charlie Fox, Langley Township Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Peter Frinton, Bowen Island Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Moe Gill, Abbotsford* Director Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Janis Olsen, Assistant to Regional Administrative Officer, Chief Administrative Committees, Board Secretariat and Officer’s Department Corporate Information Department Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/ Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department
For Parks purposes. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 1 of 10
RD-7 A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. July 15, 2011 Regular Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 15, 2011, including the supplemental agenda dated July 14, 2011, by adding the following: i) Item C.1 Delegation: Christy Cunningham, Citizens Opposed to the Gondola Project; ii) Item E.1 Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2012 Base Plan and Outlook; iii) Item G.2 Resolution of Regional Growth Strategy Dispute with the City of Coquitlam; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED
B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
1. June 24, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held June 24, 2011 as circulated. CARRIED
C. DELEGATIONS
1. Christy Cunningham, Citizens Opposed to the Gondola Project (COG) Christy Cunningham, Citizens Opposed to the Gondola Project, expressed concerns regarding TransLink’s proposed Burnaby Mountain Gondola Project including social, economical and environmental impacts, and requested the Board’s assistance to have the proposed project removed from TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan.
In response to questions, members were informed that: The community would like broader, regional public consultation; consultation was limited, located outside of the affected area, and questions have not been answered There are concerns that public funds will be required to fund the project in the long-term if the project is not economically viable
Members informed the delegation of Metro Vancouver’s role and jurisdiction in TransLink’s transportation plans.
On-table executive summary and presentation material titled “TransLink Priorities Obtaining the Greatest Ridership and Environmental Benefits” is retained with the July 15, 2011 Greater Vancouver Regional District Board agenda. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 2 of 10
RD-8 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive the July 15, 2011 presentation by Christy Cunningham, Citizens Opposed to the Gondola Project, titled “TransLink Priorities Obtaining the Greatest Ridership and Environmental Benefits” for information. CARRIED Directors Dhaliwal and Stevenson absent at the vote.
D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
1. Ian Jarvis, Chief Executive Officer, TransLink Ian Jarvis, Chief Executive Officer, TransLink presented members with highlights of TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan (Plan) and Outlook. Members were informed that the Plan assumes a fare increase to be implemented in 2013 and a property tax revenue increase of 3% per year. Concerns were expressed regarding the: Plan not providing funding for further transportation investments Plan absorbing additional ridership for another 1-2 years but beginning to deteriorate in 2013 Timing of receiving the Plan for consideration and lack of consultation Changes in the Plan not being identified and the need for a more detailed presentation Need for information outlining TransLink’s borrowing limits, forecasted additional borrowing and accumulated surplus and debt in comparison with Metro Vancouver’s position Need to confirm if funding sources can be adjusted once approval and legislated through a Supplemental Plan (such as property taxes)
Members made the following suggestions: Annual joint Metro Vancouver Board and TransLink workshop to examine the Plan’s priorities and finances Board to communicate timing and consultation concerns to Commissioner Board to defer consideration of the Plan to its July 29th meeting Staff to provide a report on the SupplementalPlan as soon as it is available
In response to timing, members were informed that: TransLink is legislated to provide the Base Plan to the Commissioner by July 31st; a request to change this to October has been made to better align with TransLink’s budgeting and consultation requirements The Mayors Council on Regional Transportation will consider the Base Plan at its July 28th meeting The Supplemental Plan will be available July 22nd and consultation begins July 25th TransLink will email material related to the Supplemental Plan to members of the Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 3 of 10
RD-9 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive the July 15, 2011 verbal presentation by Ian Jarvis, Chief Executive Officer, TransLink, regarding the 2012 TransLink Base Plan and Outlook for information. CARRIED Director Louie absent at the vote.
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 Consent Agenda: 1.0 Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2012 Base Plan and Outlook 2.1 Regional Parks Tobacco Smoking Policy Designation Criteria 1.1 Development of TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook – Federal Gas Tax Fund 3.2 Metro Vancouver Sponsorship – 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the July 15, 2011 GVRD Board Consent Agenda: 1.2 Provision of Independent Transportation Planning Advice to the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation 3.1 Metro Vancouver’s 2011 Sustainability Congress 3.3 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – June 2011 CARRIED
The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows:
1.2 Provision of Independent Transportation Planning Advice to the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation Report dated May 26, 2011 from Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department, responding to the Board’s April 8, 2011 resolution for staff to present information to the Regional Planning Committee on the feasibility, advisability, and cost of Metro Vancouver retaining a full-time permanent transportation planning analyst to provide independent advice to the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation.
Recommendations: That the Board advise the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation to: a) Investigate the use of financial resources provided through the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act to retain an independent consultant on an as-needed basis to obtain independent and technical advice on regional transportation matters; and b) Request Metro Vancouver staff to continue to provide technical support on regional transportation planning issues under the mandates of the Metro Vancouver Board and the Regional Planning and Finance committees. Adopted on Consent
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 4 of 10
RD-10 3.1 Metro Vancouver’s 2011 Sustainability Congress Report dated June 29, 2011 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Department, updating the Board on Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Congress.
Recommendation: That the Board: a) Forward the report dated June 29, 20011 and titled “Metro Vancouver’s 2011 Sustainability Congress” to Premier Clark and Metro Vancouver- area MLAs and MPs, Metro Vancouver-area business associations and NGOs, and Congress participants; and b) Direct staff to consider the implications of Congress outcomes in 2012 program planning and budgeting. Adopted on Consent
3.3 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – June 2011 Report dated June 10, 2011 from Kelly Birks, Office Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department, providing the Board the executive summaries for the June 2011 delegations to committees.
Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated June 10, 2011 titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – June 2011”. Adopted on Consent
F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA The items removed from the Consent Agenda were considered in numeric order.
1.0 Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2012 Base Plan and Outlook Report dated July 13, 2011 from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department, providing comments and recommendations related to TransLink’s Draft 2012 Base Plan and Outlook.
Members considered the need to further review the Base Plan and communicate concerns to TransLink regarding timing and consultation.
Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board advise the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation that adequate time must be provided for consultation with Metro Vancouver on a 2012 Base Plan and Outlook, and Supplemental Plan prior to actions being taken by the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation.
Members considered providing TransLink with staff comments on TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 5 of 10
RD-11 Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board amend the Main Motion by adding section b as follows: “b) transmit the report to TransLink with a clear indication that the comments are staff comments and in no way reflect the Boards’ acceptance or approval of the 2012 Base Plan as no adequate consultation was made with Metro Vancouver Board members”. DEFEATED
Members discussed the need for further discussion and information related to TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan, Outlook and Supplemental Plan.
Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board amend the Main Motion by adding section b as follows: “b) direct staff to provide a report on TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook, and Supplemental Plan at the July 29, 2011 Board meeting”. CARRIED
Question on the Main Motion as Amended Question was then called on the Main Motion as Amended and it was CARRIED Directors Fox and Stevenson absent at the vote.
The Main Motion as Amended now reads as follows: That the Board: a) advise the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation that adequate time must be provided for consultation with Metro Vancouver on a 2012 Base Plan and Outlook, and Supplemental Plan prior to actions being taken by the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation; and b) direct staff to provide a report on TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook, and Supplemental Plan at the July 29, 2011 Board meeting.
1.1 Development of TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook – Federal Gas Tax Fund Report dated June 8, 2011 from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department, updating the Board on the development of TransLink’s 2012 base Plan and Outlook.
11:13 a.m. Director Anderson departed the meeting.
Members considered deferring the allocation of Gas Tax Funds to TransLink until a staff analysis of the final Base Plan is provided to the board at its July 29th meeting.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 6 of 10
RD-12 Deferral Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board defer consideration of Item F1.1 Development of TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook – Federal Gas Tax Fund, to its July 29th, 2011 meeting. DEFEATED Directors Corrigan, Dhaliwal, Fox, Jordan and Lewis voted in the negative.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board reaffirm that 100 percent of the Federal Gas Tax Fund allocated to the region be directed to TransLink for eligible transportation expenditures that are supportive of regional goals for 2011. CARRIED Directors Corrigan, Jordan, Dhaliwal and Lewis voted in the negative.
Members requested details of Translink’s projects funded through the Federal Gas Tax Fund.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board direct staff to provide a report regarding Federal Gas Tax Funds that go to TransLink, including amounts and project details, at a future meeting. CARRIED Directors Reimer and Villeneuve absent at the vote.
2.1 Regional Parks Tobacco Smoking Policy Designation Criteria Report dated June 29, 2011 from the Parks Committee, together with report dated June 10, 2011 from Gudrun Jensen, Operations Services Division Manager, Regional Parks Department, responding to the Parks Committee’s request to develop a Tobacco Smoking Policy for Metro Vancouver Regional Parks incorporating the concepts of defining and establishing smoking areas and implementing no smoking zones around high-activity areas.
Members were informed that further discussion and information of the matter is required.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board refer the report dated June 29, 2011 titled “Regional Parks Tobacco Smoking Policy Designation Criteria” to staff and the Parks Committee for further information and discussion. CARRIED Directors Reimer and Villeneuve absent at the vote.
3.2 Metro Vancouver Sponsorship - 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference Report dated June 16, 2011 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, Corporate Relations Department, seeking Board approval for Metro Vancouver to be one of the sponsors of the 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference taking place October 15-17, 2011 in Vancouver.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 7 of 10
RD-13 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board approve a $6,000 Metro Vancouver sponsorship of the 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference to be held in Vancouver, October 25-27, 2011. CARRIED Directors Meggs, Mussatto, Stewart and Villeneuve absent at the vote.
G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA
1. Greater Vancouver Regional District Sale of Property Within Kanaka Creek Regional Park Bylaw No. 1147, 2011 Report dated June 25, 2011 from Renato Jadrijev, Senior Property Negotiator, Finance and Administration Department, seeking Board approval to sell a parcel of regional park land that forms part of Kanaka Creek Regional Park having a civic address of 26889-116th Avenue, District of Maple Ridge, and legally described as Lot A, Section 18, Township 2, NWD, Plan BCP26268 (“Lot A”).
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board give leave to introduce “Greater Vancouver Regional District Sale of Property Within Kanaka Creek Regional Park Bylaw No. 1147, 2011” (the “Bylaw”) and that it be read a first, second and third time. CARRIED Directors Meggs, Moore, Mussatto, Stewart and Villeneuve absent at the vote.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) Direct staff to implement an alternative approval process to obtain elector approval for the Greater Vancouver Regional District Sale of Property Within Kanaka Creek Regional Park Bylaw No. 1147, 2011 pursuant to section 797.5 of the Local Government Act; b) Establish the deadline for receiving elector responses as September 2, 2011; c) Establish elector response forms in the form attached; d) Determine that the total number of electors of the area to which the approval process applies is 1,702,117; and e) Direct staff to report the results of the alternative elector approval process to the Board and if approval has been obtained, bring the Bylaw forward for final reading and adoption by the Board. CARRIED Directors Moore, Mussatto, Stewart and Villeneuve absent at the vote.
2. Resolution of Regional Growth Strategy Dispute with the City of Coquitlam On-table report dated July 13, 2011 from Johnny Carline, Commissioner/ Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s Department, presenting the results of the dispute resolution process between Metro
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 8 of 10
RD-14 Vancouver and the City of Coquitlam and seeking Board approval of the terms of agreement resulting from the resolution process.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board introduce and give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011” as contained in Attachment 1 to the report dated July 13, 2011 titled “Resolution of Regional Growth Strategy Dispute with the City of Coquitlam”. CARRIED
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011” as contained in Attachment 1 to the report dated July 13, 2011 titled “Resolution of Regional Growth Strategy Dispute with the City of Coquitlam”. CARRIED
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) authorize the Chair, on behalf of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board, to sign the “Implementation Agreement between the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the City of Coquitlam” as contained in Attachment 2 to the report dated July 13, 2011 titled “Resolution of Regional Growth Strategy Dispute with the City of Coquitlam; and b) direct the Technical Advisory Committee (Planning Directors) to establish a working group, with any third party assistance they deem necessary, in order to report back on the feasibility of developing consistency and clarity around the application of the concept of regional significance within one year of commencing the analysis. CARRIED
H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.
I. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Metro Vancouver Events Calendar – July-August 2011
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board receive the Metro Vancouver Events Calendar for July-August 2011 for information. CARRIED
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 9 of 10
RD-15 J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for July 15, 2011 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (e) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district.” CARRIED
K. ADJOURNMENT
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board conclude its regular meeting of July 15, 2011. CARRIED (Time: 12:06 p.m.)
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary Lois E. Jackson, Chair
5297267 FINAL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, July 15, 2011 Page 10 of 10
RD-16
CONSENT AGENDA
RD-17
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-18
2012 Base Plan and Outlook
Transportation and Financial Plan for 2012 to 2014 and Outlook for 2015 to 2021
RD-19 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1 1. Background and Context 2 TransLink Vision, Mission and Values 2 1.1 2012 Base Plan and Outlook Context 3 The Region’s Integrated Transportation System 3 Spotlight on Efficiency and Effectiveness 4 Legislative Planning Framework 4 2015-2021 Outlook Period 4 1.2 Consultation and Approvals Process 5 Governance Framework 5 Governance Outreach and Public Consultation 5 1.3 Planning Framework 6 Transport 2040 6 Transport 2045 8 TransLink’s Sustainability Policy 8 Provincial Transit Plan 8 Regional Growth Strategy 8 Air Quality Management Plan and Provincial Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets 9 Collaboration with Partners 9 2. Transportation Plan 10 2.1 Prioritizing Investments 10 2.2 Strategic Initiatives 11 Transport 2045 11 Sustainable Funding 12 Optimizing Transit Services 12 Compass Card and Faregate Project 13 Fare Policy Review 13 Rapid Transit Studies 14 West Coast Express Strategy 15 Canada Line 16 Integration of Land Use and Transportation Planning 16 Transit Service Guidelines Update 16 Regional Transit Network and Area Transit Plans 16 Major Road Network (MRN) Sub-Regional Reviews 17 Goods Movement 17 Performance-Based Investment Policy 18 AirCare Review 18 Real Estate 18 2.3 Transportation Programs, Investments and Services 19 Transit Services 19 Bus Services 19 Rapid Transit 20 SeaBus 21 West Coast Express 21 Custom Transit 21 Roads and Bridges 21 Cycling 22 Customer Service 23 TravelSmart 25 Security 25 2.4 Outcomes 26 2012 to 2014 Base Plan 26 2015 to 2021 (Outlook) 37
July 8, 2011 i RD-20 3. Financial Strategy 39 3.1 Financial Context 39 Funding Source Summary 39 3.2 Revenue Projections 40 User Fees 40 Taxation Sources 43 3.3 Expenditures 45 Transit Operations Expenditures 45 Roads, Bridges and Bicycle Expenditures 46 TransLink Corporate and Transit Police Expenditures 47 Debt Service 47 Other Items 48 3.4 Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statement 49 Balance Sheet 49 Cash Flow Statement 50 3.5 Outlook for 2015 through 2021 50 3.6 Assumptions and Risks 51 Other Major Assumptions Driven by TransLink 51 Sources for Key Assumptions 51 Identification of Risk Factors and Potential Risk Management Measures 52 3.7 Capital Program 54 3.8 Key Performance Indicators 54 Appendices 56 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Consolidated Statement of Financial Position 56 Appendix 2A: Statement of Operations 57 Appendix 2B: Funded Statement of Operations 58 Appendix 3: Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 59 Appendix 4: Projected Borrowing Compared to Borrowing Limit and Select Financial Ratios 60 Appendix 5: Capital Cash Flows – Projects Approved and Proposed 61 Appendix 6: Transit Service Hours 62 Appendix 7: Schedule of Transit Fares and Projected Fare Revenues s 63
July 8, 2011 ii RD-21 TABLES
Table 1: Service Hours by Service Type...... 19 Table 2: Ridership Forecasts ...... 32 Table 3: Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary (millions)...... 40 Table 4: Transit Fare Revenue Projections (millions)...... 41 Table 5: Golden Ears Bridge Toll Revenue Projections (millions)...... 42 Table 6: Motor Fuel Tax Revenue Projections (millions)...... 43 Table 7: Property Tax Projections (millions)...... 43 Table 8: Parking Sales Tax Revenue Forecasts (millions)...... 44 Table 9: Senior Government Contribution Forecasts for Capital and Operations (millions)...... 44 Table 10: Interest Income Projections (millions)...... 45 Table 11: Transit Operations Expenditure Forecasts (millions)...... 45 Table 12: Major Road Network, Bridges and Bicycles (millions) ...... 46 Table 13: TransLink Corporate and Transit Police Expenditures (millions) ...... 47 Table 14: Debt Interest Expense (millions) ...... 47 Table 15: Depreciation Expense Forecasts (millions) ...... 48 Table 16: Other Items (millions) ...... 48 Table 17: Funding Adjustments (millions) ...... 49 Table 18: Key Assumptions for 2011 Three-Year Plan with Outlook ...... 51 Table 19: 2012 to 2014 Capital Plan...... 54 Table 20: Indicators for 2012 to 2014 Base Plan...... 55 FIGURES
Figure 1: Transport 2040 Goals and Strategies ...... 7 Figure 2: Investment Prioritization Framework ...... 11 Figure 3: Contributing Factors to GHG Emissions from Transport...... 27 Figure 4: Changes in Population and VKT Relative 2011 Levels ...... 27 Figure 5: Assumed Rate of Technological Improvement Affecting GHG Emission Efficiency ...... 28 Figure 6: GHG Emissions Contributions Estimates (tonnes)...... 30 Figure 7: Regional Mode Share from the 2008 Trip Diary...... 31 Figure 8: Boardings per Vehicle Service Hour: Comparison of Historical Values to Future Forecasts ...... 33 Figure 9: Transit Mode Share Trends and Forecasts...... 35 Figure 10: Borrowing Levels for 2012 Base Plan and Outlook ...... 49 Figure 11: Cumulative Surplus Level Forecasts for 2012 through 2021 ...... 50 Figure 12: Summary of Capital Program ...... 54
July 8, 2011 iii RD-22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook is consistent with the 2011 Base Plan and continues implementation of the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan that was adopted in 2009. It has two components: a financially committed three-year Base Plan and an Outlook for the following seven years. The Base Plan for 2012 to 2014 outlines strategic initiatives, transportation programs and services that TransLink will deliver using current existing revenue sources without expansion.
This Base Plan continues TransLink’s emphasis on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system with currently available financial resources. Under this plan, overall annual transit service hours are maintained at existing levels and TransLink-owned infrastructure is kept in a state of good repair by drawing on existing revenue sources and accumulated surplus. Taking into account committed investments, Plan assumptions and extrapolation of trends, TransLink’s operating expenditures are forecast to be greater than revenues through 2017. After 2017, revenues are forecast to exceed expenditures as some long-term debt is retired and new major capital would be limited under the current funding stabilization environment. While the cumulative surplus is drawn down to account for this discrepancy, the modest investments made within 2012 to 2014 remain financially sustainable through the Outlook period from 2015-2021. Total accumulated surpluses are maintained at or above the policy target level of 10% of expenditures over the Plan and Outlook period
The Metro Vancouver region experienced unprecedented investment in transportation services and infrastructure between 2005 and 2009. For example, major investments in road and cycling infrastructure have improved the efficiency of the road system and encouraged mode shift. A significant expansion of transit services and infrastructure, primarily between 2005 and 2009, has translated into strong transit ridership growth. This ridership growth is forecast to continue in 2012 on the strength of recent investments and TransLink’s focus on efficient and effective use of the region’s transportation assets. In order to sustain the improvements made to date, TransLink’s discount to long term transit fares will be decreased with the net effect of increasing the average fare by 12.5 per cent in 2013. This represents the first increase in transit fares since 2010.
Under this Base Plan, there will not be any significant system expansion. There will be very modest investment in road and cycling programs. Transit system improvements through 2013 will be mainly in the form of service effectiveness and efficiency improvements, including the Service Optimization Initiative. Without additional investment in the transportation system, the Base Plan program alone will not be sufficient to maintain the momentum of recent years. As a
July 8, 2011 1 | P a g e RD-23 result, it will be difficult to continue to make progress towards Transport 2040, the region’s long-term strategy for a sustainable transportation system.
1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
This document is the 2012 10-Year Transportation and Financial Base Plan, known as a Base Plan, under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (the SCBCTA Act). The SCBCTA Act requires TransLink to annually prepare a Base Plan that uses only established funding resources within the current borrowing limit. The Outlook for 2015 to 2021 (in Section 3.5) demonstrates that TransLink’s plans for 2012 to 2014 are sustainable in the longer term.
This chapter describes the current context for the 2012 Base Plan and Outlook including:
TransLink’s vision, mission and values, TransLink’s current transportation system and its performance, the continued search for sustainable funding, the emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness, commitment to the long-term vision set forth in Transport 2040, and the legislative requirements and planning framework that guide the development of this plan.
TRANSLINK VISION, MISSION AND VALUES The 2012 Base Plan and Outlook is consistent with and supports TransLink’s vision, mission and values.
Vision A better place to live built on transportation excellence
Mission Together we connect the region and enhance its livability by providing a sustainable transportation network embraced by our communities and people
Values Safety - The safety and security of our customers and employees is paramount. We will operate safely at all times.
Customer Service - We will provide excellent service to our customers. We understand that our customers expect accuracy, timeliness, and reliability. Delivering on these expectations is essential to our success. Our plans and actions will be driven by customer needs.
People - We value our employees and the contributions they make to serve our customers.
Inclusiveness - We value teamwork and partnerships. We recognize that our success depends on effective communication and consultation, with our employees, our stakeholders and the public.
July 8, 2011 2 | P a g e RD-24 Integrity - We will act honestly and with integrity at all times. We will treat others with dignity and respect and will conduct ourselves in a manner that will instill and foster trust.
Excellence - We will strive for excellence in all that we do and will be a leader in enhancing sustainability through the transportation services we provide. We will encourage innovation and the implementation of best practices throughout our organization.
Sustainability - Sustainability will be a key factor in all our strategies, business plans, decisions, and operations. We will incorporate economic, environmental, and social factors in our decision making.
Accountability - We will be results oriented and fiscally responsible.
1.1 2012 BASE PLAN AND OUTLOOK CONTEXT
The 2012 Base Plan and Outlook is an update to, and is substantially consistent with, the 2011 Base Plan and Outlook. These two successive base plans carry forward a funding strategy laid out in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan, a supplemental plan that enabled TransLink to maintain existing service levels and keep transportation assets in good repair and, if required, to manage through significant financial challenges. While allowing TransLink to meet its basic mandate, the 2012 Base Plan will not enable the region to reach the goals and vision of Transport 2040.
TransLink remains committed to the long-term planning vision of Transport 2040 (described in Section 1.3), starting with the implementation of existing investment commitments and priorities, and working towards the expansion and improvement of the transportation system to meet future demand in the context of the Regional Growth Strategy. Current funding levels are sufficient to maintain the existing transit system, fund Major Road Network (MRN) operations and maintenance, and undertake modest investments in road and cycling. TransLink is committed to finding solutions to upgrade and expand the transportation network in order to advance the vision of Transport 2040. To this end, TransLink is actively working with the Mayors’ Council and the Provincial Government to secure long-term sustainable funding.
THE REGION’S INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Under the SCBCTA Act, TransLink provides a regional transportation system that moves people and goods in support of the region’s growth strategy, provincial and regional environmental objectives, and the economic development of the Metro Vancouver service region. The region’s transportation network under TransLink’s purview includes bus and rail transportation systems, passenger ferries, custom transit, cycling pathways, roads and four bridges, Intelligent Transportation Systems, programs such as AirCare emissions testing, and the TravelSmart transportation demand management program.
The number of trips and mode share on public transit has been steadily increasing over the past 10 years, with 12.6 per cent of all trips made by public transit in 2008, compared to 10.8 per cent in 2004
July 8, 2011 3 | P a g e RD-25 and 10.1 per cent in 19991. The combined transit, cycling and walking mode share reached 25 per cent in 2008.
SPOTLIGHT ON EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS Since 2008, all levels of the TransLink organization have been focusing on actions that will be effective in moving towards Transport 2040 goals (included on page 8), and on making efficient use of operating and capital resources. Under the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink’s continued focus on efficiency and effectiveness will provide the organization with the ability to maintain service levels and infrastructure in good repair, undertake planning initiatives and evaluate future plans for upgrades and expansion.
LEGISLATIVE PLANNING FRAMEWORK The SCBCTA Act, with amendments brought into force in June 2010, requires TransLink to annually prepare a three-year Base Plan that uses only established funding resources and projected borrowing within the current limit. The SCBCTA Act permits TransLink to prepare Supplemental Plans that propose changes to the three-year Base Plan by proposing increases to revenue sources beyond those permitted under a Base Plan. TransLink must ensure that for each Base or Supplemental Plan, the contemplated expenditures do not exceed anticipated revenues, borrowings and accumulated funding resources. The changes to TransLink's legislation include the provision of an Outlook for the seven years following the three-year fully funded plan. It must describe the transportation services (and levels) and major capital projects that TransLink contemplates providing over that period. If, at any time, TransLink chooses to prepare a three-year Supplemental Plan, it must also explain how the Outlook will change if the Supplemental Plan is approved.
2015-2021 OUTLOOK PERIOD The strategic initiatives described in Section 2.2 of this Plan include a number of planning programs, including the development of a new long-range strategy, Transport 2045, which TransLink is required to complete by mid 2013. Transport 2045 will define goals and targets, investment needs, funding, and policies and actions for the both the long-term (to 2045) and mid-term (to 2030) periods.
TransLink remains dedicated to the task of delivering the appropriate measures necessary to achieve the region's transportation and land use vision, including the implementation of existing investment commitments and priorities.
To demonstrate that TransLink is making decisions that are financially sustainable, a financial Outlook for 2015 to 2021 is provided in Section 3.5. The investments in infrastructure and transit services committed to by the end of 2014 can be maintained using only TransLink's current revenue sources and cumulative surplus through 2021. To make this assessment, TransLink extrapolates the key financial and revenue trend from the levels projected for the third year of the funded plan, through the planning outlook.
1 TransLink, 2008 Regional Trip Diary
July 8, 2011 4 | P a g e RD-26 1.2 CONSULTATION AND APPROVALS PROCESS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK TransLink is a regional authority governed by the SCBCTA Act. This section describes TransLink’s governance structure.
The Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation is composed of 22 members – the Mayors from all 21 municipalities within the transportation service region and a representative from the Tsawwassen First Nation. The Mayors’ Council appoints the Board of Directors (from a list of candidates identified by the Screening Panel) and the Regional Transportation Commissioner. The Mayors’ Council reviews and provides input on TransLink’s long-term transportation strategies and its Base and Supplemental Plans and approves or rejects Supplemental Plans.
TransLink’s Board of Directors consists of nine members and appoints the Chair of the Board. They are responsible for hiring, compensating and monitoring the performance of the CEO and providing oversight of TransLink’s strategic planning, finances, human resources, major capital projects and operations.
The Regional Transportation Commissioner:
advises whether the assumptions and parameters in the Base and Supplemental Plans are reasonable, approves new and increased short-term fares, approves customer surveys and complaint processes, oversees sales of major assets, and publishes an annual report.
A Screening Panel, established annually, nominates candidates for appointment to the Board and sets Director compensation. The Screening Panel has one eligible individual appointed by each of: the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council.
GOVERNANCE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION The 2012 Base Plan is intended to be an update of the 2011 Base Plan, which manages expenditures within the current approved funding envelope, existing revenues and accumulated reserve. Since there are no major changes to revenue or expenditures between the 2011 and 2012 Base Plans, a streamlined consultation approach was taken.
Consultation efforts for the 2012 Base Plan met the following three objectives:
achieve general government, stakeholder and public acceptance of the proposed 2012 Base Plan to ensure the best possible outcome of the planning process, adhere to TransLink’s Principles of Public Consultation and Public Outreach, and
July 8, 2011 5 | P a g e RD-27 meet the requirements of the SCBCTA Act.
Members of the public were informed about the planning process using the Buzzer and Buzzer Blog and were provided an opportunity for two-way dialogue through a public transportation webinar hosted on July 19, 2011. External stakeholders were notified of the process in late April and were provided the opportunity to comment at stakeholder meetings in late June. Targeted groups included federal, provincial and regional (TAC) representatives, the Regional Planning Committee, Mayors’ Council, MRTAC, and TransLink’s Stakeholder Roundtable. Internal stakeholders within the TransLink family were consulted throughout the plan development process via email communications and meetings.
A working draft of the plan document was distributed to stakeholders on _____. All feedback received was analyzed and, as appropriate, included in the final plan. Consultation Summary to be inserted into final drafts, once complete.
1.3 PLANNING FRAMEWORK
The annual 10-year Base and Supplemental Plans are the key mechanisms for implementing TransLink’s long-term strategy for regional transportation. Updated every five years, the long-term strategy considers:
regional land use objectives, provincial and regional environmental objectives, including air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives, and anticipated population growth in, and economic development of, the transportation service region over a 30-year horizon.
TRANSPORT 2040 Transport 2040: A Transportation Strategy for Metro Vancouver (Transport 2040) is the current long- term strategy for the regional transportation system. Adopted in 2008, Transport 2040 established six goals and four key strategies to achieve them. Transport 2040 is used to guide the decision-making and activities of TransLink.
July 8, 2011 6 | P a g e RD-28
Figure 1: Transport 2040 Goals and Strategies
In the short term, the 2012 Base Plan continues taking modest steps towards addressing the challenges and opportunities facing the region over the coming decades, such as:
• reducing greenhouse gas emissions, • respecting the environment, • accommodating growth in the region, • providing universal accessibility, • supporting goods movement and economic vitality, and • securing stable funding for TransLink.
July 8, 2011 7 | P a g e RD-29 TRANSPORT 2045 The SCBCTA Act requires TransLink to prepare a new long-term strategy by August 2013. In early 2011, TransLink initiated work on the development of this new strategy, Transport 2045. As described by the SCBCTA Act, the long-term strategy will include goals and directions for the regional transportation system, key measures to achieve these goals and a statement of underlying guiding principles.
The current long-range strategy, Transport 2040, sets the stage for the development of a more detailed and refined long-term strategy by providing a high-level vision and setting goals to help shape the 10- year Base Plans. Transport 2045 will build upon the foundation of Transport 2040 by setting key performance targets for the transportation system, developing investment and funding strategies and plans, outlining implementation strategies and establishing supporting policies and actions. This will be done for both the medium- (to 2030) and long- (to 2045) term time horizons. Transport 2045, in turn, will guide the development of future Supplemental Plans, which will detail specific investments and associated funding commitments.
TRANSLINK’S SUSTAINABILITY POLICY TransLink’s Sustainability Policy (2009) commits the organization to making sustainability a key factor in its strategies, plans, business practices, decisions and operations. TransLink is a signatory of the International Association of Public Transport Charter on Sustainable Development, committed to fostering leadership, influencing policy, facilitating training and reporting on sustainability practices. TransLink is also a member of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) pilot project on measurement of sustainability progress in this sector.
PROVINCIAL TRANSIT PLAN The Provincial Transit Plan (2008) calls for significant expansion of transit in Metro Vancouver, including rail and/or bus rapid transit lines on corridors throughout the region. The Provincial Transit Plan seeks a weekday transit market share of 17 per cent in Metro Vancouver by 2020, laying the foundation to attract 22 per cent by 2030. The implementation of the Provincial Transit Plan includes the commitment of significant funding contributions for the region by the Province to support capital construction and purchases.
REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy focuses on land use policies to guide the future development of the region and support the efficient provision of transportation, regional infrastructure and community services. In combination with other management plans, Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy helps meet the region’s priorities and mandates and support the long-term commitment to sustainability.
Land use is a key determinant of vehicle kilometres travelled, mode choice and the efficiency of the associated transportation networks. Likewise, transportation systems influence land use by providing linkages between and within developed areas. TransLink will continue to work closely with Metro Vancouver and its partners to support final ratification of the Regional Growth Strategy. Following
July 8, 2011 8 | P a g e RD-30 adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy, TransLink will work closely with municipalities and Metro Vancouver on implementation actions that seek to integrate land use and transportation planning.
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROVINCIAL GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION TARGETS Light and heavy-duty vehicles accounted for 35 per cent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Metro Vancouver in 2005. With over half of the Province’s registered vehicles and population located in Metro Vancouver, transportation in this region is a key component of the strategy for reducing provincial emissions.
Under the SCBCTA Act, TransLink must consider provincial and regional environmental objectives including air quality and GHG emission reduction objectives, in preparing its long-term strategy and Base and Supplemental Plans. As such, TransLink has committed to supporting both the region’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the Provincial Government’s targets for reducing GHG emissions in the Province by 33 per cent by 2020 and by 80 per cent by 2050 compared to 2007 levels. Metro Vancouver has adopted these targets for the region.
The Outcomes section of this Plan (Section 2.4) describes the progress of this Plan towards reduction of GHG emissions in the region.
COLLABORATION WITH PARTNERS The TransLink planning process includes regular and ongoing consultation and collaboration with municipalities, Metro Vancouver, the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Transport Canada and other partner agencies. Individual municipalities, the Mayors’ Council and Metro Vancouver are consulted on a variety of strategic planning initiatives as required by the SCBCTA Act. TransLink also consults with these agencies and other stakeholders (e.g. Vancouver International Airport Authority, Port Metro Vancouver and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia) through standing regional committees, project-specific committees and task forces, and other formal and informal mechanisms to ensure the region’s transportation networks are planned and implemented efficiently and effectively.
TransLink receives significant funding from both the Federal and Provincial Governments for capital projects for this region, such as fleet expansion and replacement and transit infrastructure.
The Federal and Provincial Governments together provide partnership funding through the Building Canada Fund. The Province provides funding through the Provincial Transit Plan. The Federal Government provides funding through programs such as the Gas Tax Fund and Asia- Pacific Gateway program.
Further senior government support for transit in the region is provided by initiatives such as the Province’s support for the U-Pass BC program and the Federal Transit Pass Tax credit program. These programs are an important part of TransLink’s planning framework as they influence the region’s progress towards the goals of Transport 2040.
July 8, 2011 9 | P a g e RD-31 2. TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This chapter describes the strategic initiatives and transportation programs, services and investments that TransLink will undertake in the 2012 to 2014 period. A financial plan for 2012 to 2014 and a Financial Outlook for 2015 to 2021 that supports the transportation plan are provided in Chapter 3. This chapter includes:
TransLink’s method of prioritizing investments, strategic initiatives that TransLink will undertake in order to make progress towards the goals of Transport 2040, transportation programs and services to be delivered, a summary of the financial assumptions and risks and revenues and expenditures, and outcomes that will result from the delivery of the Plan.
2.1 PRIORITIZING INVESTMENTS
The 2012 Base Plan and Outlook is an update to, and is substantially consistent with, the 2011 Base Plan and Outlook. These two successive Base Plans carry forward a funding strategy laid out in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan, a supplemental plan that enabled TransLink to maintain existing service levels and keep transportation assets in good repair and, if required, to manage through significant financial challenges. The focus of this Plan is Transport 2040’s strategy to “Optimize the use of the region's transportation assets and keep them in good repair.” Thus, the 2012 Base Plan continues a framework that prioritizes actions in the following order:
1. Maintaining services, 2. State of good repair, 3. Upgrades to improve efficiency and effectiveness, and 4. Expansion.
This Base Plan has sufficient funding to maintain service levels and state of good repair with modest investment in upgrades. TransLink will continue striving to optimize existing services and take a responsible approach that positions the organization to deliver on commitments to upgrade and expand the region’s transportation system when sufficient funding is available. The development of a new long- term strategy and subsequent medium-range investment strategy as part of Transport 2045 will provide guidance for future upgrade and expansion initiatives.
July 8, 2011 10 | P a g e RD-32
Figure 2: Investment Prioritization Framework
2.2 STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
TransLink will undertake a number of initiatives between 2012 and 2014 that lay the foundation to identify the mix of programs and services that will take the region towards the vision laid out in Transport 2040. TransLink will prepare to make early investments that encourage development of communities designed for transit, walking and cycling through planning for rapid transit and local area transit services, cycling investments, coordination of land use and transportation, and Transportation Demand Management programming. The organization will pursue opportunities to optimize the use of the region’s transportation assets through initiatives such as efforts in optimizing transit services, MRN Sub-Regional Reviews and strategies aimed at efficient goods movement. Projects such as the implementation of the Compass card system and faregates will enhance the security of the transit system. TransLink will also identify a strategy for diversifying revenue sources, and pursuing new and innovative ways to fund transportation.
TRANSPORT 2045 Over the 2012 to 2014 period, TransLink will develop and begin implementation of Transport 2045, the region’s next long-term transportation strategy. This strategy, required in the SCBCTA Act and due by August 2013, will build on Transport 2040 by providing greater definition on how to achieve the vision, establishing more detailed targets and providing more refined policy, investment and funding direction for the long and medium term. The update will focus on the key areas of network management, land use coordination, encouraging sustainable transportation choices and sustainable funding. The initiative will be co-sponsored and jointly developed by TransLink and the Province of British Columbia, with input from Metro Vancouver and all municipalities in the region.
Transport 2045 will consist of:
a long-term transportation strategy (30-year time horizon, overarching framework, general network concept, strategic-level actions and policies), and a medium-term transportation plan (15-year time horizon, refined network concept, implementation-oriented actions and policies).
July 8, 2011 11 | P a g e RD-33 As part of the update process, TransLink will upgrade transportation modelling systems (such as the regional transportation, ridership and revenue forecasting models) and improve its capacity for collecting and analyzing information. A Transportation Demand Management strategy will be developed that identifies effective methods to encourage shifts toward transit, cycling and walking. TransLink will seek the partnership of Metro Vancouver and municipalities to define and initiate a process for development of a parking strategy supporting the region’s land use and transportation objectives.
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING To understand how long-term investments will be funded, TransLink, with its partners, will study alternative funding methods and develop a sustainable funding strategy.
Since formation in 1999, TransLink has benefited from a diversified funding portfolio that provides a relatively high level of certainty regarding annual funding levels and enables TransLink to plan for the long term. TransLink is funded by a mix of transit fares, motor fuel tax revenues, property taxes, parking sales tax, advertising and real estate revenue, a hydro levy and senior government funding. While there are many benefits to the current mix of funding sources, additional funding is required to support upgrades and expansion towards a sustainable transportation system.
In 2010, the Province and Mayors’ Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing both parties to work together to identify a sustainable, long-term funding strategy. The agreement recognizes that the choice of revenue sources to fund transportation also has a role in shaping demand. Determining the right mix of funding sources to support future transportation infrastructure and services as well as Transportation Demand Management objectives will require extensive research and collaboration with stakeholders in the Transport 2045 process.
In 2011, the Mayors’ Council and the Provincial Government, supported by TransLink, began extensive engagement to seek a path forward on funding for high priority near-term initiatives in the context of a longer-term sustainable funding framework. Planning for medium- and long-term funding will be conducted as part of Transport 2045, to ensure funding solutions consider and reflect investment, demand management and land use strategies.
OPTIMIZING TRANSIT SERVICES TransLink is in the process of refining transit services across Metro Vancouver in order to build on the aggressive growth implemented from 2005 to 2010 and to improve productivity. During that time, the number of annual bus-based service hours was increased by 25 per cent to 4.9 million. Beginning in 2011 TransLink reallocated a share of the system’s resources to services where they would be expected to improve revenue productivity by shifting from unproductive services. The objective is to serve more revenue ridership with the existing fleet and hours, increasing total fare revenue by 2 per cent.
TransLink is reviewing all transit services in the region to identify areas of opportunity and potential solutions. Project selection is based on guiding principles developed as part of the fall 2010 TransLink consultation program. All initiatives are assessed using consistent evaluation criteria. Implementation is
July 8, 2011 12 | P a g e RD-34 sequenced over the program through standard quarterly service changes and implementation will continue through 2012.
Beyond the one-time initiative, TransLink will establish an ongoing process that carries forward the guiding principles, goals and objectives, will monitor the impact of projects implemented in 2011 and 2012, and will ensure that transit services continue to serve the long-term goals and objectives of the region.
COMPASS CARD AND FAREGATE PROJECT TransLink will begin introducing an electronic fare card collection system, called the Compass card, across all modes of the public transit system in 2013. The phased introduction will include the installation of faregates at the Expo, Millennium and Canada Line stations and SeaBus terminals. This is a key initiative to increase customer convenience, improve transit service quality, increase revenue, reduce fare evasion, provide improved travel data, and improve safety and security on the rapid transit system. The Provincial and Federal Governments are providing financial support.
Construction to prepare the stations for the installation of gating and related equipment began in 2011 and will continue through 2012. System installation will begin in spring of 2012 and will be completed on the rail system by the end of 2012 and bus system in early 2013. Pilot system testing is planned for the fall of 2012 in combination with implementation of a customer call centre and operational walk-in centre.
Other activities for 2012 include a broad public education program to ready customers for the new system and developing an internal employee education program to equip all employees across the enterprise with knowledge of how the system will work. Supporting this work will be the roll-out of a public website to inform customers and enable them to use the system, including ordering, registering, reloading or cancelling a Compass card.
Enabling the Compass card system in 2012 will require significant “behind the scenes” work. Activities include procuring cards, setting up required financial systems, designing reporting mechanisms, and developing card distribution processes. TransLink’s Business & Technology Group will work with a contractor to develop infrastructure enabling the extraction and storage of data for processing, monitoring and forecasting purposes. Other Compass card-related activities occurring in 2012 include developing a commercial strategy, strategic alliances and ongoing market assessments.
FARE POLICY REVIEW Transit fares are an important source of revenue for TransLink and an important tool for meeting TransLink’s ridership goals. The current fare policies and structure have been in existence since the 1980s. Since then, there has been considerable change in the region in terms of the transit system, demographics, land use and travel patterns. As part of the Transport 2045 process, preliminary long- term fare policy development work will be undertaken including research, peer practice review, and analytical tool and policy development. Furthermore, as part of the process to implement the Compass card in 2013, TransLink will be exploring potential near-term refinements to the fare structure and fare
July 8, 2011 13 | P a g e RD-35 products that the Compass card may enable or require. Once the Compass card system goes in service in 2013, it will provide the necessary planning data to be used as input in the full Fare Review.
RAPID TRANSIT STUDIES Both Transport 2040 and the Provincial Transit Plan outline a significant program of rapid transit expansion to achieve their respective 2020 and 2040 transportation objectives. Although the 2012 Base Plan does not contain funding for expansion of the rapid transit network, TransLink will continue rapid transit planning to meet its commitment to develop a long-term vision for the network and define the scope, costs, benefits and impacts of various rapid transit investments.
Expo Line Upgrade Strategy In 2011, TransLink completed an upgrade strategy for the Expo Line. This strategy identifies a program of investments in fleet, stations and supporting systems to expand the capacity of the line to meet growing demand, improve accessibility and better integrate stations with other modes and the communities they serve. If fully implemented, the upgrade strategy would double the capacity of the Expo Line and meet projected demand through the year 2041. The program cost, estimated at $1.3 billion over the next 20 years, is not funded in the 2012 Base Plan. High priority station upgrades, fleet expansion and supporting system upgrades identified in the strategy will be brought forward for implementation through future supplemental plans. In 2012, under the Base Plan, planning and conceptual design will be advanced for high priority station upgrades in anticipation of future funding for implementation. The findings will be integrated into the development of the Transport 2045 long-range strategy and medium- range investment strategy.
UBC Line and Surrey Rapid Transit Studies TransLink is working jointly with the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure on two corridor- level studies to provide better definition for previously identified rapid transit expansion priorities. The UBC Line Rapid Transit Study is considering technology and alignment alternatives for connecting the University of British Columbia and the Central Broadway activity centres to the existing rapid transit network at Commercial Drive. Similarly, the Surrey Rapid Transit Study is considering a range of alternative technologies and corridors connecting Surrey Metro Centre to other urban centres south of the Fraser River. Both studies will complete a Multiple Account Evaluation of rapid transit alternatives by the end of 2011 or early 2012. In addition to technical analysis, the studies rely on significant municipal involvement, and stakeholder and public consultation to understand the tradeoffs among different expansion options.
Regional Rapid Transit Master Plan Decisions on the scope and timing for the various rapid transit corridors will be made in the context of a broader regional rapid transit network plan that will be completed as a key component of Transport 2045. This network plan will be based on the results of the Expo, Broadway and Surrey corridor studies, and will consider broader regional transportation needs.
The Expo, Surrey and Broadway corridors remain regional priorities for rapid transit investment. The process for establishing the priority, scope, timing and phasing of these projects will be defined in 2011
July 8, 2011 14 | P a g e RD-36 and involve a regional dialogue to establish prioritization criteria, assess options and develop a proposal for preferred alternatives for each of the corridors and a broader plan for the longer term network. It is expected that preferred alternative proposals for Expo, Surrey and Broadway corridors will be advanced for consultation in the second half of 2012 and that a single preferred alternative will be approved with the adoption of the 2045 Strategy and 2030 Plan.
A performance-based approach will be taken to determine the priority, scope and timing, and key considerations will include:
cost-effectiveness and affordability, ability to meet ridership goals and long-term capacity needs, ability to shape land use and development opportunity, and proposed actions and commitments by municipalities and partners to put in place supportive elements including land use, station access, and transit priority measures.
To generate the most value from these investments, TransLink will seek agreements with municipalities and partners regarding station locations and the scope of supporting elements in the corridor in advance of making funding commitments.
Burnaby Mountain Gondola On a typical weekday, approximately 25,000 trips are taken on the bus routes to and from Simon Fraser University (SFU) and the adjacent residential community on Burnaby Mountain. The majority of those trips start or end at Millennium Line stations where SkyTrain provides onward connections throughout the region. TransLink recently completed a study of alternatives to bus service to meet existing and future transit demand in partnership with SFU, SFU Community Trust, the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and with input from the City of Burnaby.
The study concluded that there is a strong positive business case for replacing a portion of bus service with a gondola-based transit service. This gondola service would provide customer service benefits through reduced wait and travel times and enhanced reliability while reducing transit service operating costs and emissions impacts. The study also found that benefits increased significantly with the introduction of the Evergreen Line due to higher transit ridership and revenue and further bus operations and facilities savings.
While there is a strong business case for this project, implementing it would require additional TransLink or partner contributions. The gondola will not be implemented under the 2012 Base Plan, however TransLink will continue with project development activities including planning, design and consultation. TransLink will also seek opportunities to fund the project through additional resources and/or partnerships. If deemed viable, the project will be brought forward for consideration and evaluation against other priorities to be implemented under a future plan.
WEST COAST EXPRESS STRATEGY The 20-year service agreement between TransLink and the Canadian Pacific Railroad to operate the West Coast Express expires in 2015. Negotiations for renewal will be initiated within the Base Plan
July 8, 2011 15 | P a g e RD-37 period. A fuller understanding of the future interaction of the service with the Evergreen Line is required, as well as an understanding of the overall market for long distance travel in the corridor. Accordingly, TransLink initiated the development of a West Coast Express Strategy in 2011 to consult with stakeholders and examine these issues. Completion of the strategy is expected in 2012, with subsequent implementation work expected to identify appropriate future service and infrastructure requirements.
CANADA LINE The The Canada Line was introduced in the fall of 2009 and ridership trends are beginning to be established. TransLink will undertake a review of the service and develop a longer term service strategy to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the service, refine the bus integration and deliver better customer service. The review will begin in 2011 and the service strategy will be completed in 2012.
INTEGRATION OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Having a land use pattern that is supportive of walking, cycling and transit is essential for supporting a high level of performance from the regional transportation system. Transport 2040, the proposed Regional Growth Strategy and municipal Official Community Plans all call for the integration of land use and transportation planning. For its part, TransLink will bring together a range of existing and new initiatives under one policy program to encourage more effective coordination and outcomes in this area. This work will include the development of best practices and guidelines for fostering transit- oriented communities throughout a range of land use and built environment characteristics as well as strategies and actions that will support investment in the regional transit system..
TRANSIT SERVICE GUIDELINES UPDATE TransLink is updating and expanding Transit Service Guidelines to provide a performance-based decision-making framework for transit service investments. The new guidelines will include updated service quality guidelines and will incorporate new policies related to TransLink’s broad mandate. New guidelines will reflect the organizational focus on efficiency and effectiveness. TransLink will include new policies regarding the development of the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) in the guidelines, with the intention of boosting transit mode share by encouraging the co-location of high quality transit service – of 15 minutes or better, every day – and transit-supportive land uses.
REGIONAL TRANSIT NETWORK AND AREA TRANSIT PLANS TransLink works with municipalities to complete sub-regional Area Transit Plans (ATP). ATPs are intended to improve transit mode share by developing locally appropriate transit networks. These plans include three phases: 1) review existing sub-regional transit networks, 2) develop long-term visions, and 3) identify near-term transit service and infrastructure initiatives. Once complete, the ATPs are monitored. Phase 3 of the North Shore Area Transit Plan will be completed in 2012.
To provide greater alignment of the sub-regional Area Transit Plans, TransLink will develop a Regional Transit Network Plan to support the sub-regional ATPs with a networked perspective. This plan will include refinement of the Frequent Transit Network, (where land use and ridership are anticipated to support high service frequencies), as well as the identification of priority connections for the region.
July 8, 2011 16 | P a g e RD-38
When developed, the Regional Transit Network Plan will function as an integrating framework to aid the development of subsequent Area Transit Plans. The regional transit network review that will be conducted as part of the plan’s development will also be used to develop criteria for a more systematic program of ATPs that will include an improved cycle of development, implementation, monitoring and review.
The Northeast Sector and Richmond ATPs are expected to be the first to be developed with the benefit of the Regional Transit Network Plan for guidance. These will be initiated soon after the Network Plan’s completion.
MAJOR ROAD NETWORK (MRN) SUB-REGIONAL REVIEWS TransLink is continuing with a proactive partnership with Metro Vancouver municipalities to plan, manage and fund the Major Road Network. Completion of the sub-regional MRN reviews provides a foundation for future MRN improvements based on three key inputs:
measurement of the performance of the MRN, identification of possible MRN additions and deletions, and identification and prioritization of future minor and major capital MRN projects.
During 2012, TransLink will use the outcomes of sub-regional MRN reviews to update the criteria that define major roads, funding program criteria, and MRN operational and maintenance guidelines. This work will assist with the development of a new long-range MRN plan to be integrated with TransLink’s Transport 2045 Plan process.
In support of fostering goods movement in the region, TransLink is initiating discussions with municipalities to designate the MRN for the movement of dangerous goods, in accordance with the SCBCTA Act section 23:
The authority, by bylaw, must designate routes and times of travel on the MRN for motor vehicles transporting dangerous goods, and may prohibit the transportation of dangerous goods in motor vehicles on designated routes in the major road network, or at certain times of travel.
Further research and consultation with municipalities will focus on the benefits to communities of streamlining opportunities for the enforcement, regulation and permitting of regional truck movements.
GOODS MOVEMENT Working with agency and industry stakeholders, TransLink is continuing with several initiatives geared at improving goods movement in the region. During 2012, TransLink plans to move ahead with development of a Regional Goods Movement Strategy as part of Transport 2045. The recently- completed MRN Dangerous Goods Routes Network Study and the SOPERRTM (Streamlining
July 8, 2011 17 | P a g e RD-39 Opportunities for the Permitting, Enforcement, and Regulation of Regional Truck Movements) Study will be key inputs to this strategy.
Beyond 2012, TransLink plans to continue:
working with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Transport Canada on the Applied Freight Research Initiative, working with Transport Canada and Port Metro Vancouver on the Empty Container Information Management System (ECIMS) initiative, and developing technology-based solutions that benefit goods movement efficiency.
PERFORMANCE-BASED INVESTMENT POLICY TransLink seeks to invest in an efficient and effective regional transportation system that responds to market needs, represents the best value for money spent, and enhances regional livability and sustainability. To work towards achieving this and to provide transparency and clarity to its partners, TransLink will develop a performance-based investment policy that defines an outcomes-based approach to planning and investing in the regional transportation system. The policy is intended to achieve the highest possible performance from these investments towards meeting the goals of TransLink’s long-range strategy and to clarify the process for determining the priority, scope and timing of initiatives, and ultimately their inclusion in Plans. Policy development work in coordination with partners and stakeholders will occur in 2011 and 2012.
AIRCARE REVIEW Under the SCBCTA Act, TransLink must develop and administer programs for certifying motor vehicle compliance with regulations under the Motor Vehicle Act with respect to exhaust emission standards. TransLink’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Pacific Vehicle Testing Technologies Ltd., manages the AirCare program, which is a mandatory vehicle emissions testing program in the Metro Vancouver region. The current AirCare contract expires at the end of 2011, and the Province is currently in the process of deciding a long-term direction for the program. Provision is in place to extend the operation of the program to the end of 2012 to allow time for that decision to be made.
REAL ESTATE TransLink will establish guidelines by the end of 2011 for the management of the real estate portfolio in each of several categories including core operations, Base Plan and support of Transport 2040. These guidelines will be used to update the Business Plan which will provide the vision, strategies, services, organization, planned initiatives and financial outlook. Surplus properties will continue to be actively marketed. A revolving land account protocol is being developed to ensure that surplus revenues from the proceeds of liquidating properties will be used for future network requirements. Once the new business plan has been adopted, resourcing requirements for the Real Estate Division will be addressed in order to ensure adequate support for implementation of the full business plan.
July 8, 2011 18 | P a g e RD-40 2.3 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS, INVESTMENTS AND SERVICES
Between 2012 and 2014, TransLink will continue to deliver an integrated regional transportation system of transit services, major roads, cycling, customer services, TravelSmart programming and security services.
TRANSIT SERVICES TransLink’s integrated transit system includes bus, light rail, marine, commuter rail and custom transit. Table 1 summarizes the service hours by service type to be provided under this Plan and for the 2021 Outlook. Overall transit service hours are budgeted lower in 2011 than actual 2010 hours due to the spike in service hours created during the 2010 Winter Olympics-associate service increases.
Table 1: Service Hours by Service Type
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook (thousands) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
Conventional Bus & Community Shuttle 4,966 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928
SkyTrain Expo and Millenium Lines 1,186 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128
SkyTrain Canada Line 177 180 196 196 196 196
Rapid Transit Total 1,363 1,308 1,324 1,324 1,324 1,324
SeaBus 11 11 11 11 11 11
West Coast Express 42 44 42 42 42 42
Total Conventional Transit 6,382 6,291 6,305 6,305 6,305 6,305
Custom Transit (HandyDART) 594 613 613 613 613 613
Total Service Hours 6,976 6,904 6,918 6,918 6,918 6,918
BUS SERVICES TransLink provides over 200 bus routes throughout the region with a fleet of 1,556 conventional bus and community shuttle vehicles. A variety of services make up the bus network, including several neighbourhood-oriented local services, a network of arterial routes, limited-stop B-Line services on major corridors and express regional services. Thirty-eight bus routes currently comprise the Frequent Transit Network, and 12 routes provide NightBus service. Bus service currently carries the majority of transit passengers, accounting for 70 per cent of boardings, or 220 million boarded passengers per year. The fleet includes community shuttles as well as diesel, electric-trolley, compressed natural gas and diesel-electric hybrid buses. The entire bus fleet is accessible and all vehicles have bike racks.
Under the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink will maintain total bus and community shuttle service levels at 4.93 million hours through 2014. TransLink continuously monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of the regional transit services. Reallocation of resources within the network and between
July 8, 2011 19 | P a g e RD-41 vehicle types to best serve demand will be considered as part of TransLink’s efforts to optimize transit services. Transit priority measures will be considered where operational savings can be achieved.
TransLink will develop the Hamilton Transit Centre in Richmond. This modern facility will further assist with the efficient maintenance and daily deployment of the large bus fleet serving that area of the region, mitigating increasing operational costs. Hamilton Transit Centre is the first of three transit centre projects identified in Transport 2040. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2013 with the centre operational by 2015.
As part of the bus replacement program, TransLink will replace 240 diesel and hybrid buses and 107 community shuttles over the three years of the 2012 Base Plan. In 2012, 40 of the diesel buses will be replaced by hybrid-engine buses for use on routes where the service profile will benefit from the technology, further improving fleet operations and reducing fuel and maintenance costs.
RAPID TRANSIT TransLink’s rapid transit system consists of three high-capacity rail services in dedicated rights-of-way: the Expo Line, the Millennium Line and the Canada Line. In 2009, TransLink expanded the Expo Line and Millennium Line services with 48 new Mark II SkyTrain cars, resulting in a 30 per cent increase in capacity, and the Canada Line opened in August 2009. This resulted in over 117 million passenger trips being made on the rail rapid transit system in 2010, an increase of 39 per cent from 2009.
Under the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink will hold rapid transit service levels at the 2011 levels of over 1.3 million annual hours through 2014. These service levels take into the account the completion of the Canada Line roll-out, which includes 10.2 per cent more annual hours as of August 2011. The Plan also includes a number of projects to maintain rapid transit system components in a state of good repair, such as train control, power propulsion and continued switch control replacement on the Expo Line. Additionally, the 114 older Mark I vehicles, which date to 1985, will be refurbished to extend their service life to 2026.
The Plan includes funding for the Scott Road Station elevator installation and site rehabilitation to address a critical accessibility deficiency. While there is no additional funding for station upgrades or area planning, between 2012 and 2014, TransLink will continue planning for station upgrades (at Surrey Central, Waterfront, New Westminster, Scott Road, Metrotown, Main Street, Commercial-Broadway and Joyce-Collingwood stations) in anticipation of funding for these initiatives under a Supplemental Plan.
This Plan does not include additional rapid transit service upgrades or expansion. While TransLink’s expected contribution to the Evergreen Line is not included in the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink continues to affirm it as a key regional priority should funding for expansion be secured in the future under the provisions of a Supplemental Plan. TransLink continues to work with the Province and municipal partners on planning for the Evergreen Line and continues to work actively with the Mayors’ Council and Provincial Government to find a way to secure TransLink’s share of the funding.
July 8, 2011 20 | P a g e RD-42 SEABUS SeaBus is a passenger-only ferry between Waterfront Station in downtown Vancouver and Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver, forms a key link between the North Shore and the rest of the region. Each vessel is capable of carrying 400 passengers. The new Burrard Pacific Breeze SeaBus has been operating since fall 2009 and is one of two active SeaBus vessels. With two active vessels and one standby replacement vessel, the service operates every 15 minutes during the day, every 30 minutes in the early mornings, evenings and Sundays/holidays, and every 15 minutes on Sundays/holidays during the summer. SeaBus carried 6.7 million passengers in 2010. A second replacement vessel is provided for in the 2010 Capital Plan.
WEST COAST EXPRESS West Coast Express (WCE) services provide express connections between Mission and downtown Vancouver via Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody. WCE operates five westbound rail trips during the morning peak hours and five return trips during the evening peak hours. TransLink delivers off-peak service by TrainBus services connecting West Coast Express stations; effective June 20, 2011, weekend TrainBus service was discontinued and weekday service was adjusted. TransLink took delivery of seven new train cars in 2010, which increased train service capacity by 14 per cent and improved reliability, enabling West Coast Express to build upon the 20 per cent ridership increases experienced during the last five years, with 2.8 million passengers served in 2010.
Under the Plan, TransLink will maintain West Coast Express train service hours at the 2011 levels of 37,000 annual hours in 2012 to 2014. The 5,000 service hours for TrainBus will be evaluated as part of TransLink’s efforts to optimize transit services.
CUSTOM TRANSIT Custom transit services and the supplementary TaxiSaver Program provide transportation for customers who are not able to use conventional transit. Custom transit, operated as HandyDART, is a shared ride, pre-booked, door-to-door service that uses specialized lift-equipped vehicles for registered customers. TransLink currently operates 332 custom transit vehicles. The HandyDART and TaxiSaver programs together provided 1.338 million passenger trips in 2010.
For 2012, TransLink will take action to address the increasing number of weekend trip denials. To maintain the custom transit service in a state of good repair, 155 HandyDART vehicles will be purchased over the three-year period.
For the TaxiSaver Program, a review is underway to address the potential growth of the program and other options to manage costs and effectiveness associated with its delivery.
ROADS AND BRIDGES TransLink provides planning, funding and coordination for more than 2,300 lane-kilometres of regionally-significant roadways, the Major Road Network (MRN). The SCBCTA Act empowers TransLink to:
establish guidelines to identify which roads can become part of the MRN,
July 8, 2011 21 | P a g e RD-43 establish standards for management, operation, construction and maintenance, review and approve all proposed changes that could result in a reduction of people-moving capacity on the MRN, designate routes and times for dangerous goods movement, and approve the prohibition of truck movements from any road in the region (including non-MRN roads).
As part of its MRN commitments, TransLink provides operations, maintenance and rehabilitation (OMR) funding for the MRN to the municipalities. The 2011 rate of $14,075 will increase by 2 per cent per year over the plan and outlook period. In addition, the MRN Minor Capital Program will continue to cost- share municipal improvements on the MRN at $10 million per year in 2012; this annual contribution level is expected to stay the same in 2013 and 2014.
TransLink also owns and maintains a number of major structures: the Pattullo Bridge, Knight Street Bridge, Golden Ears Bridge and Westham Island Bridge.
TransLink has committed to replace the aging Pattullo Bridge structure with a new bridge which, in the absence of senior government or alternative funding, would be financed through tolls. After completion of a functional design, agency and public consultation, and review of procurement model options in 2011, TransLink will select a preferred concept, prepare a base concept design and commence the regulatory and agency approval process in 2012. Short-term rehabilitation will also be conducted on the Pattullo Bridge during 2012. From 2012 to 2015, TransLink will continue work on the bridge replacement project and will undertake environmental assessments, prepare agency agreements, prepare and implement a property acquisition plan, prepare the final design and implement an RFQ/RFP processes for a targeted Pattullo construction start date of 2016.
Minor work is planned for other bridges in 2012, including installation of traffic monitoring equipment and evaluation of gantry (bridge-mounted sign) replacement on the Knight Street Bridge, and security and landscaping upgrades for the Golden Ears Bridge.
As part of the development of Transport 2045, TransLink will develop a long-term strategy and network plan for the regional road network. This will take a performance-based approach to defining policies and investments to support the maintenance and development of the road network to support the movement of people and goods in the region.
CYCLING Increased use of bicycles as an alternative to private vehicles reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves public health and reduces congestion, thereby freeing road capacity for the movement of goods, transit and other road users.
TransLink recently completed a Regional Cycling Strategy, which establishes priorities for the development of regional bicycle infrastructure and complementary initiatives in support of Transport 2040 objectives. In developing the Regional Cycling Strategy, TransLink consulted a diverse group of regional stakeholders.
July 8, 2011 22 | P a g e RD-44 Over the past 11 years, TransLink has invested approximately $47 million in cycling facilities and initiatives. Recent major investments include the Canada Line Bike Bridge and the Central Valley Greenway. In partnership with municipalities, TransLink will continue to engage in initiatives aimed at increasing cycling mode share from 1.5 per cent of all trips in the region today to 8 to 10 per cent by 2040. This will require partnering with municipalities and other stakeholders in the implementation of the Regional Cycling Strategy to prioritize the construction of bicycle infrastructure, improve traffic safety and support complementary initiatives, such as a Public Bike Share System.
TransLink will initiate an Implementation Plan for the Regional Cycling Strategy in 2012, which will outline specific actions for key aspects of cycling, including:
Bicycle Infrastructure Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities Bicycle-Transit Integration Education, Encouragement & Enforcement Planning and Monitoring
The Strategy will be incorporated into Transport 2045 and the Plan will be completed along with the Strategy’s Medium Term Plan component.
During year one of the 2012 Base Plan, bicycle planning, monitoring and parking projects will be undertaken. In years two and three, projects related to bicycle infrastructure, bicycle-transit integration and education, encouragement and enforcement will be undertaken. A cost-benefit analysis of all proposed strategies and actions will help to prioritize specific projects to be completed in the 2012-2014 timeframe.
Under the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink will continue to contribute $3 million annually towards cycling infrastructure through the Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing (BICCS) and TransLink-Owned Bicycle Infrastructure Programs. This represented a 50 per cent reduction from 2010 levels that were a result of the adoption of the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan. The BICCS program provides capital funds on a cost-share basis with the municipalities to improve the safety, efficiency and connectivity of the regional bicycle network. The TransLink-Owned Bicycle Infrastructure Program similarly improves bicycle facilities that are on TransLink-owned property. If the goals of the Regional Cycling Strategy are to be realized, funding for TransLink’s Cycling Program will need to be significantly increased.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
E-Communication Customer information is core to TransLink’s business. People who are well informed about options and current conditions will be able to make more efficient and timely travel choices. TransLink has engaged in a number of electronic communication initiatives, including:
real time travel information for buses, mobile devices and desktop, upgrade to our mobile site (m.translink.ca),
July 8, 2011 23 | P a g e RD-45 social media applications (such as Twitter and Facebook), transit and bike information through Google Maps, and enhancement of the TransLink website with more options for accessing service information and new tools to help improve communications.
Under the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink will expand the use of cost-effective engagement and relationship- building tools. In addition, TransLink will continue to measure and report annually on effectiveness in all of its operations, as part of the statutory reporting requirements.
U-Pass BC Under this Plan, TransLink will continue the new U-Pass BC program in partnership with the Province for eligible students at public post-secondary institutions (PSIs) in Metro Vancouver. It is anticipated that all eligible PSIs will be participating in the program as of January 1, 2012, with most starting as of September 1, 2011. All students participating in the new program will pay the same U-Pass BC price of $30 per month until the termination date of the U-Pass BC agreement on March 31, 2013.
Wayfinding Wayfinding refers to the various types of information that customers rely on to plan, confirm and complete a journey. TransLink developed a wayfinding strategy that lays the groundwork for an integrated system of information across modes. In 2010, a wayfinding standards manual was adopted to guide the provision of more and higher quality information on the bus and rail system.
Under this Base Plan, select incremental wayfinding initiatives will be undertaken as part of facility upgrade projects. In 2012, these initiatives will consist of developing a series of local bus maps associated with bus exchanges, application of a new system of bus stop information design with the existing bus stop maintenance program and development of wayfinding plans for existing and proposed stations and exchanges. In subsequent years, mapping products and other wayfinding elements will be implemented on a limited basis as facilities are renewed. Full implementation of TranLink’s wayfinding strategy may be advanced as part of a future plan.
Technology Under the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink will proceed with detailed design and implementation of the Regional Traffic Data Systems (RTDS), an innovative project using wireless signals to develop speed profiles of regional corridors. The RTDS project was the first recommendation of the Regional Detectorization Strategy to provide real-time speed and travel time information to the public and, potentially, new data to support TransLink’s planning initiatives. TransLink will also continue its involvement in the design and implementation of the Regional Transportation Management Centre (RTMC) to support regionally integrated transportation, in particular through monitoring and response of incidents on key regional corridors.
TransLink will focus on regional “interoperability”, which supports the ability of our customers to seamlessly use transponder devices as well as integrated customer services on existing and future provincial and regional facilities. Regional toll bridges as well as provincial weigh scales are part of this
July 8, 2011 24 | P a g e RD-46 effort to support customer convenience. TransLink will undertake the design of a rail advanced warning system along the Langley and Surrey section of the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor to provide real time status of blockages of at-grade rail/road intersections. The public will be better informed in advance of the blockages and able to divert to a number of local overpasses. Subject to a review of the resulting cost estimates, the Rail Advanced Warning System will be implemented in coordination with the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor project. TransLink will continue to work with partner agencies to implement projects that support goods movement as part of the Smart Corridor Strategy and the Regional Goods Movement plan. TransLink will also be involved in other initiatives in support of transit signal priority measures and alternative transportation.
TRAVELSMART TravelSmart is a suite of programs and information designed to promote travel behaviour change, by increasing awareness of travel options and trip reduction initiatives.
Building on several evaluated and proven-effective, individualized marketing programs, TravelSmart combines relevant transportation information with “tipping point” incentives to encourage and help people throughout the region to make better, more sustainable transportation choices.
Under the 2012 Base Plan, TransLink will continue to provide a wide range of programs under the TravelSmart brand, supported by partnerships with employers, municipalities, schools, and other public and private agencies. The programs include:
Employer Pass Program, support for rideshare and vanpool programs, active transportation sponsorship and promotion, TravelSmart Schools program, and other programs,such as Corporate Car Share, Telework, Guaranteed Ride Home program and assistance implementing workplace programs.
SECURITY The Transit Police mandate is to provide a safe and secure environment for transit passengers, employees and the broader community. As a Designated Policing Unit in BC, Transit Police preserve and maintain the peace, prevent crime and offences against the law, aid in the administration of justice and enforce the laws in British Columbia in and around the regional transit system. Under the 2012 Base Plan, Transit Police will continued to work in close collaboration with jurisdictional police and other law enforcement partners to deliver seamless policing in Metro Vancouver.
Pursuant to the BC Police Act, the Police Board has a duty to determine, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Transit Police Chief Officer, the priorities, goals and objectives of the Transit Police. In 2011, the Police Board approved the 2011-2015 Transit Police
July 8, 2011 25 | P a g e RD-47 Strategic Plan2. This Plan complements, and is consistent with, the TransLink Strategic Plan and 2012 Base Plan.
Within the Transit Police Plan, there are three Strategic Directions containing 29 goals. The Strategic Directions are:
reducing crime and disorder, protecting TransLink assets and the transit environment, and Providing better service to the transit community
For 2012, key initiatives include:
focus on police high visibility on the transit system and enhance transit rider and employee safety and security, focus on crime prevention and reduction, address recommendations from the 2011 Transit Police Operational Review, conduct workload analysis of Transit Police Operations Communication Centre, continue addressing risk matrix priorities, rollout of new administrative records system to full police service, and preparation for new police headquarters with TransLink.
2.4 OUTCOMES
The forecast performance of the 2012 Base Plan has been evaluated in relation to the Transport 2040 goals. Modest progress will occur towards most of the Transport 2040 goals through 2014, mostly due to network expansion over the past five years. Without the allocation of additional resources and a strong demand side management strategy, these gains will erode during the Outlook period, making the long-term goals of Transport 2040 more difficult to accomplish.
The following analysis uses quantitative methods when possible, supplemented by qualitative analysis. For the unfunded Outlook, TransLink offers comment on the implications for 2021 if current resource levels are extrapolated into the future.
2012 TO 2014 BASE PLAN
Goal 1: Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from transportation are aggressively reduced, in support of federal, provincial and regional targets The 2012 Base Plan demonstrates short-term progress on GHG emission reductions. GHGs from transport are reduced through a combination of the amount of vehicle kilometres traveled, vehicle fuel efficiency, operational efficiency of vehicles, and carbon intensity of fuels, as illustrated below.
2 The Transit Police Strategic Plan is available online www.transitpolice.bc.ca
July 8, 2011 26 | P a g e RD-48
Figure 3: Contributing Factors to GHG Emissions from Transport
1. Reduced Vehicle Kilometres Traveled (VKT) TransLink influences VKT in the region through initiatives that influence transportation mode shift and support for smart land use. As shown in Figure 4, passenger and total VKT are forecast to grow at a slower rate than population (5 per cent) as a result of transportation mode shifts to transit. These shifts represent greater utilization of the transit system as a result of network expansion of the previous five years. Commercial purpose VKT is assumed to continue to grow at nearly the rate of economic activity, which explains why total VKT grows faster than passenger VKT3.
Figure 4: Changes in Population and VKT Relative 2011 Levels
3 VKT projections are derived from the Regional Transportation Model. TransLink is working with the Province and Metro Vancouver to improve VKT data in support of collective policy objectives such as GHG emissions reductions.
July 8, 2011 27 | P a g e RD-49
Figure 5: Assumed Rate of Technological Improvement Affecting GHG Emission Efficiency
2. Improved System Operations and Efficiency In urban driving conditions, the prevalence of “stop and go” traffic and slow speeds has adverse effects on fuel consumption and air emissions, including GHGs. International studies have found that improvements to roadway operations can reduce GHG emissions per kilometre traveled. From a qualitative perspective, TransLink initiatives such as transit signal prioritization, the Major Road Network review and the Golden Ears Bridge are examples of programs that have the potential to reduce emissions per kilometre traveled by improving traffic flow and travel times. Efforts to improve congestion must be carefully evaluated as experience worldwide has also shown that gains can be lost to induced travel over time. This Plan is limited in its ability to pursue these types of initiatives as funding for MRN upgrades have been reduced by 50 per cent. However, transit priority will be pursued as possible.
3. Greater Use of Low-Emission Fleet Technology Although TransLink has influence over the fuel efficiency of its own fleet, TransLink’s influence over GHG emission rates of personal vehicles is limited to the AirCare program. The composition of TransLink’s fleet will not change substantively under this Plan, and fuel-efficiency rates will remain relatively constant through 2014. Small improvements will occur due to ongoing replacement of transit buses and the introduction of the new SeaBus, which is 20 per cent more efficient than the vessel it will replace.
TransLink’s average transit fleet fuel-efficiency and GHG emissions rates compare favourably to peer regions due to the use of electric trolley buses and SkyTrain systems, hybrid and alternative fuel conventional buses, and community shuttles . In 2009, TransLink replaced the last of its older generation diesel buses, which produced significant fuel-efficiency gains. Additional improvements are much harder to achieve; new diesel buses are only about 2 per cent more efficient than the older vehicles they replace, and hybrid buses are now in service on the majority of routes where the operational efficiencies they can offer can be realized. Through the period of this Plan and Outlook, TransLink’s fleet share of
July 8, 2011 28 | P a g e RD-50 total on-road GHG emissions is not likely to change from its current level of approximately 2 per cent of regional transportation-related emissions.
4. Greater Use of Low Carbon Content Fuel TransLink has influence over the carbon content of fuel consumed by its own fleet only. The BC Low Carbon Fuel Standard mandates that all fuels sold in the province achieve a 10 per cent reduction in lifecycle carbon intensity by 2020. Between 2012 and 2014, the carbon content of fuel used by the transit fleet will not change substantively.
Cumulative Effect on GHG Emissions When combined, the quantifiable changes in vehicle kilometres traveled, vehicle fuel efficiency, operational efficiency of vehicles and carbon intensity of fuels results in a forecast decline of roughly 2 per cent of regional GHG emissions from transportation between 2011 and 2014. The forecast decline in GHG emissions is a notable departure from recent trends and arises primarily from anticipated improvements in fuel efficiency of the region’s vehicles. This forecast does not capture the impact on behaviour of unforeseen changes in factors such as land use, energy prices and policy.
The changing fuel efficiency and travel behaviour dynamics combine to shift the proportional distribution of GHG emissions by sector as shown in Figure 6 below. The proportion of regional GHG emissions coming from TransLink’s fleet is forecast to remain relatively constant. GHG emissions from passenger vehicles are forecast to decrease, whereas GHG emissions from light and heavy-duty trucks are forecast to increase, because:
passenger vehicle fuel efficiency improvements are forecast to occur more rapidly than for trucks, and
VKT per capita trends for passenger vehicles are forecast to decline, whereas the assumption for commercial VKT is that it will continue to grow at approximately the same rate as economic growth.
July 8, 2011 29 | P a g e RD-51
Figure 6: GHG Emissions Contributions Estimates (tonnes)
Goal 2: Most trips are by transit, walking and cycling Investments made under the 2012 Base Plan support alternatives to single occupant vehicle trips by:
1. Protecting existing transit ridership 2. Promoting a shift to transit, cycling and walking 3. Encouraging future shifts to transit, cycling and walking 4. Influencing smart transportation choices
1. Protecting Existing Transit Ridership Under the 2012 Base Plan, transit ridership is expected to grow by about 8 per cent by 2014, resulting in nearly 30 million more boardings per year than in 2011.
2. Promoting a Shift to Transit, Cycling and Walking Initiatives funded under the 2012 Base Plan will encourage marginal shifts in transportation mode share in support of regional objectives. As a reference for these forecast impacts, Figure 7 shows the breakdown of regional weekday mode share as captured in the 2008 Trip Diary4.
4 The Trip Diary is a study TransLink carries out every four years to better understand travel behaviours in the region. Participants are asked to provide details about all trips made within a 24-hour period, including mode, destination and trip purpose.
July 8, 2011 30 | P a g e RD-52
Figure 7: Regional Mode Share from the 2008 Trip Diary.
Transit Ridership projections by transit mode are shown in Table 2. The Plan estimates that system-wide ridership will grow by 3.8 per cent in 2011 (after 2010 Olympic effects are factored out; growth is 0.2 per cent in 2011 as compared to total 2010 system-wide ridership including the Olympics) and 4.5 per cent in 2012. Bus ridership in these years is lower than previously forecast, but is partially offset by better- than-expected ridership on the Canada Line and the inclusion of several additional public post- secondary institutions to the U-Pass BC program in 2011. The Service Optimization Initiative, which began in 2011, is expected to contribute to improved bus system ridership productivity, which in turn supports incremental growth on rapid transit through 2013 (Section 2.2).
While weekday transit mode share has been rising since 1994, the overall per capita trip rate has not changed substantively over this period. Assuming that trip rates remain constant, ridership increases projected in the 2012 Base Plan will translate into increases in transit mode share.
July 8, 2011 31 | P a g e RD-53 Table 2: Ridership Forecasts
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook
(millions) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
System Total: Revenue Passenger Trips 212.7 213.2 223.3 225.5 230.9 253.8 Individual Passenger Boardings By Mode*
Conventional Bus and Community Shuttle 220.5 222.9 231.3 232.7 238.0 254.6
SkyTrain Expo and Millenium Lines 79.2 78.6 81.6 82.9 84.8 99.4
SkyTrain Canada Line 38.4 37.6 40.7 41.2 42.4 47.1
Rapid Transit Total 117.6 116.2 122.3 124.1 127.2 146.5
SeaBus 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.7 7.1
West Coast Express 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.7
Total Conventional Transit Boardings 347.6 348.5 363.3 366.6 375.3 411.9
Custom Transit (HandyDART) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7
System Total: Passenger Boardings 349.1 350.0 364.8 368.2 376.9 413.6 *A single passenger revenue trip often includes more than one boarding and may also include combinations of transit modes.
Transit ridership increased by 12.6 per cent in 2010, with a significant portion of that growth attributable to the Olympics. After adjustments, “non-Olympic” ridership increased by 8.6 per cent in 2010.
Canada Line ridership was very strong in 2010, with recorded growth 41 per cent above the forecast. With additional service hours being added in August 2011, it is expected that ridership growth will remain strong in 2011 and 2012 before stabilizing in 2013. The U-Pass BC program is set to expand substantially beginning in September 2011, with most program growth occurring in 2011 and 2012. TransLink’s contract with U-Pass BC program partners ends on March 31, 2013, and program structure and rate schedules will be renegotiated. Analysis for this Plan assumed that U-Pass ridership rates in 2013 and beyond would be consistent with rates under the current terms of the program. . Changes in the structure of the U-Pass BC program may necessitate a change in the ridership forecast in future years.
The expected increase in long term fares scheduled for 2013 will impact ridership negatively, due to price elasticity effects.5 In addition, after the past two decades of ridership growth averaging over 3 per cent per year, ridership growth will be constrained in 2013 due to the lack of new capacity to meet increasing regional demand. The effect of the price increase combined with no service growth will limit
5 TransLink assumes that for every 10 per cent increase in the average price of transit travel, relative to alternatives travel modes, transit demand will decrease by 2 per cent, as some customers make other travel choices (including not traveling at all).
July 8, 2011 32 | P a g e RD-54 ridership growth to about 1 per cent in 2013. The lack of new service growth continues to be felt in 2014, with a 2.4 per cent forecast growth in ridership.
TransLink’s efforts to optimize transit services (introduced in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan) will reallocate transit service hours from low productivity services and times of day to higher productivity opportunities with the target of further increasing bus productivity by just over 2 per cent. Most of the effects of optimizing transit services will be realized by the end of 2012. It is estimated that it will involve the reallocation of roughly 4 to 5 per cent of total annual conventional bus service hours through schedule and routing efficiencies to achieve the target.
The cumulative effects of recent transit capacity investments, forecast demand and productivity improvements from efforts to optimize transit services is shown in the productivity graph in Figure 8.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 Forecasts
Boardings per Vehicle Service Hour ServiceVehicle per Boardings 10
0
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Bus and C-Shuttle (2012 Base) SkyTrain (Expo and Millennium)(2012 Base)
Figure 8: Boardings per Vehicle Service Hour: Comparison of Historical Values to Future Forecasts
This graph illustrates how the transit service expansion in recent years has resulted in greater ridership but lower boardings per service hour averages for the system. In contrast, this Plan supplies minimal additional transit services and forecasts that higher ridership demand will be served with the existing available transit capacity from recent expansion, with the effect of increasing average boardings per service hour. It is anticipated that even with the available capacity and forecasted demand; rapid transit productivity will exceed historical high levels by the end of the Outlook’s horizon in the year 2021, as seen in Figure 8. The introduction of new, higher capacity rapid transit vehicles is expected to contribute
July 8, 2011 33 | P a g e RD-55 to the high rapid transit productivity levels by the end of the Outlook. Bus service productivity is expected to remain within historical levels. Although higher productivity figures are positive, without any future service expansion TransLink will be unable to serve new transit markets that develop in the region and as a consequence, TransLink will fall behind the Transport 2040 goals.
Cycling According to the 2008 Trip Diary, the total number of cyclists in the region is increasing; however, cycling mode share has remained steady at approximately 1.5 per cent. Under this Plan, TransLink’s annual funding for cycling capital infrastructure, which has been reduced by 50 per cent, will continue to support increases in cycling numbers and safety. However, it is likely insufficient to increase cycling mode share given the projected population growth patterns and the difficulty over the past five years to affect change.
Walking Results from the 2008 Trip Diary show that the walking mode share has declined since the 1990s, remaining steady at the 2004 level of 11 per cent. TransLink supports increases in walking trips through:
the provision of a comprehensive transit system that eliminates or reduces the need for private vehicles, partnerships with municipalities to improve the pedestrian environment on transit corridors and in station areas, and the TravelSmart program.
Transit ridership will increase under this Plan, which may positively impact walking trips. This Plan does not provide funding for transit corridor and station area implementation programs or network expansion.
3. Encouraging Future Shifts to Transit, Cycling and Walking While transit ridership is expected to increase slightly by 2014, this increase is not sustained through the Outlook period. As shown in Figure 9, the 2012 Base Plan is not expected to facilitate future shifts to transit. Significant future shifts to walking and cycling are also not anticipated under this Plan.
July 8, 2011 34 | P a g e RD-56
Figure 9: Transit Mode Share Trends and Forecasts
4. Influencing Smart Transportation Choices Under the 2012 Base Plan, smart transportation choices are influenced through the continued support of TravelSmart initiatives and the application of Transportation Demand Management tools. Expansion of demand management is connected to new funding models that will be explored as part of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Province and the Mayor’s Council.
Goal 3: The majority of jobs and housing in the region are located along the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) By influencing the location of jobs and housing, the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) both supports and is supported by the development of complete communities. The objectives of this goal are to:
1. Encourage complete and transit-oriented communities 2. Expand access to regional transit and cycling networks 3. Promote regional mobility
This Plan does not include resources for the expansion of the FTN, although changes to the network could occur through TransLink’s efforts to optimize transit services. The projected increases in the percentage of jobs and housing located along the FTN will be a result of Metro Vancouver’s projected changes to land use patterns.
July 8, 2011 35 | P a g e RD-57 Goal 4: Traveling in the region is safe, secure and accessible for everyone This Plan maintains the funding for the Transit Police and prioritizes state of good repair projects on TransLink-owned infrastructure to ensure the highest level of safety on the system. These investments optimize the system by:
1. Encouraging modal integration 2. Improving the resilience of the transportation system 3. Improving system safety 4. Promoting universal accessibility
The Compass card and faregates initiative, which will be implemented in 2013, will increase the public’s sense of safety and security on the transit system, and will be designed to provide full accessibility. TransLink’s fleet will remain fully accessible, custom transit hours are maintained and a significant accessibility upgrade will be made at Scott Road SkyTrain station. The designation of a Dangerous Good Movement Network on the Major Road Network, in collaboration with municipalities, will improve safety and security levels.
Goal 5: Economic growth and efficient goods movement are facilitated through management of the transportation network Projects that further this goal are grounded by the following objectives:
1. Support efficient access to regional centres and economic gateways 2. Reduce congestion 3. Improve travel time reliability
The 2012 Base Plan will deliver limited progress towards this goal, but some recent investment strategies cannot be pursued due to the limited funding available. The increases in transit mode share forecast in this Plan demonstrate TransLink’s support of economic growth in the region by facilitating mobility. Furthermore, reductions in personal vehicle traffic, stemming from trips shifted to transit, helps goods movement by reducing congestion levels. The opening of the Golden Ears Bridge in 2009 continues to support this goal and its effects will continue to increase through the outlook of the Plan, as will TransLink’s work with senior government on the Applied Freight Research Initiative and strategic technology solutions. However, major road capital projects that have been identified to facilitate goods movement are not funded, and reductions to the MRN Minor Capital program reduce TransLink’s ability to fund upgrades on the MRN that would improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Goal 6: Funding for TransLink is stable, sufficient, appropriate and influences transportation choices The 2012 Base Plan does not access new sources of funding, so investments within this Plan must be sustainable within TransLink’s existing funding structure over the long term. Investments made in this plan meet the following objectives:
1. Maximize leveraging opportunities
July 8, 2011 36 | P a g e RD-58 2. Make efficient use of existing infrastructure 3. Prioritize cost-effectiveness 4. Prioritize long-term growth in cost-effectiveness
With the funding increases put in place under the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan, the 2012 Base Plan ensures that TransLink is able to maintain the current level of transit services, the state of good repair of the transit system and carry increased ridership through 2014. However, reductions in capital and operations programs for roads, bridges, cycling and transit infrastructure were necessary within the identified funding envelope.
TransLink’s funding sources have associated long-term risks but have been relatively stable in the short- term. This was demonstrated during the recent economic downturn, as TransLink was able to sustain itself with only minor adjustments relative to many peer transit agencies across North America that experienced large budget shortfalls and subsequent cuts in transit service levels. TransLink’s mix of revenue sources adds to that stability. The longer-term risks include declines in fuel tax revenues (due to improvements in vehicle efficiency and decreases in VKT per capita) and the price sensitivity associated with transit fares (if they continue to increase in support of farebox recovery rates).
Motor fuel taxes and parking sales taxes, which underwent rate increases in 2010, influence transportation choices by impacting the cost of vehicle operation. TransLink does not currently have the ability to manage system-wide demand through price signals differentiated by area or time of day.
2015 TO 2021 (OUTLOOK) The outcomes of this plan have been analyzed for the period from 2015 to 2021.
As the capacity from the past five years of transit expansion is utilized, the momentum created by this investment will stall. The Outlook for 2015 to 2021 shows erosion on the progress that TransLink and the region have made towards the goals laid out in Transport 2040. This is in part due to decreasing transit service levels per capita (2.63 hours per capita in 2011 declining to 2.24 in 2021), which will occur if expansion investments are not made in the intervening years.
Without expansion of services, transit’s share of total trips is expected to rise during the early years of the Plan and would gradually plateau at about 14 per cent of weekday trips through the Outlook. This level is well below the Provincial Transit Plan’s 2020 target of 17 per cent of weekday trips.
Employment and residential projections provided by Metro Vancouver indicate that by 2021, growth within walking distance of the Frequent Transit Network would be offset by growth in areas that are less conducive to transit. As this analysis assumes the length of the FTN does not change, the proportion of people living within walking distance of the FTN is expected to decline throughout the Outlook period.
Without increased transit and cycling infrastructure, the ability to shift trips from personal vehicles and reduce GHG emissions would be greatly limited. Without a significant expansion of the FTN and investments in rapid transit, TransLink will be unable to fully support the land use changes to reduce
July 8, 2011 37 | P a g e RD-59 distances traveled and the demand for personal vehicle travel called for by Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. Land use changes are essential in meeting the regional GHG reduction targets.
In summary, without expansion of transportation funding and investment in the next few years, the regional transportation system will fail to meet the conditions required to fulfill the Transport 2040 aspirations for a sustainable region. Without substantial strategic investments in the transportation system, there will be little progress in the region towards reduced reliance on personal vehicles, traffic congestion and ability to move people and goods efficiently.
July 8, 2011 38 | P a g e RD-60 3. FINANCIAL STRATEGY
3.1 FINANCIAL CONTEXT
The SCBCTA Act defines the revenue sources (including cumulative funded surpluses) that can be utilized in the annual Base Plans. Within that legislative framework, the 2012 Base Plan utilizes only “established funding sources”, and a positive cumulative funded surplus to fund TransLink operations. The positive cumulative funded surplus is maintained through the 2012- 2014 Plan period.
The 2012 Base Plan financial strategy captures the impact of the transit fare and parking rate increases approved in the 2010 Supplemental Plan. Funding levels are sufficient to maintain existing service levels and keep assets in a state of good repair, as well as allow for some modest upgrades. The financial strategy also reflects TransLink’s ongoing initiatives to improve efficiency and effectiveness with minimal impact on service and programs, as well as improving the overall customer experience.
The financial strategy extends to 2021 as a 2015-2021 Outlook. The Outlook period captures the financial obligations and implications of the investment in services and infrastructure that have been committed as of December 2014. Existing service levels are maintained through 2021 and assets and infrastructure are replaced to ensure an ongoing state of good repair.
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
The 2012 Base Plan uses funding sources currently in place and accesses the changes to 2013 transit fares approved under the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan. The Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary included in this section indicates total revenues and expenditures forecasts for 2012 to 2014 (Table 3). The reporting format is consistent with TransLink’s financial statements. The annual surplus/(deficit) is determined following Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). This is then adjusted to derive the funded surplus/(deficit). TransLink’s legislation requires that we must retain an accumulated funded surplus.
Appendices 1 to 3 provide the full set of financial statements that support the 2012 Base Plan and Outlook. The revenue projections are based upon the following assumptions for 2012 to 2014:
Transit Fares: an adjustment to fare discounts in 2013 to generate a 12.5 per cent increase to the average fare, as approved in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan (Appendix 7 lists potential fare media rates) Fuel tax rate: no change (15 cents/litre) Property tax revenues: grows by 3 per cent annually Replacement tax revenues: no change (at the maximum of $18 million) Parking sales tax rate: no change (at the statutory maximum of 21 per cent) Bridge toll rates: increases at CPI index (assumed at 2 per cent per year)
Under this Plan, total annual revenues will be $1.49 billion by 2014.
July 8, 2011 39 | P a g e RD-61 Table 3: Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary (millions).
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
Transit Revenues $ 437.8 $ 432.8 $ 451.3 $ 509.2 $ 529.3 $ 660.3 Toll Revenues $ 29.6 $ 37.8 $ 39.9 $ 47.0 $ 54.1 $ 92.2 User Fees $ 467.4 $ 470.6 $ 491.2 $ 556.2 $ 583.4 $ 752.5 Motor Fuel Tax $ 323.2 $ 324.3 $ 328.4 $ 332.3 $ 335.6 $ 368.1 Property Tax $ 271.8 $ 279.2 $ 287.6 $ 296.2 $ 305.1 $ 375.2 Parking Sales Tax $ 58.4 $ 49.2 $ 50.0 $ 50.7 $ 51.5 $ 57.1 Other Taxes $ 36.5 $ 36.7 $ 37.3 $ 37.7 $ 38.0 $ 40.2 Taxation Revenues $ 689.9 $ 689.4 $ 703.3 $ 716.9 $ 730.2 $ 840.6 Senior Government Contributions $ 146.1 $ 196.0 $ 225.3 $ 188.5 $ 141.1 $ 19.3 Interest Revenue $ 20.5 $ 26.2 $ 29.2 $ 32.5 $ 37.7 $ 61.9 Total Revenues $ 1,323.9 $ 1,382.2 $ 1,449.0 $ 1,494.1 $ 1,492.4 $ 1,674.3 Transit Operations $ 768.2 $ 826.4 $ 848.2 $ 862.0 $ 870.9 $ 1,014.4 Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 119.2 $ 114.7 $ 100.5 $ 79.2 $ 64.6 $ 64.5 TransLink Corporate & Police $ 101.4 $ 106.0 $ 105.4 $ 107.5 $ 109.4 $ 127.0 Operating Expenditures $ 988.8 $ 1,047.1 $ 1,054.1 $ 1,048.7 $ 1,044.9 $ 1,205.9
Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ 335.1 $ 335.1 $ 394.9 $ 445.4 $ 447.5 $ 468.4 Interest Expense $ 159.9 $ 172.0 $ 171.2 $ 180.6 $ 192.6 $ 195.4 Depreciation Expense $ 152.6 $ 167.0 $ 170.2 $ 194.7 $ 213.2 $ 202.1 Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ 22.6 $ (3.9) $ 53.5 $ 70.1 $ 41.7 $ 70.9
Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ - $ (10.1) $ (10.0) $ - $ - $ -
Proceeds From Sale of Assets & Other Items $ (18.0) $ 35.0 $ 4.6 $ 82.9 $ 69.4 $ - Surplus/(Deficit) before Funding Adjustments $ 4.6 $ 21.0 $ 48.1 $ 153.0 $ 111.1 $ 70.9
Funding Adjustments $ 11.0 $ (79.9) $ (143.6) $ (121.9) $ (89.9) $ 12.3 Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ 15.6 $ (58.9) $ (95.5) $ 31.1 $ 21.2 $ 83.2
Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 312.1 $ 327.7 $ 309.7 $ 214.2 $ 245.3 $ 280.0 Adjustment for 2011 forecast deficit (from 2010 actual of $327.7 million) $ 40.9
Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 327.7 $ 309.7 $ 214.2 $ 245.3 $ 266.5 $ 363.2 The Statement of Operations does not include the results of AirCare and TPCC The 2010 results include Vancouver 2010 Olympics and ParaOlympics related revenues and expenditures The 2010 cumulative surplus was forecast in August of 2010 The 2011 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2010 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2010 The 2012-2014 forecast reflects the current 2011 year end cumulative surplus forecast
3.2 REVENUE PROJECTIONS
USER FEES
Transit Revenues Transit revenues are made up of transit fares, property rentals and advertising revenues. Under the 2012 Base Plan, transit fare revenues are budgeted at $421 million in 2011 and increase to $516 million in 2014. Transit fare revenues will grow during the 2012 to 2014 period due to increased ridership and reduced discounts. Other factors influencing transit fare revenues include service levels, the state of the economy, fuel prices (which may affect overall demand for travel) and changes in employment rates.
July 8, 2011 40 | P a g e RD-62 Table 4: Transit Fare Revenue Projections (millions).
Factor Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound Growth Rate 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
Transit Fare Revenue $ 412.4 $ 421.0 $ 439.5 $ 496.6 $ 515.9 $ 642.2 7.0%
Property Rentals, Advertising, Other $ 25.4 $ 11.8 $ 11.8 $ 12.6 $ 13.4 $ 18.1 4.3%
Total: Transit Revenues $ 437.8 $ 432.8 $ 451.3 $ 509.2 $ 529.3 $ 660.3 6.9% *Fare revenue grows from increased ridership and increases to fare prices.
In 2013, the average fare is forecasted to increase by 12.5 per cent, as a result of decreases to the discounts of long-term fare products, as assumed in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan and approved by the Mayors’ Council. The pricing and structure of different fare products to achieve the necessary increase will be determined in 2012.
TransLink will continue implementing initiatives to increase visibility and enforcement of fare checking. Longer term, TransLink is looking at expanding opportunities to issue fines and improve enforcement of ticket violations. TransLink will continue to focus on revenue optimization.
U-Pass BC Under this Plan, TransLink will continue the U-Pass BC program in partnership with the Province for eligible students at public post-secondary institutions (PSIs) in Metro Vancouver. It is anticipated that all eligible PSIs will be participating in the program as of January 1, 2012, with most starting as of September 1, 2011. All students participating in the new program will pay the same U-Pass BC price of $30 per month until the termination date of the U-Pass BC agreement on March 31, 2013.
U-Pass BC program revenues to March 2013 have been estimated using the forecast numbers of eligible students as provided by the PSIs. Ridership impacts have been included in the Plan, including those on students using transit, as well as the potential for displacement of current passengers due to increased demand6. The Province is providing financial support to the U-Pass BC program through the Provincial Transit Plan funding to ensure the new program does not have a negative financial impact through the duration of the agreement. TransLink will accommodate the program within the existing envelope of service hours.
TransLink and the Province have committed to initiate discussions by spring 2012 on the next phase of U-Pass BC program (post-March 2013) with the intent of moving toward a sustainable program. Significant changes may be made to this program for April 2013 and in subsequent years as a result of these discussions. In addition, the program’s objectives, structure, benefits and administration may be greatly impacted by the outcome of the Fare Policy Review initiative, implementation of the Compass card and integration with the U-Passes BC, and continued alignment of revenue pass programs. Until these impacts are defined, changes to the U-Pass BC program revenues after March 2013 cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
6 Displaced passengers are non U-Pass riders who are unable or unwilling to continue using transit due to over- crowding caused by the influx of new U-Pass ridership. Trips that exceed current network capacity are assumed displaced.
July 8, 2011 41 | P a g e RD-63 At this time, the U-Pass BC program revenues post-March 2013 are shown as equivalent to current U- Pass BC program revenues, plus inflationary increases in line with regular transit fares. This is based on the assumption that the total revenues will remain at least at the same level as 2012, although the balance between U-Pass BC fees and provincial contributions may change. In addition, as the program moves towards sustainability, this may be achieved through a number of ways, including increasing the program revenues, changing program eligibility and/or U-Pass BC benefits, and changes in transit services.
Ridership Trends Ridership forecasts are the primary driver of fare revenue forecasts. This Plan projects average system- wide growth in demand of about 5 per cent in 2012, 1 per cent in 2013 and 2 per cent in 2014. The dip in the 2013 ridership growth rate estimate corresponds to the decrease in the discounts in long term fares scheduled for that year. TransLink’s estimates assume that every 10 per cent increase in the average price of transit travel, relative to alternatives travel modes, will result in a 2 per cent decrease in demand. A detailed description of ridership trends is included in the Outcomes (Section 2.4).
Others Transit advertising and property rental revenues are forecast to rise from the 2011 budget of $12 million to $13 million in 2014. Advertising revenues decline from 2010 due to the one-time impact of Olympic- related advertising. The 2012 to 2014 forecasts assume the guaranteed minimum increase in advertising revenues, the assumption of a strengthening economy and innovative approaches for generating new revenues. The Mission contribution for West Coast Express service is also included in this number.
Toll Revenues TransLink receives toll revenues from the new Golden Ears Bridge, which opened to traffic on June 16, 2009. The toll revenues will be used to pay for the project over the next 31 years. Table 5: Golden Ears Bridge Toll Revenue Projections (millions).
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound Growth Rate 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
$ 29.6 $ 37.8 $ 39.9 $ 47.0 $ 54.1 $ 92.2 12.7%
Traffic volumes in 2011 are below what was originally projected. Weaker-than-expected economic factors have reduced travel demand in general and have delayed new commercial and residential development that was expected to generate traffic. The annual compound growth rate is lower by 5.8 per cent compared to last year’s annual compound growth.
With the Port Mann tolled facility scheduled to open in 2013 and the anticipated economic recovery, traffic volumes are forecasted to increase through the horizon of the Outlook 2021. TransLink continues to monitor volumes closely and consider initiatives such as discounted rates during specific periods of time to increase traffic volumes and revenue generation. TransLink is actively marketing the bridge through increased awareness as well as looking at price sensitivity. A trial period of off-peak discounts was completed in spring 2011 and analysis of results is underway.
July 8, 2011 42 | P a g e RD-64 TAXATION SOURCES
Motor Fuel Tax Revenues The adoption of the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan increased TransLink’s fuel tax revenues by three cents per litre to the 15 cent per litre maximum that is allowable under the SCBCTA Act. The forecasted revenues from this source are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Motor Fuel Tax Revenue Projections (millions).
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound Growth Rate 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
$ 323.2 $ 324.3 $ 328.4 $ 332.3 $ 335.6 $ 368.1 1.1%
Fuel consumption growth is generally influenced by higher travel demand, which grows with both population and increases in real disposable income in the longer term. Consumption rates are also a product of trip lengths and vehicle fuel efficiency. In recent years, factors such as increases in population density, cost of fuel, transit investments and fuel efficiency of vehicles have dampened fuel consumption rates per capita.
The 2012 Base Plan forecasts increases in total fuel consumption of approximately 1% per year over the Plan period, based on provincial forecasts of renewed economic growth, which reflects the previously stated trends. Gasoline represents 85 per cent of total fuel sales.
Property Tax Property tax revenue will increase by 3 per cent per year, the maximum annual increase permitted under legislation for a Base Plan and consistent with the 2011 Funding Stabilization Plan. Tax rates for all property classes necessary to generate the targeted revenue increase will be calculated to generate no more than the amount permitted by law and will be “rebalanced” for growth in the region and assessed values of homes. For example if regional growth was 2 per cent, there would only be a 1 per cent increase in owner property taxes. Table 7: Property Tax Projections (millions).
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
$ 271.8 $ 279.2 $ 287.6 $ 296.2 $ 305.1 $ 375.2 3.0%
Parking Sales Tax Revenue Under the 2012 Base Plan, parking sales tax revenue that is budgeted at $49 million in 2011 increases to $51 million in 2014. The tax rate is set at TransLink at 21 per cent, the maximum permitted under the SCBCTA Act.
July 8, 2011 43 | P a g e RD-65 Table 8: Parking Sales Tax Revenue Forecasts (millions).
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
$ 58.4 $ 49.2 $ 50.0 $ 50.7 $ 51.5 $ 57.1 1.5%
The 2012-2014 forecasts assume a 1.5 per cent increase on the price of paid parking, based on factors such as the rise in fuel prices, rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and increase in population.
Parking sales tax has historically been collected by the Province, but effective July 1, 2010, is collected and administered directly by TransLink. The transfer of responsibilities includes several opportunities and risks for TransLink. TransLink will bear the administrative cost risk and the risk associated with the 2010 rate increase (7 per cent to 21 per cent). Opportunities have been provided with the new administrative structure. TransLink now collects actual revenues (previously the amounts were estimated by the Province) and is able to monitor these revenues more closely.
Other Taxes - Replacement Tax, Hydro Levy The Replacement Tax forecast remains at its legislated maximum of $18 million per year for the Base
Plan and Outlook period. The tax will continue to be collected from all allowable property tax classes. The Hydro Levy is presently at a rate of $1.90 per month with no increases other than general population growth (assumed at approximately 1.6 per cent per annum.)
Senior Government Contributions (Capital and Operating Contributions) The Federal and Provincial Governments contribute to TransLink’s capital projects through sources such as the Provincial Transit Plan, Building Canada Fund and the Strategic Priorities (Federal Gas Tax) Fund. The Federal Gas Tax Fund focuses on transit investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other contaminants to the air and water.
Senior government funding is applied to projects meeting the funding program’s criteria up to the allowable limit. These funds are restricted in nature and most cannot be used for TransLink’s day-to-day business operations. The Summary of Capital Program, Table 9, provided later in this section provides more details on the specific contribution levels from the Federal and Provincial Governments. Table 9: Senior Government Contribution Forecasts for Capital and Operations (millions).
Factor Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
Capital $ 126.8 $ 176.7 $ 206.0 $ 169.2 $ 121.8 $ - -11.7%
Operations $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 0.0% Total Contributions $ 146.1 $ 196.0 $ 225.3 $ 188.5 $ 141.1 $ 19.3 -10.4%
Operating contributions are the deferred provincial contributions for the Canada Line. Provincial funding for 2010 is $19.3 million per year.
TransLink cannot fully leverage potential senior government contributions to the transportation system under a Base Plan as it does not include expansion and only includes vehicle replacements and minor
July 8, 2011 44 | P a g e RD-66 upgrades. The Province, Mayors’ Council and TransLink are working together to develop a future Supplemental Plan that will access all available senior government funding opportunities in support of regional needs.
Interest Income Interest income is interest earned on sinking funds, capital contributions, debt reserve funds and cash balances. Interest earned is restricted and cannot be used to fund operations with the exception of interest from cash balances. Table 10: Interest Income Projections (millions).
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
$ 20.5 $ 26.2 $ 29.2 $ 32.5 $ 37.7 $ 61.9 12.9%
Growth reflects the accumulation of further contributions to the sinking fund. The funds accumulated in this sinking fund go towards funding maturing debt issues which happens in the later part of the Outlook period.
3.3 EXPENDITURES
TRANSIT OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES Transit operating expenditures are budgeted at $826 million in 2011 and increase to $871 million by 2014. Table 11: Transit Operations Expenditure Forecasts (millions).
Factor Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate Bus $ 565.7 $ 594.4 $ 605.5 $ 613.9 $ 618.4 $ 719.1 1.3% Expo/Millennium Lines & West Coast Express $ 105.3 $ 113.2 $ 120.9 $ 122.2 $ 123.5 $ 142.2 2.9% SkyTrain Canada Line* $ 60.5 $ 77.5 $ 84.3 $ 86.4 $ 88.2 $ 104.5 4.4% Taxes, Rentals, Fare Media $ 36.6 $ 41.3 $ 37.5 $ 39.5 $ 40.8 $ 48.4 -0.4% Total Operations $ 768.1 $ 826.4 $ 848.2 $ 862.0 $ 870.9 $ 1,014.2 1.8% * The Canada Line expenditures include principal, interest and operations payments, which are elevating the average annual growth rate metric.
Operations costs for transit services (except the Canada, Expo and Millennium Lines) are projected to grow at or below inflation forecasts, reflecting the organization’s continued focus on operational efficiency and effectiveness. The higher-than-inflation increase in Canada Line is due to the sculpting of contractor payments, which are higher in the early years of the contract. Expo and Millennium Line costs reflect the impact of the 48 new cars placed in service in 2010 coming off warranty.
July 8, 2011 45 | P a g e RD-67 Resources continue to be realigned to enable TransLink and its subsidiaries to execute TransLink’s mandate more effectively. Key performance dashboard indicators are being expanded to monitor performance, identify improvement opportunities and allow for benchmarking internally and externally.
ROADS, BRIDGES AND BICYCLE EXPENDITURES Under the 2012 Base Plan, total expenditures on roads, bridges and cycling are $115 million in 2011 and are forecast to drop to $65 million in 2014. This drop is a result of the changes in the MRN Major Road Capital program, as no new major projects are being initiated.
5. Operations and Maintenance Roads and bridges operations and maintenance expenditures are $47 million in 2011 and are forecast to increase slightly to $52 million by 2014.
Table 12: Major Road Network, Bridges and Bicycles (millions)
Factor Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
Major Road Network $ 33.0 $ 35.0 $ 36.0 $ 37.1 $ 38.3 $ 47.2 3.0%
Golden Ears Bridge $ 11.2 $ 12.0 $ 12.4 $ 12.7 $ 13.5 $ 17.3 4.0%
Albion Ferry $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Operations & Maintenance $ 44.6 $ 47.1 $ 48.4 $ 49.8 $ 51.8 $ 64.5 3.2%
Infra. Contri. To Municipalities $ 74.6 $ 67.6 $ 52.1 $ 29.4 $ 12.8 $ - -42.6% Total Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 119.2 $ 114.7 $ 100.5 $ 79.2 $ 64.6 $ 64.5 -17.4% TransLink continues to support maintaining a state of good repair on the MRN through funding for roads operations, maintenance and rehabilitation (OMR). TransLink will provide OMR funding for the MRN to municipalities at a rate of $14,075 per lane kilometre in 2011, increasing annually by 2 per cent with total payments reaching $36 million in 2014. A further $2 million will be provided annually to maintain the Pattullo, Knight and Westham Bridges. Operating expenditures for the Golden Ears Bridge will increase from $12 million in 2011 to $14 million in 2014. The Base Plan assumes that the Albion Ferry will be disposed of by 2012.
6. Capital Infrastructure Contributions to Municipalities Under the 2012 Base Plan, total capital expenditures on roads, bridges and cycling are $68 million in 2011 and are forecast to drop to $13 million by 2014.
TransLink continues its commitments to maximizing the effectiveness of the multi-modal road network through the MRN Minor Road Capital and Bike Capital Programs. Consistent with the 2011 Base Plan, these are funded annually at $10 million and $3 million respectively, with maintaining existing services taking priority over upgrades.
TransLink makes payments to municipalities to assist in funding MRN projects. As these expenditures are financed by debt, they are reversed as a funding adjustment, in order to determine the overall funded surplus or deficit. For the Outlook projections of this Plan, funding commitments made within the three-year Plan are extended out for five years to align with municipal allocation cycles. Potential new investments outside the three-year planning horizon cannot be accurately forecast and will be evaluated annually as part of the Plan update.
July 8, 2011 46 | P a g e RD-68 Consistent with the discussion in Section 2.3 on Roads and Bridges, capital funding is not allocated for the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. In the absence of senior government or alternative funding, the bridge replacement would be funded by tolls.
TRANSLINK CORPORATE AND TRANSIT POLICE EXPENDITURES Under the 2012 Base Plan, combined expenditures for TransLink Corporate and Transit Police total $106 million in 2011 and are forecasted to be $109 million in 2014. These costs include a $3 million efficiency savings target for the enterprise that will be further identified in the fall budget process. In 2011, as part of the corporate realignment, the Information Technology and Human resources services provided by Coast Mountain Bus Company as shared services were moved to TransLink. The 2011 budgets for both organizations have been restated to reflect this transfer.
Operating costs related to the Compass card system and faregates are $7 million in 2013 and $9 million in 20147. TransLink Corporate includes $3 million in 2012 for the development of Transport 2045. Costs also reflect the increased IT services required to support technology improvements for customers.
Table 13: TransLink Corporate and Transit Police Expenditures (millions)
Factor Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
TransLink Corporate $ 69.5 $ 67.1 $ 67.4 $ 65.9 $ 65.7 $ 74.5
SmartCards and Gating and Studies $ 4.7 $ 10.2 $ 8.3 $ 8.7 $ 9.8 $ 13.8 -1.3%
Subtotal $ 74.2 $ 77.3 $ 75.7 $ 74.6 $ 75.5 $ 88.3 -0.8%
Transit Police $ 27.2 $ 28.7 $ 29.7 $ 32.9 $ 33.9 $ 38.7 5.7% Total TransLink Corporate and Police $ 101.4 $ 106.0 $ 105.4 $ 107.5 $ 109.4 $ 127.0 1.1%
DEBT SERVICE
7. Interest Expense Interest expense is budgeted at $172 million in 2011 and will increase to $193 million in 2014.
Table 14: Debt Interest Expense (millions)
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
$ 159.9 $ 172.0 $ 171.2 $ 180.6 $ 192.6 $ 195.4 3.8%
Increases through 2014 are due to the additional debt that will be incurred as the organization finances the tail end of the expansion drive completed in 2009, Compass card and faregate project costs, replacement of vehicles and bus infrastructure, and forecast interest rates increases.
8. Depreciation Expense Depreciation expense expenditures are budgeted at $167 million in 2011 and are forecast to increase to $213 million in 2014.
7 Costs are net of reduced fare evasion and ticket vending machine maintenance costs.
July 8, 2011 47 | P a g e RD-69 Table 15: Depreciation Expense Forecasts (millions)
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2011-2014 Average Annual Compound 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021 Growth Rate
$ 152.6 $ 167.0 $ 170.2 $ 194.7 $ 213.2 $ 202.1 8.5% The growth in the depreciation expense primarily reflects the replacement of assets, with new assets being more expensive than the older replaced assets due to inflation.
OTHER ITEMS TransLink’s strategic real estate needs are constantly being evaluated. Some current surplus properties will be disposed of to align with resourcing requirements. The gain from the sale of these surplus properties is estimated at approximately $219 million during the 2011 to 2014 period, slightly higher than the $200 million estimate in last year’s plan. Proceeds from land sales will allow for future network facilities.
The 2012 forecast includes a $10 million contingency fund. The fund assists in mitigating risk and provides an allowance for unforeseen expenditures and re-investments. The contingency fund will only be accessed through executive approval and a supporting business case.
Table 16: Other Items (millions)
Factor Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ - $ (10.1) $ (10.0) $ - $ - $ -
Proceeds From Sale of Assets & Other Items $ (18.0) $ 35.0 $ 4.6 $ 82.9 $ 69.4 $ -
Funding Adjustments TransLink is required by the SCBCTA Act to generate sufficient funds to pay for its expenditures and cannot budget for a funding deficit. The legislation specifies that TransLink must retain an accumulated fund surplus. The funded annual surplus/deficit and resulting cumulative fund balance are determined by adjusting the excess (deficiency) of revenue over expenditures (consistent with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) for the following:
reversing depreciation and other non-cash expenditures, reversing restricted capital contributions and capital payments to municipalities for the MRN, and adding payments to sinking funds and public-private partnerships (P3) for debt repayment.
A combined negative funding adjustment means further funding is required, while a combined positive funding adjustment means less funding is required.
July 8, 2011 48 | P a g e RD-70 Table 17: Funding Adjustments (millions)
Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2021
$ 11.0 $ (79.9) $ (143.6) $ (121.9) $ (89.9) $ 12.3
3.4 BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT
BALANCE SHEET The balance sheet (Consolidated Statement of Financial Position) is included as Appendix 1. Total assets will increase by $616 million between 2011 and 2014, bringing the net total assets to $6.2 billion by the end of 2014. The increase in capital assets of $352 million over this period represents additions of $932 million less $578 million in amortization of capital assets during the three-year period. The balance of the increase in total assets is a $299 million increase in sinking and debt reserve funds offset by a $35 million change in current assets and long-term investments.
Between 2011 and 2014, total liabilities will increase by $301 million to fund the above mentioned increase in total assets. The funding comes from long-term (direct) debt.
Over the Plan and Outlook period, total liabilities will decrease by $345 million despite a $295 million increase in total assets. This is because assets are being funded by contributions and accumulated surpluses, which is reflected in the $640 million increase in the fund balance.
The Plan debt reaches its peak in 2016, $31 million under the existing debt limit of $2.8 billion, and then begins to decline in 2017. Figure 9 demonstrates this declining trend as current debt obligations will be retired through the course of this Plan and Outlook, while limited new debt will be added.
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000 ) $ s n io $1,500 il (M $1,000
Closing Gross Direct Borrowing $500 Closing Net Direct Borrowing Established Borrowing Limit
$0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure 10: Borrowing Levels for 2012 Base Plan and Outlook
July 8, 2011 49 | P a g e RD-71 CASH FLOW STATEMENT The cash flow statement (Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows) can be found in Appendix 3. The 2012 Base Plan is able to cover its financing cost through cash from operations for 2012 to 2014. Investing activities are funded by cash on hand of $102 million in 2012 and long-term borrowing of $468 million over the three years. TransLink actively manages its cash situation and will access its short-term borrowing facility on a temporary basis within periods.
Total capital expenditures between 2012 and 2014 are $932 million excluding contributions to municipalities for roads and bike programs but including real estate purchases of $65 million. Federal and provincial funding finances $497 million of the $932 million.
Cash from operations is $376 million in cash surplus in 2014. The Outlook shows a cash surplus from operations of $328 million in 2021.
3.5 OUTLOOK FOR 2015 THROUGH 2021
The previous sections noted the 2021 projections for each category of revenue and expenditure. These estimates are based upon an extrapolation of the 2014 trends and assumptions, and also include the impacts of scheduled fleet replacement, infrastructure maintenance and debt obligations. The Financial Outlook is intended to ensure that, given these assumptions, the short-term investments and commitments are reasonable and financially sustainable in the longer term.
Translink’s goal is to maintain a 10 per cent cumulative surplus fund balance. The 2012 Base Plan and Outlook cumulative surplus maintain a 10 per cent minimum as indicated in Figure 10. Should conditions change, TransLink will manage its cumulative surplus to ensure the target level is maintained.
Figure 11: Cumulative Surplus Level Forecasts for 2012 through 2021
July 8, 2011 50 | P a g e RD-72 3.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS Economic assumptions have been developed through research from a variety of sources. A primary source has been the estimates from the Province of British Columbia’s Budget and Fiscal Plan (2011/2012 to 2013/14), which reflect consensus opinion of a blue ribbon panel of economic advisors. Fuel volumes reflect current volumes, provincial growth forecasts to 2013/14 and trending beyond that period.
Table 18: Key Assumptions for 2011 Three-Year Plan with Outlook
Assumption % Change/Rate per Year Impact Factor 2012 2013 2014 2015-2021 $ million / yr
Real GDP growth 2.7% 2.7% 2.0% 2.0%
Goods and Services Inflation 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% Variable + / - 9.2
Construction (excluding road construction) Inflation 3.0% 3.0% 2.5% 3.0% + / - 4.0
Road Construction Inflation 3.2% 2.6% 2.6% 4.0% + / - 3.1
Hydro Cost 9.0% 9.7% 3.9% 2.0% + / - 0.1
Gasoline Cost (per litre & net of HST rebate) $1.38 $1.44 $1.48 $1.52 to $1.73 Diesel Cost (per Litre & net of HST rebate) $1.27 $1.30 $1.33 $1.36 to $1.64* + / - 0.4
Interest Rates - Short Term 2.65% 3.80% 4.80% 5.20% + / - 2.1 - Long Term 4.9% 5.4% 6.4% 6.8% + / - 7.0
Regional Fuel Consumption - Gasoline (million litres) 1,854 1,873 1,892 1917 to 2067 + / - 0.5 - Diesel (million litres) 335 342 345 345 to 356 + / - 0.1
OTHER MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS DRIVEN BY TRANSLINK
Operation, maintenance and rehabilitation funding for roads is maintained at the 2011 rate, adjusted for a 2 per cent annual allowance for inflation.
Continuation of senior government funding is assumed in this Plan. TransLink will continue to utilize all available funding where applicable.
SOURCES FOR KEY ASSUMPTIONS Goods and Services Inflation – Rates are based on the Province of British Columbia Budget and Fiscal Plan 2011-12 to 2013/14.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – Rates are based on the Province of British Columbia Budget and Fiscal Plan 2011-12 to 2013/14.
Construction (excluding road construction) Inflation - The rates are determined by using the Statistics Canada construction price indexes.
July 8, 2011 51 | P a g e RD-73 Road Construction Inflation - These rates are determined using a five-year rolling average MRN Operating, Maintenance & Rehabilitation index.
Diesel Cost – The price forecasts are based on the US Energy Administration forecasts, converted to Canadian prices and reflecting Metro Vancouver taxes.
Interest Rates – The rates for 2012 were determined by calculating a mid-point average of the forecasts of eight Canadian chartered banks. Subsequent years are based on the Province of British Columbia Budget and Fiscal Plan 2011-12 to 2013/14.
Regional Fuel Consumption - As described previously in the Fuel Tax Revenue section, TransLink’s fuel tax revenue uses historical volumes, provincial growth estimates to 2013/14 and extrapolation of trends through the Outlook period, supported by gasoline and diesel cost forecasts.
IDENTIFICATION OF RISK FACTORS AND POTENTIAL RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES TransLink’s risk management strategies, policies and limits are designed to ensure TransLink’s risks and related exposures are aligned with corporate business objectives and risk tolerances. Using an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) process, annual assessments are conducted that focus on strategic, political, reputational, financial, human resources, business effectiveness, health and safety, environmental, reporting and regulatory risks.
All residual risks that are considered high or moderate are incorporated into a corporate risk action plan whereby risks are assigned to an executive who is accountable for reporting back on efforts to mitigate this risk. The Chief Executive Officer provides an update to the Board of Directors at each Board meeting.
TransLink’s governance structure requires that a three-year Base Plan with Outlook be adopted each year. This structure, along with the alignment of the Budget and the Plan, ensures that TransLink is able to continually monitor all revenues and expenditures and modify its strategy to respond to changes in conditions.
9. Energy Fuel Tax Revenue – This risk factor is the impact of changes in fuel tax revenue assumptions, which are based on projected costs of fuel and consumption growth rates. As the projected fuel consumption for gasoline vehicles increases by 1 per cent, the impact on the cumulative surplus would be $3.5 million per year. Fuel price assumptions also have a significant impact on the cumulative surplus, as price increases will alter travel behaviour, the magnitude of which is unknown in the longer term. Demand may be dampened and could offset to some extent the impact of population and income growth. Price increases result in lower fuel tax revenue, as well as higher fleet operating expenditures.
Consumption – To mitigate the risk of volatility, Coast Mountain Bus Company secures future contract prices up to a year in advance on up to 75 per cent of the anticipated diesel volume consumption requirements. TransLink is investigating further hedging opportunities.
BC Hydro – Rate estimates for 2011/12 to 2013/14 are provided in the provincial budget estimates. As rates are not yet available for beyond that point, the assumption is based on inflation. If the rate exceeds 2 per cent, it would be managed through cost containment.
July 8, 2011 52 | P a g e RD-74 10. Transit Fare Revenues Fares are one of the largest revenue sources, contributing more than 35 per cent of TransLink’s total revenues. Ridership assumptions are the inherent driver for fare revenue projections. A 1 per cent change in ridership will result in a fluctuation of approximately $5 million per year in revenues.
As noted previously, fare revenue has been declining in part due to macro-economic factors beyond TransLink’s control and also due to lower than anticipated average fares that could be mitigated with increased revenue capture rates. TransLink has established a Revenue Management Committee that is actively pursuing measures. In the short-term, this will include increased education, inspection and enforcement. In the mid- to long-term, this will include improvements to forecasting pricing and fare structure that improve the robustness of this revenue source, such as the Compass Card and faregates. TransLink will also be tightening its fare-related contracts and increasing enforcement and auditing to mitigate revenue leakage. A 1 percentage point reduction in fare revenue leakage will equate to approximately $4.5 million a year in incremental fare revenues.
11. Economic Factors Future interest rates, inflation and general economic growth are notable risk factors that increase over the planning horizon. The economic factor assumptions are based primarily upon the provincial three- year budgets. As the economy emerges from the present downturn, general inflation may exceed the annual rate increases allowed under the SCBCTA Act. A 1 per cent increase in general inflation over the plan and outlook period would have a $9 million financial impact on TransLink expenditures.
12. Senior Government Contribution The continuation of federal and provincial capital contributions is essential for TransLink’s 2012 Base Plan and Outlook. These contributions amount to $555 million for the 2012 to 2014 period. Due to the fact that the Base Plan does not include significant upgrades and no expansion, all of the potentially available senior government funds are unlikely to be accessed. If this situation continues, there is a risk that the portion of funds not accessed may be reallocated or reduced, making it more difficult to access when and if TransLink is in a situation to do so. This plan also assumes that the Federal Government’s Strategic Priorities Fund is entirely directed to TransLink.
13. Gain (Loss) from the Sale of Assets TransLink will manage the financial risk of surplus assets not being sold at forecasted amounts. Strategies would include additional cost containment and a re-evaluation of the capital investment plan.
July 8, 2011 53 | P a g e RD-75 3.7 CAPITAL PROGRAM Figure 12 provides an overview of the major initiatives contained in the 2012 Base Plan.
TRANSIT SERVICE ROADS, BRIDGES, AND CYCLING
Aging bus fleet replaced – 240 conventional Road Minor Capital Program - $10M/year buses; 107 community shuttles; 155 Bike Capital Program - $3M/year HandyDART vehicles Pattullo Bridge rehabilitation funding for the Construction of Hamilton Transit Centre, site existing bridge while the bridge replacement preparation for trolley overhead relocation, details are being worked out Burnaby transit centre upgrades
Figure 12: Summary of Capital Program
Table 19 summarizes the gross cost, contributions to each category of the capital program and net cost to TransLink, over the 2012 to 2014 period. Table 19: 2012 to 2014 Capital Plan.
Contributions TransLink Project Description Gross Cost Provincial Federal Net Cost
Bike Program 5,192 - - $ 5,192
Bridges 2,609 - - $ 2,609
Roads 92,503 - - $ 92,503
Transit 546,228 - (360,942) $ 185,285
Rapid Transit 260,127 (17,980) (98,303) $ 143,844
Marine 33,878 - (19,732) $ 14,147
Commuter Rail 118 - - $ 118
IT 20,222 - - $ 20,222
Total $ 960,877 $ (17,980) $ (478,977) $ 463,920
3.8 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Key Performance Indicators for TransLink conventional and custom transit services are summarized in Table 20. These indicators demonstrate the system becoming increasingly efficient over the Plan period. Boardings per service hour and average fare per revenue passenger are averaging positive gains. At the same time, costs per service hour and per service kilometre are growing below the rate of inflation. These effects combine to achieve improvements in both cost recovery and operating costs per revenue passenger.
July 8, 2011 54 | P a g e RD-76 Table 20: Indicators for 2012 to 2014 Base Plan.
2011 - 2014 Avg Annual Growth Key Performance Metric* 2011 2012 2013 2014 Rate
Conventional System Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger $4.11 $4.04 $4.07 $4.02 Annual change -1.6% 0.8% -1.3% -0.7%
Boarding per Service Hour 54.98 57.21 57.72 59.10 Annual change 4.0% 0.9% 2.4% 2.4%
Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km - All $5.84 $5.99 $6.10 $6.16 Annual change 2.7% 1.7% 1.1% 1.8%
Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km - Bus $5.90 $6.01 $6.10 $6.15 Annual change 1.9% 1.5% 0.8% 1.4% Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km - Expo & Millennium line $2.20 $2.35 $2.38 $2.41 Annual change 6.5% 1.6% 1.2% 3.0% Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km - Commuter Rail $12.37 $13.01 $13.06 $13.26 Annual change 5.2% 0.4% 1.6% 2.4%
Average Fare per Revenue Passenger $1.98 $1.98 $2.22 $2.25 Annual change 0.2% 11.9% 1.4% 4.4%
Cost Recovery (all Transit Revenue) 50.1% 50.3% 53.0% 53.8% Annual change 0.5% 5.3% 1.5% 2.4%
Operating Cost per Service Hour - Bus $114.43 $116.57 $118.35 $119.28 Annual change 1.9% 1.5% 0.8% 1.4%
Access Transit Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger $33.95 $35.10 $33.84 $33.85 Annual change 3.4% -3.6% 0.0% -0.1%
Boarding per Service Hour 2.27 2.29 2.41 2.43 Annual change 1.0% 5.1% 1.0% 2.3%
Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km $4.37 $4.56 $4.62 $4.67 Annual change 4.4% 1.3% 1.0% 2.3%
Operating Cost per Service Hour $77.10 $80.51 $81.58 $82.44 Annual change 4.4% 1.3% 1.0% 2.3%
July 8, 2011 55 | P a g e RD-77 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION SCBCTA BASE PLAN
Budget FORECAST OUTLOOK for the years ending 31 Dec. thousands 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Assets Current assets Cash & Short Term investments 102,141 0 22,766 40,995 3,597 0 11,987 44,274 131,107 222,395 324,898 Accounts receivable 203,478 209,582 215,869 222,345 229,016 235,886 242,963 250,252 257,759 265,492 273,457 Supplies inventory 37,425 38,548 39,704 40,895 42,122 43,386 44,687 46,028 47,409 48,831 50,296 Prepaid expenses 8,932 9,200 9,476 9,760 10,053 10,355 10,665 10,985 11,315 11,654 12,004 351,976 257,330 287,816 313,996 284,789 289,627 310,302 351,539 447,590 548,373 660,655
0 Long-term investments 21,432 22,396 23,404 24,457 25,558 26,708 27,910 29,166 30,478 31,850 33,283 Debt reserve Fund 44,828 47,614 49,451 49,257 50,902 50,268 49,202 46,327 45,775 45,815 43,823 Debt sinking fund 558,446 660,935 771,078 852,976 986,275 1,054,532 1,081,842 1,079,499 1,170,527 1,228,933 1,206,543 Capital assets 4,644,694 4,888,826 5,002,192 4,996,552 4,906,366 4,784,684 4,668,836 4,530,241 4,350,825 4,170,508 3,972,526
Total Assets 5,621,376 5,877,100 6,133,940 6,237,238 6,253,889 6,205,819 6,138,091 6,036,772 6,045,196 6,025,478 5,916,830
Liabilities and Fund Balances RD-78 Current liabilities Cheques issued in excess of funds on deposit Other Short term borrowing 0 1,663 0 0 0 646 0 0 0 0 0 Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 209,768 216,061 222,543 229,219 236,095 243,178 250,474 257,988 265,727 273,699 281,910 Total Current Liabilities 209,768 217,723 222,543 229,219 236,095 243,825 250,474 257,988 265,727 273,699 281,910
Employee future benefits 56,640 62,304 68,535 75,388 82,927 91,219 100,341 110,376 121,413 133,554 146,910 SkyTrain Canada Line - Deferred concessionaire credits 661,562 638,484 615,405 592,327 569,248 546,170 523,091 500,013 476,935 453,856 430,778 Golden Ears Bridge Contractor liability 1,020,150 1,032,744 1,045,059 1,051,375 1,050,913 1,049,021 1,045,557 1,040,378 1,033,348 1,024,302 1,013,077 Long-term debt 2,442,054 2,643,375 2,747,126 2,742,626 2,769,192 2,713,157 2,604,611 2,464,418 2,421,140 2,339,686 2,172,811
Total Liabilities 4,390,175 4,594,630 4,698,667 4,690,935 4,708,376 4,643,392 4,524,075 4,373,173 4,318,563 4,225,098 4,045,486
Fund balances 1,231,201 1,282,470 1,435,273 1,546,303 1,545,513 1,562,427 1,614,016 1,663,599 1,726,633 1,800,380 1,871,344
Total Liabilities and Fund Balances 5,621,376 5,877,100 6,133,940 6,237,238 6,253,889 6,205,819 6,138,091 6,036,772 6,045,196 6,025,478 5,916,830
56 | P a g e
APPENDIX 2A: STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
SCBCTA Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Transit Revenues $ 437.8 $ 432.8 $ 451.3 $ 509.2 $ 529.3 $ 538.4 $ 580.3 $ 588.9 $ 597.7 $ 641.1 $ 650.6 $ 660.3 Toll Revenues $ 29.6 $ 37.8 $ 39.9 $ 47.0 $ 54.1 $ 61.0 $ 66.4 $ 71.1 $ 76.0 $ 81.2 $ 86.7 $ 92.2 User Fees $ 467.4 $ 470.6 $ 491.2 $ 556.2 $ 583.4 $ 599.4 $ 646.7 $ 660.0 $ 673.7 $ 722.3 $ 737.3 $ 752.5 Motor Fuel Tax $ 323.2 $ 324.3 $ 328.4 $ 332.3 $ 335.6 $ 342.2 $ 347.6 $ 355.7 $ 361.5 $ 367.5 $ 367.8 $ 368.1 Property Tax $ 271.8 $ 279.2 $ 287.6 $ 296.2 $ 305.1 $ 314.2 $ 323.7 $ 333.4 $ 343.4 $ 353.7 $ 364.3 $ 375.2 Parking Sales Tax $ 58.4 $ 49.2 $ 50.0 $ 50.7 $ 51.5 $ 52.2 $ 53.0 $ 53.8 $ 54.6 $ 55.4 $ 56.3 $ 57.1 Other Taxes $ 36.5 $ 36.7 $ 37.3 $ 37.7 $ 38.0 $ 38.3 $ 38.6 $ 38.9 $ 39.3 $ 39.6 $ 39.9 $ 40.2 Taxation Revenues $ 689.9 $ 689.4 $ 703.3 $ 716.9 $ 730.2 $ 746.9 $ 762.9 $ 781.8 $ 798.8 $ 816.2 $ 828.3 $ 840.6 Senior Government Contributions $ 146.1 $ 196.0 $ 225.3 $ 188.5 $ 141.1 $ 118.7 $ 105.4 $ 106.1 $ 80.2 $ 41.8 $ 39.1 $ 19.3 Interest Revenue $ 20.5 $ 26.2 $ 29.2 $ 32.5 $ 37.7 $ 40.4 $ 45.6 $ 48.3 $ 49.9 $ 50.8 $ 56.8 $ 61.9 Total Revenues $ 1,323.9 $ 1,382.2 $ 1,449.0 $ 1,494.1 $ 1,492.4 $ 1,505.4 $ 1,560.6 $ 1,596.2 $ 1,602.6 $ 1,631.1 $ 1,661.5 $ 1,674.3 Transit Operations $ 768.2 $ 826.4 $ 848.2 $ 862.0 $ 870.9 $ 886.8 $ 907.5 $ 928.0 $ 949.2 $ 970.8 $ 992.7 $ 1,014.4 Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 119.2 $ 114.7 $ 100.5 $ 79.2 $ 64.6 $ 78.9 $ 77.8 $ 62.0 $ 59.0 $ 60.8 $ 62.7 $ 64.5 TransLink Corporate & Police $ 101.4 $ 106.0 $ 105.4 $ 107.5 $ 109.4 $ 111.1 $ 113.6 $ 116.1 $ 121.0 $ 121.2 $ 124.1 $ 127.0 Operating Expenditures $ 988.8 $ 1,047.1 $ 1,054.1 $ 1,048.7 $ 1,044.9 $ 1,076.8 $ 1,098.9 $ 1,106.1 $ 1,129.2 $ 1,152.8 $ 1,179.5 $ 1,205.9
Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ 335.1 $ 335.1 $ 394.9 $ 445.4 $ 447.5 $ 428.6 $ 461.7 $ 490.1 $ 473.4 $ 478.3 $ 482.0 $ 468.4 Interest Expense $ 159.9 $ 172.0 $ 171.2 $ 180.6 $ 192.6 $ 203.2 $ 211.7 $ 210.0 $ 202.8 $ 200.3 $ 197.6 $ 195.4
Depreciation Expense $ 152.6 $ 167.0 $ 170.2 $ 194.7 $ 213.2 $ 226.2 $ 233.0 $ 228.6 $ 221.0 $ 215.1 $ 210.8 $ 202.1 RD-79 Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ 22.6 $ (3.9) $ 53.5 $ 70.1 $ 41.7 $ (0.8) $ 17.0 $ 51.5 $ 49.6 $ 62.9 $ 73.6 $ 70.9
Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ - $ (10.1) $ (10.0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Proceeds From Sale of Assets & Other Items $ (18.0) $ 35.0 $ 4.6 $ 82.9 $ 69.4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Surplus/(Deficit) before Funding Adjustments $ 4.6 $ 21.0 $ 48.1 $ 153.0 $ 111.1 $ (0.8) $ 17.0 $ 51.5 $ 49.6 $ 62.9 $ 73.6 $ 70.9
Funding Adjustments $ 11.0 $ (79.9) $ (143.6) $ (121.9) $ (89.9) $ (57.4) $ (52.0) $ (71.0) $ (46.4) $ (5.4) $ (8.1) $ 12.3 Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ 15.6 $ (58.9) $ (95.5) $ 31.1 $ 21.2 $ (58.2) $ (35.0) $ (19.5) $ 3.2 $ 57.5 $ 65.5 $ 83.2
Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 312.1 $ 327.7 $ 309.7 $ 214.2 $ 245.3 $ 266.5 $ 208.3 $ 173.3 $ 153.8 $ 157.0 $ 214.5 $ 280.0 Adjustment for 2011 forecast deficit (from 2010 actual of $327.7 million) $ 40.9
Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 327.7 $ 309.7 $ 214.2 $ 245.3 $ 266.5 $ 208.3 $ 173.3 $ 153.8 $ 157.0 $ 214.5 $ 280.0 $ 363.2 The Statement of Operations does not include the results of AirCare and TPCC The 2010 results include Vancouver 2010 Olympics and ParaOlympics related revenues and expenditures The 2010 cumulative surplus was forecast in August of 2010 The 2011 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2010 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2010 The 2012-2014 forecast reflects the current 2011 year end cumulative surplus forecast
57 | P a g e
APPENDIX 2B: FUNDED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS SCBCTA Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Transit Revenues $ 437.8 $ 432.8 $ 451.3 $ 509.2 $ 529.3 $ 538.4 $ 580.3 $ 588.9 $ 597.7 $ 641.1 $ 650.6 $ 660.3
Toll Revenues $ 29.6 $ 37.8 $ 39.9 $ 47.0 $ 54.1 $ 61.0 $ 66.4 $ 71.1 $ 76.0 $ 81.2 $ 86.7 $ 92.2
User Fees $ 467.4 $ 470.6 $ 491.2 $ 556.2 $ 583.4 $ 599.4 $ 646.7 $ 660.0 $ 673.7 $ 722.3 $ 737.3 $ 752.5
Motor Fuel Tax $ 323.2 $ 324.3 $ 328.4 $ 332.3 $ 335.6 $ 342.2 $ 347.6 $ 355.7 $ 361.5 $ 367.5 $ 367.8 $ 368.1
Property Tax $ 271.8 $ 279.2 $ 287.6 $ 296.2 $ 305.1 $ 314.2 $ 323.7 $ 333.4 $ 343.4 $ 353.7 $ 364.3 $ 375.2
Parking Sales Tax $ 58.4 $ 49.2 $ 50.0 $ 50.7 $ 51.5 $ 52.2 $ 53.0 $ 53.8 $ 54.6 $ 55.4 $ 56.3 $ 57.1
Other Taxes $ 36.5 $ 36.7 $ 37.3 $ 37.7 $ 38.0 $ 38.3 $ 38.6 $ 38.9 $ 39.3 $ 39.6 $ 39.9 $ 40.2
Taxation Revenues $ 689.9 $ 689.4 $ 703.3 $ 716.9 $ 730.2 $ 746.9 $ 762.9 $ 781.8 $ 798.8 $ 816.2 $ 828.3 $ 840.6
Senior Government Contributions $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3
Interest Revenue $ 2.1 $ 2.6 $ 2.9 $ 1.9 $ 2.6 $ 2.3 $ 1.8 $ 1.9 $ 2.5 $ 4.1 $ 6.7 $ 9.6
Total Revenues $ 1,178.7 $ 1,181.9 $ 1,216.7 $ 1,294.3 $ 1,335.5 $ 1,367.9 $ 1,430.7 $ 1,463.0 $ 1,494.3 $ 1,561.9 $ 1,591.6 $ 1,622.0
Transit Operations $ 791.3 $ 849.5 $ 871.3 $ 885.1 $ 894.0 $ 909.9 $ 930.6 $ 951.1 $ 972.3 $ 993.9 $ 1,015.8 $ 1,037.5
Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 44.6 $ 47.1 $ 48.4 $ 49.8 $ 51.8 $ 53.5 $ 55.3 $ 57.2 $ 59.0 $ 60.8 $ 62.7 $ 64.5
TranLink Corporate & Police $ 101.4 $ 106.0 $ 105.4 $ 107.5 $ 109.4 $ 111.1 $ 113.6 $ 116.1 $ 121.0 $ 121.2 $ 124.1 $ 127.0
Operating Expenditures $ 937.3 $ 1,002.6 $ 1,025.1 $ 1,042.4 $ 1,055.2 $ 1,074.5 $ 1,099.5 $ 1,124.4 $ 1,152.3 $ 1,175.9 $ 1,202.6 $ 1,229.0
Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ 241.4 $ 179.4 $ 191.6 $ 252.0 $ 280.4 $ 293.4 $ 331.2 $ 338.6 $ 342.0 $ 386.1 $ 389.1 $ 393.0
Interest Expense $ 95.9 $ 106.2 $ 104.4 $ 113.0 $ 124.3 $ 134.8 $ 143.4 $ 141.9 $ 135.0 $ 132.9 $ 130.7 $ 129.2 RD-80
Capital Repayments $ 112.0 $ 156.9 $ 177.3 $ 190.8 $ 204.2 $ 216.8 $ 222.7 $ 216.1 $ 203.8 $ 195.7 $ 192.9 $ 180.6
Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ 33.6 $ (83.7) $ (90.1) $ (51.9) $ (48.2) $ (58.2) $ (34.9) $ (19.4) $ 3.2 $ 57.5 $ 65.5 $ 83.2
Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ - $ (10.1) $ (10.0) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Proceeds From Sale of Assets & Other Items $ (18.0) $ 35.0 $ 4.6 $ 82.9 $ 69.4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ 15.6 $ (58.8) $ (95.5) $ 31.0 $ 21.2 $ (58.2) $ (34.9) $ (19.4) $ 3.2 $ 57.5 $ 65.5 $ 83.2
Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 312.1 $ 327.7 $ 309.7 $ 214.2 $ 245.3 $ 266.5 $ 208.3 $ 173.4 $ 154.0 $ 157.2 $ 214.7 $ 280.2
Adjustment for 2011 forecast deficit (from 2010 actual of $327.7 million) $ - $ 40.9
Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 327.7 $ 309.7 $ 214.2 $ 245.3 $ 266.5 $ 208.3 $ 173.4 $ 154.0 $ 157.2 $ 214.7 $ 280.2 $ 363.5
The 2010 cumulative surplus was forecast in August of 2010 The 2010 results include Vancouver 2010 Olympics and ParaOlympics related revenues and expenditures The 2011 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2010 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2010 The 2012-2014 forecast reflects the current 2011 year end cumulative surplus forecast
58 | P a g e
RD-81
59 | P a g e
Appendix 4 - Projected Borrowing Compared to Borrowing Limit and Select Financial Ratios
$ Millions FORECASTS OUTLOOK 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Opening Gross Direct Borrowing 2,264 2,442 2,645 2,747 2,743 2,769 2,714 2,605 2,464 2,421 2,340 Adjustments ------Retirements/Other (93) (38) (46) (84) (36) (104) (139) (162) (57) (92) (171) Short term borrowings - 2 (2) - - 1 (1) - - - - Borrowing in Yr - Capital 271 239 150 79 63 48 31 22 13 11 4 Closing Gross Direct Borrowing 2,442 2,645 2,747 2,743 2,769 2,714 2,605 2,464 2,421 2,340 2,173 Less: Sinking funds (558) (661) (771) (853) (986) (1,055) (1,082) (1,079) (1,171) (1,229) (1,207) Less: Debt Reserve Funds (45) (48) (49) (49) (51) (50) (49) (46) (46) (46) (44) Closing Net Direct Borrowing 1,839 1,937 1,927 1,840 1,732 1,609 1,474 1,339 1,205 1,065 923
Established Borrowing Limit 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
Reconciliation of Borrowing During Year to Annual Capital Expenditures:
Captial Expenditures (including MRN) 339 443 318 200 161 134 117 82 36 30 4 Less: Sr Gov't Contributions (70) (206) (169) (122) (99) (86) (87) (61) (22) (20) - Less: Other Contributions (1) ------Net Expenditures 269 237 149 79 62 48 31 21 13 11 4 RD-82 Add: Gross-up for Debt Reserve Fund 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Borrowing amount for capital 271 239 150 79 63 48 31 22 13 11 4
60 | P a g e
APPENDIX 5 : CAPITAL CASH FLOWS - PROJECTS APPROVED AND PROPOSED SCBCTA
FORECASTS OUTLOOK $ Thousands 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Projects Approved or Underway 338,879 348,989 78,998 22,347 6,427 7,015 - - - - -
Transit TransitVehicles Conventional Expansion ------TransitVehicles Conventional Replace 122 35,725 88,904 62,786 84,916 80,008 84,846 57,757 - - - TransitVehicles Custom Expansion ------TransitVehicles Custom Replace - 8,768 18,905 23,026 12,692 7,535 12,410 11,799 16,610 11,892 - TransitVehicles Community Shuttle Expansion ------TransitVehicles Community Shuttle Replace 101 6,146 20,957 27,656 4,985 9,992 8,966 7,238 12,597 14,564 -
TransitExchanges - 6,228 741 903 531 238 245 252 260 267 276 TransitDepots - 11,183 78,973 30,369 25,404 1,073 979 1,324 390 401 413 TransitHeavy Fleet Maintenance Centre ------TransitTransit Small ------TransitTransit Minor ------TransitTransit and Pedestrian Corridor Upgrades ------TransitInnovations Capital ------TransitIT / ITS ------TransitInfrast - 2,005 (281) (2,037) (1,547) 3,518 5,270 4,034 5,843 3,343 3,444 TransitOther - 6,571 497 839 ------
Subtotal Transit 223 76,626 208,697 143,543 126,981 102,364 112,717 82,404 35,699 30,468 4,133
Rapid Transit RapidWayside Transit Power Propulsion - 1,264 682 173 ------RapidStation Transit & Station area Upgrades & Programs - 5,075 9,783 6,068 360 ------RapidInfrast Transit - - 3,174 6,073 10 ------RapidOther Transit - 988 967 770 1 ------
Subtotal Rapid Transit - 7,328 14,606 13,084 372 ------
Bike Program - 150 550 1,750 5,850 5,450 1,250 - - - - RD-83
Roads RoadsMRN Minor - 1,061 3,185 6,920 19,538 17,000 3,500 - - - -
Subtotal Roads - 1,061 3,185 6,920 19,538 17,000 3,500 - - - -
Bridges - 271 1,632 705 39 746 - - - - -
Marine - 1,036 4,479 6,182 1,154 1,188 - - - - -
IT - 7,239 5,679 5,818 1,010 ------
Total Gross Cost 339,102 442,700 317,827 200,350 161,370 133,763 117,467 82,404 35,699 30,468 4,133
Contribution Fed (52,319) (190,031) (167,173) (121,772) (99,419) (86,084) (86,790) (60,918) (22,494) (19,782) - Prov (17,182) (15,978) (2,002) ------Other (806) ------Total Contribution (70,308) (206,009) (169,175) (121,772) (99,419) (86,084) (86,790) (60,918) (22,494) (19,782) - Total Net Cost 268,794 236,690 148,652 78,577 61,952 47,679 30,677 21,486 13,205 10,686 4,133
61 | P a g e
APPENDIX 6 - TRANSIT SERVICE HOURS SCBCTA FORECASTS OUTLOOK Thousands of Hours 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Conventional Bus 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 4,373 Community Shuttle 555 555 555 555 555 555 555 555 555 555 555 Total Bus 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928 4,928
SkyTrain E&M 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,128 SkyTrain Canada Line 180 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 Total Rapid Transit 1,308 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323
SeaBus 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 West Coast Express 43 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Total Conventional Service 6,289 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304 6,304
Custom 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 Total Service Hours 6,902 6,917 6,917 6,917 6,917 6,917 6,917 6,917 6,917 6,917 6,917 RD-84
62 | P a g e
Appendix 7: Schedule of Transit Fares and Projected Fare Revenues
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 FARE SCHEDULE Conventional Transit Cash Fares 1 zone Adult $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 2 zone Adult $ 3.75 $ 3.75 $ 3.75 $ 3.75 3 zone Adult $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00
Monthly Farecard 1 zone Adult $ 81.00 $ 81.00 $ 100.40 $ 100.40 2 zone Adult $ 110.00 $ 110.00 $ 136.40 $ 136.40 3 zone Adult $ 151.00 $ 151.00 $ 187.20 $ 187.20
Canada Line YVR Add Fare (See Note 2) $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00
Custom Transit Service Cash Fares Within 1 zone $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 Between 2 adjacent zones $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 Between 3 adjacent zones $ 3.75 $ 3.75 $ 3.75 $ 3.75 Between 4 adjacent zones $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00
Monthly Farecard Within 1 zone $ 81.00 $ 81.00 $ 100.40 $ 100.40 Between 2 adjacent zones $ 81.00 $ 81.00 $ 100.40 $ 100.40 Between 3 adjacent zones $ 110.00 $ 110.00 $ 136.40 $ 136.40 Between 4 adjacent zones $ 151.00 $ 151.00 $ 187.20 $ 187.20
West Coast Express (WCE) Service Cash fares - One Way 1 zone Adult $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 2 zone Adult $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 3 zone Adult $ 6.75 $ 6.75 $ 6.75 $ 6.75 4 zone Adult $ 8.25 $ 8.25 $ 8.25 $ 8.25 5 zone Adult $ 11.25 $ 11.25 $ 11.25 $ 11.25 Weekly Pass 1 zone Adult $ 42.25 $ 42.25 $ 52.40 $ 52.40 2 zone Adult $ 42.25 $ 42.25 $ 52.40 $ 52.40 3 zone Adult $ 58.00 $ 58.00 $ 72.00 $ 72.00 4 zone Adult $ 70.50 $ 70.50 $ 87.40 $ 108.36 5 zone Adult $ 97.50 $ 97.50 $ 120.90 $ 120.90 28 Day Pass 1 zone Adult $ 134.75 $ 134.75 $ 167.00 $ 167.00 2 zone Adult $ 134.75 $ 134.75 $ 167.00 $ 167.00 3 zone Adult $ 178.75 $ 178.75 $ 221.60 $ 274.73 4 zone Adult $ 217.00 $ 217.00 $ 269.00 $ 269.00 5 zone Adult $ 298.50 $ 298.50 $ 370.00 $ 370.00
PROJECTED FARE REVENUES (See Note 1) (thousands) Short-term Fare Revenue $ 183,082 $ 194,791 $ 167,926 $ 171,956 Other Fare Revenue $ 243,682 $ 244,742 $ 328,719 $ 343,988 Total $ 426,764 $ 439,533 $ 496,644 $ 515,944
Short-term Fares as Percentage of Total 42.9% 44.3% 33.8% 33.3%
Note 1: In 2013, the average fare is forecasted to increase by an average of 12.5 per cent, as assumed in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan and approved by the Mayors' Council in October 2009. For the purposes of this fare and revenue schedule, the fare rates shown for 2013 are based on no increases to the short-term fares; the 12.5 per cent average increase is derived from increases to long-term fares within the elimination of the discounted fare saver tickets and day passes.
Note 2: Canada Line YVR Add fare is applicable only to outbound travel from YVR.
63 | P a g e
RD-85
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-86 Section E 1.3
Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 22, 2011
To: Regional Planning Committee
From: Jason Smith, Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department
Date: June 29, 2011
Subject: UBC Land Use Plan and Regional Context Statement Process
Recommendations:
That the Board request the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to: a) require UBC to submit any future Regional Context Statements or amendments to Metro Vancouver first and Metro Vancouver will transmit the amendments along with the Chief Planning Officer’s comments to the Province for acceptance;
b) provide an update on timeline and specific steps for the provincial review of local self- government at UBC.
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to update the Regional Planning Committee on the Regional Context Statement process associated with the UBC Land Use Plan and to suggest ways to improve the process in the future.
2. CONTEXT
In June 2010, the Province took over responsibility for local land use planning at UBC from Metro Vancouver. The procedures for amendments to the UBC Land Use Plan were set out in Ministerial Order M229, which was issued in August 2010. In addition to outlining the public hearing process, the Ministerial Order also stipulated that UBC was required to have a Regional Context Statement (RCS) and that prior to the adoption of the RCS and any amendments, comments from the Chief Planning Officer of Metro Vancouver must accompany the package submitted to the Minister for approval.
UBC promptly initiated amendments to the Land Use Plan in June 2010. After two brief rounds of public consultation in the summer and fall, the proposed amendments were referred to a public hearing held on November 30, 2010. A new Regional Context Statement was proposed as part of the changes to the UBC Land Use Plan. Attachment 1 provides a detailed timeline of the UBC Land Use Plan Regional Context Statement process.
Metro Vancouver provided a series of comments throughout the Land Use Plan process, including preliminary comments on the Regional Context Statement. UBC sent the final package of Land Use Plan amendments to the Minister for approval on January 19, 2011.
RD-87 UBC Land Use Plan and Regional Context Statement Process Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 22, 2011 Page 2 of 3
There was a requirement for UBC to provide comments from the Chief Planning Officer on the Regional Context Statement as part of that package, but instead UBC provided a copy of the preliminary comments only to the Minister.
A report containing the Chief Planning Officer’s comments was endorsed by the Metro Vancouver Board on February 25, 2011. However, prior to receiving the Chief Planning Officer’s final comments, on March 1, 2011, the Minister sent a letter to UBC stating that she had approved the changes to the Land Use Plan (Attachment 2).
A letter from Metro Vancouver’s Chief Administrative Officer was sent to the Minister requesting clarification on procedures (Attachment 3). The Deputy Minister responded in a letter dated May 31, 2011 stating that they had been monitoring the proceedings of the Board prior to approving the Land Use Plan and that they were aware that the Board had endorsed the comments prior to approving the Land Use Plan and the Regional Context Statement (Attachment 4). There was a suggestion made in the Deputy Minister’s letter that consideration should be given to how to improve the process so that misunderstandings could be avoided in the future.
Improving the Regional Context Statement Process To avoid misunderstandings in the future about how UBC’s Regional Context Statement is processed, ideally UBC should follow the procedures for Regional Context Statements as outlined in section 866 of the Local Government Act. That procedure requires a Regional Context Statement be sent to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance. In the meantime, before these changes to the Ministerial Order can be made, it is suggested that to avoid confusion, UBC send Regional Context Statements or amendments to the Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver and Metro Vancouver in turn will forward them to the Minister along with the Chief Planning Officer’s comments.
Governance at UBC When the Province took over responsibility for land use planning at UBC, it was made clear that this would be an interim solution and that the Province would seek to address a longer term governance solution for UBC.
The current governance situation does not have local democratic representation overseeing land use planning decisions and the university sometimes finds themselves in a conflict of interest situation in the multiple roles as landowners, developers, and regulators. It also creates many situations where as a result of no clear form of local government for UBC, UBC falls outside of normal policy and procedures that various agencies and governments use when coordinating with local governments. The challenges of the Regional Context Statement process are one example.
The Province has already agreed that it is time to determine whether there is a need for a more representative local government at UBC. In a letter from a previous Minister dated August 9, 2010 the Minister stated: “I can confirm that the Province will be exploring greater local self-government in the area”. Metro Vancouver has not received any further update on the initiatives that the Province may be undertaking.
RD-88 UBC Land Use Plan and Regional Context Statement Process Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 22, 2011 Page 3 of 3
3. ALTERNATIVES
That the Board request the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to: a) require UBC to submit any future Regional Context Statements or amendments to Metro Vancouver first and Metro Vancouver will transmit the amendments along with the Chief Planning Officer’s comments to the Province for acceptance; b) provide an update on timeline and specific steps for the provincial review of local self- government at UBC.
Or
c) direct the Board to take alternate action.
4. CONCLUSION
The ideal solution for avoiding the misunderstanding of how to process a Regional Context Statement from UBC would be to require that UBC follow the procedure that every other jurisdiction in Metro Vancouver is required to follow for the acceptance of Regional Context Statements, which is acceptance by the Metro Vancouver Board. In the interim, it is suggested that UBC forward Regional Context Statement amendments to Metro Vancouver and then Metro Vancouver would forward the amendments and the Chief Planning Officer comments to the Minster.
The Minister is also requested to provide an update on the process to address the governance question to work toward a more accountable form of local government for UBC.
ATTACHMENTS
1 UBC Land Use Plan Timeline (Doc. # 5259491). 2 Correspondence dated March 1, 2011 from Minister Stephanie Cadieux addressed to Stephen Owen, Vice-President, External, Legal and Community Relations, UBC (Doc. # 5238845). 3 Correspondence dated April 28, 2011, titled “Metro Vancouver’s Comments on the Regional Context Statement for UBC’s Land Use Plan” from Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver addressed to The Honourable Ida Chong, Minister, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (Doc. # 5218293). 4 Correspondence dated May 31, 2011 from Deputy Minister Don Fast in response to the April 28th, 2011 correspondence from Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver (Doc. # 5239441).
5262405 RD-89
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-90 ATTACHMENT 1
UBC Land Use Plan Timeline
June 2010 – Provincial government passes legislation Bill 20 which shift responsibility for local land use planning from Metro Vancouver to the Province
June 2010 – Shortly after the passage of Bill 20 UBC announces the initiation of amendments to its Land Use Plan (LUP).
July 15, 2010 – UBC hosts two workshops on the concept of amending its LUP and identifies some broad themes it would like to address. They also posted an online consultation survey that was available for two weeks after the workshops
August 2010 – Minister of Community and Rural Development issues Ministerial Order M229 outlining the public process requirements for amendments to the UBC LUP and the requirements to provide comments from the Chief Planning Officer of Metro Vancouver on any proposed changes to the Regional Context Statement (RCS) that must be contained within the LUP.
September 9, 2010 – Metro Vancouver staff meet with UBC staff to discuss Land Use Plan, discussion focussed on the broad themes discussed at the workshops in July. No proposed amendments to the LUP were presented.
September 27, 2010 – UBC initiates second phase of public consultation with a series of policy papers outlining some of the changes being contemplated for the LUP. No text of the actual amendments were presented or provided as part of this public consultation. UBC sets a deadline of October 15 for any comments.
October 13/14, 2010 – UBC hosts three public events to discuss the policy papers.
October 29, 2010 – Metro Vancouver Board endorses initial comments on UBC policy briefs.
November 12, 2010 – UBC refers the Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver for comment
November 26, 2010 – Metro Vancouver Board endorses comments to be submitted to the UBC LUP public hearing.
November 30, 2010 – UBC hosts a public hearing on its proposed LUP amendments. Metro Vancouver submits comments as part of the public hearing process.
1
RD-91 January 10, 2011 – Letter from CAO to UBC Board of Governors Chair providing preliminary comments on the draft UBC RCS. Letter concludes with “We look forward to receiving your final Regional Context Statement so that we can fulfill our legislative obligations to provide comments from the Chief Planning Officer”.
January 13, 2011 – UBC Board of Governors receives final UBC staff reports on LUP amendments, including a report on Metro Vancouver’s preliminary RCS comments. Passes a resolution to submit amendments to the Minister for final acceptance.
January 17, 2011 – Letter from UBC VP External to Metro Vancouver CAO acknowledging January 10th letter and explaining the changes that the UBC Board made to the RCS and LUP. No mention that the LUP was being sent to the Minister for final approval with preliminary RCS comments only. This was not consistent with requirements of M229.
January 19, 2011 – UBC sends the LUP amendments and supporting reports to the Minister for approval.
February 25, 2011 – Metro Vancouver Board endorses Chief Planning Officers Final Comments on the UBC RCS.
March 1, 2011 – Minister, in response to UBC’s January 19, 2011 request, approves the amendments to the UBC LUP.
April 28, 2011 – Letter sent from CAO to Minister requesting that changes asked for in the final comments be made.
May 31, 2011 – Letter from Deputy Minister Don Fast explaining how the Minister decided to approve the UBC Land Use Plan and asking for suggestions on how to improve the RCS process.
5259491
2
RD-92 RD-93 RD-94 RD-95 RD-96 RD-97 RD-98 RD-99 RD-100 Section E 1.4
Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 22, 2011
To: Regional Planning Committee
From: Jason Smith, Regional Planner, Policy and Planning Department
Date: July 13, 2011
Subject: Village of Belcarra Regional Context Statement
Recommendation:
That the Board accept the Village of Belcarra’s Regional Context Statement.
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to request that the Board consider for acceptance the Village of Belcarra’s Regional Context Statement in accordance with section 866 of the Local Government Act.
2. CONTEXT
The Village of Belcarra has developed a new Official Community Plan (OCP) and it includes a revised Regional Context Statement (Attachment). Section 866 of the Local Government Act requires that municipalities include a Regional Context Statement in their OCP. A Regional Context Statement must identify the relationship between the Regional Growth Strategy and the municipality’s OCP and, if applicable, how the OCP will be made consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy over time. The Village of Belcarra’s OCP Bylaw, which contains the Regional Context Statement, received third reading on June 27, 2011. The Regional Context Statement was received by Metro Vancouver on June 28, 2011. Metro Vancouver is required to respond within 120 days and therefore Metro Vancouver must respond by October 27, 2011.
Anticipating the adoption of the new Regional Growth Strategy by the spring of 2011, the Village of Belcarra developed their revised Regional Context Statement to respond to the new Regional Growth Strategy. The Regional Context Statement is evaluated in relation to the goals and strategies of the new Regional Growth Strategy.
Create A Compact Urban Area As a semi-rural community on the edge of the region, the relevant strategy for the Village of Belcarra under the goal to ‘Create a Compact Urban Area’ is Strategy 1.3 – Protect Rural areas from urban development. The Village of Belcarra is located outside of the Urban Containment Boundary and the Regional Context Statement states that the residential areas will not connect with the regional sewer system. The parts of Belcarra that are intended for some form of development are designated as Rural in the Regional Context Statement. Under the Livable Region Strategic Plan, the areas now identified as Rural, were identified as Urban.
RD-101 Village of Belcarra Regional Context Statement Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 22, 2011 Page 2 of 3
The lands designated Rural in the Regional Context Statement are consistent with those shown in Map 5 of the Regional Growth Strategy. The Village of Belcarra specifies the allowable densities in rural areas as between 1 unit per 0.5-1 acre. This type of density is compatible with on-site sewer servicing.
The population projections in the Regional Growth Strategy for the Village of Belcarra envision a population capacity of 1000 by 2041 and this is reflected in the Regional Context Statement. The Regional Context Statement states the number of households in 2006 as 296 and projects a growth rate of 1-2 households per year. This rate of growth is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.
Support a Sustainable Economy The Village of Belcarra does not contain any land that is designated in the Regional Growth Strategy as Agriculture, Industrial or Mixed Employment and therefore none of the strategies associated with those designations are applicable to the Village of Belcarra.
Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change Impacts The Village of Belcarra has designated Belcarra Regional Park and Indian Arm Provincial Park as being Conservation and Recreation in the Regional Context Statement. This designation of Conservation and Recreation Lands is consistent with those shown in Map 8 of the Regional Growth Strategy. The policies associated with these two parks are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.
There is a reference in the Regional Context Statement to an existing OCP policy supporting a new road through Belcarra Regional Park in order to service properties in Belcarra North and the former Camp Howdy property. The road traverses lands within the City of Port Moody. Acceptance of the Regional Context Statement should not be interpreted as Metro Vancouver support for the construction of this new road. Suitable language is contained in the RCS to ensure that the decision-making process concerning a new road and possible alignments involves all affected parties.
Section 4 of the Belcarra Official Community Plan addresses climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases; this is referenced in the Regional Context Statement and the policies are generally consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and will contribute toward the meeting of regional targets.
The Regional Context Statement also references policies to minimize risks from natural hazards and how ecologically important areas will be managed.
The Village of Belcarra’s Regional Context Statement is generally consistent with the policies and goals for the strategy to Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change Impacts.
Develop Complete Communities The Village of Belcarra is a semi-rural community on the edge of the region and therefore there is limited ability to realize many of the complete community policies contained in the Regional Growth Strategy. For this reason Belcarra is not included in the future housing demand estimate tables within the Regional Growth Strategy. Given this context, most of the Goal 4 policies are not applicable to the Village of Belcarra. Nonetheless, the Village of Belcarra does commit in its Official Community Plan to exploring alternative forms of housing, such as accessory suites, duplexes and accessory residential buildings which would help to provide more affordable forms of housing.
RD-102
Village of Belcarra Regional Context Statement Regional Planning Committee Meeting Date: July 22, 2011 Page 3 of 3
Support Sustainable Transportation Choices Given its location in the region and small population base, transportation choices are limited. OCP policies referenced in the Regional Context Statement cover the development of hiking and bicycle trails, continued support of public transit service and support for car sharing and car pooling. These are all consistent with the policies of the Regional Growth Strategy and are appropriate given the context for the Village of Belcarra.
3. ALTERNATIVES
That the Board may: a) accept the Village of Belcarra’s Regional Context Statement [Recommended]; or b) not accept the Village of Belcarra’s Regional Context Statement.
4. CONCLUSION
The Village of Belcarra is a semi-rural community on the edge of the region that only contemplates a very limited amount of growth in the next 30 years. This is reflected in their new OCP and accompanying Regional Context Statement. The Regional Context Statement has been reviewed in relation to the new Regional Growth Strategy and in Metro Vancouver’s staff judgment is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Therefore, it is recommended that Metro Vancouver accept the Village of Belcarra’s Regional Context Statement.
ATTACHMENT
Village of Belcarra Regional Context Statement (Doc. # 5263772).
5297439 RD-103
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-104 5.0 Regional Context Statement
Section 866 of the Local Government Act requires an OCP to 5.1 Create a Compact Urban Area include a regional context statement. For Belcarra, the purpose of the regional context statement is to demonstrate The RGS is intended to concentrate growth in compact communities the ways that the OCP supports the fundamental strategies that provide for a variety of housing choices and offer good access of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). This is Metro to employment opportunities, amenities, and services. Due to its Vancouver’s regional growth plan. It has five fundamental isolated location and lack of available infrastructure, Belcarra does goals: not offer these opportunities, and as such, other than the regional a) create a compact urban area; and provincial park areas, it has been designated RURAL in the b) support a sustainable economy; RGS as is indicated in Figure 1 – Regional Land Use Designations c) protect the region’s environment and respond Map. Therefore, this particular goal of the RGS while supported by to climate change impacts and natural hazard the Village is not particularly relevant to Belcarra. risks; d) develop complete communities; and Consistent with the RURAL land use policies in the RGS, the e) support sustainable transportation choices. Village’s residential areas will not be connected to the region’s Because of its small size and limited opportunities for sewer system. Densities will be limited to a scale and form that are growth, the Village has a limited ability to influence the compatible with the Village’s semi rural character. Pursuant to attainment of regional objectives. Nevertheless, Belcarra’s Policy 3.1.1, densities could range from 1 unit per 0.5 acre – 1.0 OCP does take steps that are consistent with the acre. The potential development of the “Camp Howdy” land would fundamental regional strategies. be in the 1 unit per 1 acre range which is at a lower density than the Village’s established residential areas.
At time of OCP introduction, the Livable Region Strategic RD-105 Plan (1996) is in legal effect. However adoption procedures In 2006, Belcarra had 676 people in 296 private homes. Because of for the Regional Growth Strategy (Metro Vancouver 2040: existing conditions and severe constraints in its land base and Shaping Our Future Bylaw 1136, 2011) have been initiated. topography, there are limitations to growth. The RGS anticipates Given the near simultaneous timing of both the Village’s OCP that by 2041 the population would reach approximately 1000. Over and the Regional Growth Strategy, this Regional Context the next 5 to 10 year time frame, the number of additional Statement has been structured according to the directions of households in Belcarra is projected to increase at 1 - 2 per year. If the proposed Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future however the Camp Howdy land is developed, this annual increase (Bylaw 1136, 2011). This has been done on the would be higher depending upon market absorption and project understanding that the municipal requirements laid out in timing. As such, the OCP accommodates very little growth and is Bylaw 1136, 2011 are more comprehensive and detailed that therefore consistent with that regional population estimate. those of the Livable Region Strategic Plan (1996), and that municipal consistency with the 2011 proposed Regional According to the 2006 Census, there were about 410 people in the Growth Strategy will also mean the Village meets the labour force, only 10% of which work within the community, most requirements expected under the Livable Region Strategic of whom are in engaged in home businesses. Policy 3.1.2(b) Plan (1996) in the event that the 1996 Plan remains in effect. supports home based businesses.
BYLAW 435, 2011 - Village of Belcarra Official Community Plan Page 14 5.0 Regional Context Statement
5.2 Support a Sustainable Economy The RGS protects the land base and transportation corridors needed to foster a vibrant regional economy. Industrial and agricultural areas are protected and commerce is directed towards the Urban Centers. Again due to its isolated location in the region, Belcarra is not is a position to contribute to a flourishing regional economy but does support the general direction of the RGS. Policy 3.1.2(b) speaks to supporting home based businesses.
5.3 Protecting the Region’s Environment This particular goal focuses on the region’s conservation and recreational land including providing connectivity. It also is intended to encourage a land use and transportation pattern that reduces energy consumption and greenhouse gases and is able to withstand climate change impacts and the risk of natural hazards.
Within the Village of Belcarra, Figure 1 identifies the following areas designated Conservation and Recreation on the Regional Land Use Map: a) Belcarra Regional Park; and RD-106 b) Indian Arm Provincial Park
Within the Official Community Plan, the following land use designations have been applied to these areas to reflect the Conservation and Recreation land use designation: a) Belcarra Regional Park – Regional Park (RP); and b) Indian Arm Provincial Park – Provincial Park (PP).
Policy 3.1.4 supports the Belcarra Regional Park Detailed Land Use Plan which is a detailed set of land use policies for the major portions of Belcarra Regional Park.
Policy 3.3.1(e) supports new public road access through a portion of Belcarra Regional Park, but recognizes that the road will not be constructed until agreements are entered into amongst the Village, Metro Vancouver, Port Moody and the Crown that address such
BYLAW 435, 2011 - Village of Belcarra Official Community Plan Page 15 5.0 Regional Context Statement issues as: road alignment, road design, ownership, and operation and However, the Official Community Plan does speak to a different maintenance. type of complete community for Belcarra, being a community that blends in with its natural settings, a community that values its Policies 3.5 and 3.6 speak to environmental protection and hazard viewscapes and open spaces, a community that promotes a friendly land management. While mapping has not been completed, the social spirit and volunteerism, and a community that prides itself in policy framework requires new development to address these being financially sustainable. matters.
Section 4 specifically addresses greenhouse gas emission reduction 5.5 Increasing Transportation Choice and identifies a number of initiatives that Belcarra can pursue in an The RGS seeks to co-ordinate land use and transportation that will attempt to reduce energy consumption and emissions. result in the efficient movement of people and goods and will encourage transit, cycling, and walking. 5.4 Develop Complete Communities Given the Village's isolated location, these principles are not fully The RGS encourages municipalities to increase community diversity, applicable, and therefore alternative forms of transportation are not create opportunities for residents to live and work in the same a key element of the Official Community Plan. That being said, community, provide for a wide range of housing types, create social, Policy 3.3.2 speaks to bicycle and path networks, Policy 3.3.5 cultural and commercial opportunities for its residents, and promote supports continued transit use, and Section 4.2.2 speaks to mixed use activity centers. improving transit ridership, and encouraging car pooling and car sharing co-operatives. Given the relative isolated geographic location of Belcarra, its desire
RD-107 to remain as a semi-rural community, and its lack of available infrastructure, the Official Community Plan does not provide the creation of a complete community as envisioned by the RGS.
BYLAW 435, 2011 - Village of Belcarra Official Community Plan Page 16
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-108 Section ? ?.?
Section E 2.1
GVRD Board Meeting: July 29, 2011
To: Board of Directors
From: Intergovernmental Committee
Date: July 20, 2011
Subject: Metro Vancouver’s External Board Appointments
Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation: That the Board support term limits of a maximum of 6 years or 2 consecutive terms, whichever is greater, for Metro Vancouver appointees to the Boards of Directors for the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.
At its July 20, 2011 meeting, the Intergovernmental Committee considered the attached report titled “Metro Vancouver’s External Board Appointments”, dated June 7, 2011. Members spoke in favour of a maximum of 6 years or 2 consecutive terms limits and subsequently passed the resolution as presented above.
Attachment: “Metro Vancouver’s External Board Appointments”, dated June 7, 2011
5315511 RD-109
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-110 ATTACHMENT
Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: July 20, 2011
To: Intergovernmental Committee
From: Simon Cumming, External and Intergovernmental Relations Division Manager
Date: June 7, 2011
Subject: Metro Vancouver’s External Board Appointments
Recommendation:
That the Metro Vancouver Board support the term limits for Board appointees that are currently utilized by the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority: maximum 9 years, maximum 6 years, and maximum 9 years, respectively.
a) PURPOSE
To provide information to the Intergovernmental Committee on the current status of the various Metro Vancouver appointees to the Boards of Directors of the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. b) CONTEXT
At the April 6 closed meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee, staff was requested to “…prepare a report on the advisability and feasibility of limiting outside non-Board member appointments to two terms or six years, whichever is longer, and details of the current terms for Metro Vancouver external appointments.”
Metro Vancouver currently maintains delegated authority to appoint or participate in the appointment process for Board Directors to three external organizations: the Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR), the BC Ferry Authority (BCFA), and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA).
For the YVR appointment, Metro Vancouver is one of eight “nominating entities” that have the right to directly recommend individuals to serve on the YVR Board of Directors; regarding the BCFA, the Coastal Ferry Act designates the Regional Districts of Sunshine Coast, Metro Vancouver and Squamish-Lillooet as the “Southern Mainland Appointment Area” for the purposes of nominating individuals for appointment to the Authority’s Board of Directors; and in the case of the VFPA, the Authority’s Letters Patent designate 16 local governments as the Appointing Body for a municipal Board representative, a list that includes Belcarra, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Langley Township, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, the City of North Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Richmond, Surrey, Vancouver and West Vancouver. For at least the last two municipal VFPA appointments, these area municipalities have delegated the recruitment and selection process for the VFPA local government appointee to Metro Vancouver’s Port Cities Committee, given the close alignment between the designated 5238080 RD-111 Metro Vancouver’s External Board Appointments Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Page 2 of 3
communities that comprise the Appointing Body and the geographical representation of the Committee members.
The current Board term for Metro Vancouver/municipal appointments to each of these external organizations is three years, although the precise rotation of the three varies slightly. The present Metro Vancouver appointee to the YVR Board of Directors, Mr. Wilson Parasiuk, began his second three-year term as of May 2011; the initial 3-year tenure for the current Southern Mainland Appointee Area nominee to the BCFA Board, Mr. Bohdan Bodnar, began as of March, 2011; and the Port Cities Committee recently recommended Penny Priddy of Surrey as the municipal representative to the VFPA Board for a three-year term, effective June 1 2011. .
Current MV External Board Appointees
ORGANIZATION APPOINTEE START DATE END DATE TERM # Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR) Parasiuk, Wilson May, 2011 May, 2014 2 BC Ferry Authority (BCFA) Bodnar, Bohdan March, 2011 March, 2014 1 Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) Priddy, Penny June, 2011 June 2014 1
The current bylaws of both the Vancouver Airport Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority limit tenures for Board Directors to a maximum of 3 terms of up to 3 years each, for a total of nine years. The BC Ferry Authority allows for up to 2 consecutive 3-year terms for board Directors, for a maximum tenure of 6 years.
Instituting Board term limits can be undertaken for any number of reasons, including: · The desire to inject new ideas and challenge thinking at the Board level; · The desire to avoid creating an atmosphere in which operating procedures or Board viewpoints become stale; · The desire to avoid “burning out” Board members who serve more than 2-3 terms.
Conversely, some organizations choose not to impose official Board limits, and for the following reasons: · High Board turnover rates can sometimes sacrifice organizational memory; · In an increasingly complex world, it can take some Directors a number of years to be able to fully contribute at the Board level, and limiting Board tenures can create a situation in which the Board is constantly trying to bring its members up to an appropriate level of competence and ability.
The particular circumstances under which Metro Vancouver is mandated to participate in the Board selection process for the three external bodies referenced in this report would necessitate communication with a number of external organizations to reach consensus on imposing term limits on Board appointments: the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and the Sunshine Coast Regional District for the BC Ferry Authority Board nominee, and the sixteen local governments that comprise the Appointing Body for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Board nominee. Regardless, there is nothing in the Letters Patent or the enabling legislation for any of the organizations to which Metro Vancouver participates in the Board selection process that limits Metro Vancouver’s ability to negotiate with those external groups to determine appropriate term limits. Further, and given the relative complexity of corporate operations and governance at each of the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and the importance of the issues that those individual Boards face in providing strategic direction to those organizations, it would on balance seem appropriate and prudent for Metro Vancouver to maintain some flexibility in managing the Board appointments for which it is currently accountable. Metro RD-112 Metro Vancouver’s External Board Appointments Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Page 3 of 3
Vancouver’s adherence to the term limits that are currently in place for each of these organizations, rather than imposing its own, gives Metro Vancouver appointees the time and necessary exposure to the key issues to develop detailed knowledge of corporate operations and their impact on the region, and will help them properly present Metro Vancouver’s interests as a Board Director.
3. ALTERNATIVES
The Metro Vancouver Board could: a) Support term limits of a maximum of 6 years or 2 consecutive terms, whichever is greater, for Metro Vancouver appointments to the Boards of Directors for the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. b) Support the term limits for Board appointments that are currently utilized by the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority: maximum 9 years, maximum 6 years, and maximum 9 years, respectively. (recommended option).
4. CONCLUSION
Metro Vancouver appointees to external bodies play an important role in ensuring that the strategic issues that Metro Vancouver faces are appropriately presented and considered, and give Metro Vancouver an enhanced opportunity to appropriately participate in the governance of those organizations. Supporting the term limits that are currently in place for the Vancouver Airport Authority, the BC Ferry Authority and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority - maximum 9 years, maximum 6 years, and maximum 9 years, respectively – gives Metro Vancouver the opportunity to develop appropriate knowledge, skills and ability in its Board appointees, and provides an appropriate level of flexibility in managing its Board appointments to external organizations.
RD-113
- This Page Left BLANK Intentionally -
RD-114 Section E 2.2
GVRD Board Meeting: July 29, 2011
To: Board of Directors
From: Intergovernmental Committee
Date: July 20, 2011
Subject: Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation
Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) request the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development: i) to make such adjustments to legislation and regulations as are necessary to allow for annual adjustments based on BC Stats population figures to the number of directors positions and the vote allocation that each member local government and First Nation receives on the Metro Vancouver Boards; ii) to make such adjustments to legislation and regulations as are necessary to increase the maximum number of votes a Metro Vancouver board director can hold from 5 to 100; iii) to amend the Greater Vancouver Regional District Letters Patent to change the population deemed to be the voting unit from 20,000 to 1,000; and b) permit directors of each of the GVWD, GVS&DD, and GVRD Boards to remain seated at the table during a District meeting to which they are not a member, but not to participate in debate.
At its July 20, 2011 meeting, the Intergovernmental Committee considered the attached report titled “Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation”, dated December 3, 2010. Members agreed to put forward to the Board for consideration the recommendation from the Intergovernmental Sub-committee on Voting Allocation, as presented above.
Attachment: “Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation”, dated December 3, 2010
5316094 RD-115
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-116 5.1
Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: January 18, 2011
To: Intergovernmental Committee
From: Intergovernmental Sub-committee on Voting Allocation
Date: December 3, 2010
Subject: Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation
Intergovernmental Sub-committee on reviewing the use of BC STATS population figures for determining number of directors and voting allocation recommendation: That the Board: a) request the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development: i) to make such adjustments to legislation and regulations as are necessary to allow for annual adjustments based on BC Stats population figures to the number of directors positions and the vote allocation that each member local government and First Nation receives on the Metro Vancouver Boards; ii) to make such adjustments to legislation and regulations as are necessary to increase the maximum number of votes a Metro Vancouver board director can hold from 5 to 100; iii) to amend the Greater Vancouver Regional District Letters Patent to change the population deemed to be the voting unit from 20,000 to 1,000; and b) permit directors of each of the GVWD, GVS&DD, and GVRD Boards to remain seated at the table during a District meeting to which they are not a member, but not to participate in debate.
At its December 3, 2010 meeting, the Intergovernmental Sub-committee that was established to review the use of BC Stats Population figures for determining number of directors and voting allocation, considered the attached report titled “Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation”, dated November 9, 2010.
In response to options presented and the City of Surrey’s request to use BC statistics for voting allocation on the Metro Vancouver Board, members discussed: · inequity in voting strength for low versus high-growth municipalities and options for addressing it · frequency and significance of weighted votes · accuracy and timing of receipt of BC statistics · potential impacts to voting strength and board governance resulting from increases in Board membership · length of debate periods and participation by non-voting members
4647742 RD-117 Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation Intergovernmental Committee Meeting: January 18, 2011 Page 2 of 2
The Sub-committee concluded its review by recommending: · the use of BC STATS population figures for establishing the number of directors and voting allocation on the board; · changing the voting unit from 20,000 to 1,000 and the number of votes a director can hold from 5 to 100 to reduce the voting strength inequity between smaller and larger sized members as shown in Table 1; · debate at the board be limited to the directors serving on the respective board. The amendments are presented above in underline style.
Members agreed that future consideration should be given to board size resulting from increasing population and the affect on board governance.
Attachment: Report dated November 9, 2010, titled “Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation”. (Orbit # 4566200)
RD-118 Table 1
Impact of Changing Voting Unit and/or Number of Votes a Director Holds
Voting Unit 20,000 1,000
Maximum Votes a Director Holds 5 100
Current Proposed Director Voting % Director Voting % Member Population* Positions Strength Vote Positions Strength Vote
Abbotsford 124,121 2 7 5.6% 2 125 5.5%
Anmore 1,785 1 1 0.8% 1 2 0.1%
Belcarra 676 1 1 0.8% 1 1 0.0%
Bowen Island 3,362 1 1 0.8% 1 4 0.2%
Burnaby 202,799 3 11 8.8% 3 203 9.0%
Coquitlam 114,589 2 6 4.8% 2 115 5.1%
Delta 97,402 1 5 4.0% 1 98 4.3%
Electoral Area A 11,099 1 1 0.8% 1 12 0.5%
Langley City 23,606 1 2 1.6% 1 24 1.1%
Langley Township 94,252 1 5 4.0% 1 95 4.2%
Lions Bay 1,328 1 1 0.8% 1 2 0.1%
Maple Ridge 68,949 1 4 3.2% 1 69 3.1%
New Westminster 58,549 1 3 2.4% 1 59 2.6%
North Vancouver City 45,734 1 3 2.4% 1 46 2.0% North Vancouver District 84,407 1 5 4.0% 1 85 3.8%
Pitt Meadows 15,869 1 1 0.8% 1 16 0.7%
Port Coquitlam 52,692 1 3 2.4% 1 53 2.4%
Port Moody 27,512 1 2 1.6% 1 28 1.2%
Richmond 174,461 2 9 7.2% 2 175 7.8%
Surrey 395,085 4 20 16.0% 4 396 17.6%
Tsawwassen 674 1 1 0.8% 1 1 0.0%
Vancouver 579,412 6 29 23.2% 6 580 25.7%
West Vancouver 44,258 1 3 2.4% 1 45 2.0%
White Rock 18,755 1 1 0.8% 1 19 0.8%
Totals 37 125 100.0% 37 2253 100.0%
*Based on 2006 Federal Census
4647742 RD-119
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-120 5.1 Attachment
Intergovernmental Committee Subcommittee Meeting Date: December 3, 2010
To: Intergovernmental Committee Subcommittee
From: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department
Date: November 9, 2010
Subject: Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation
At its September 2, 2010 meeting, the Intergovernmental Committee considered the attached report titled “Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation” dated July 13, 2010.
Discussion ensued about the following · Lateness of census figures not fairly representing population changes · Population growth increasing the size of the board · Ability to change the weighted voting structure · Benefit of a larger board in terms of more effective outcomes · Impact of voting strength of large and small communities
Committee subsequently referred the report back to staff, with the assistance of a small subcommittee of committee members, for further analysis, and report back to the Intergovernmental committee as soon as possible. A presentation will be made at the meeting to stimulate discussion on board governance.
Attachment: Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation (Orbit 4611132) .
4566200
RD-121
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-122 Attachment
Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: September 2, 2010
To: Intergovernmental Committee
From: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department
Date: July 13, 2010
Subject: Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation
Recommendation: That the Board: a) request the Ministry of Community and Rural Development to make such adjustments to legislation and regulations as are necessary to allow for annual adjustments based on BC Stats population figures to the number of director positions and the vote allocation that each member local government and First Nation receives on the Metro Vancouver Board; and b) provide direction on board size and voting weight.
1. PURPOSE
This report considers the implications of annually adjusting director positions and voting allocations for members on the Metro Vancouver board using BC Stats population figures instead of federal census population figures. As a consequence of population growth, it also considers the question of the possible effect of increased board size on board governance
2. CONTEXT
Voting allocation and director positions for members on the board are currently adjusted every five years based on population figures released from the federal census. At its June 25th meeting the board considered correspondence from the City of Surrey (Attachment 1) requesting voting allocations and director positions be adjusted annually and be determined by population figures from BC Stats. The request is based on the principle of equitable representation based on current population figures for member municipalities on the MV board.
The province has advised the City of Surrey that it is prepared, subject to receiving such a request from the Metro Vancouver board, to consider voting allocations and director positions be adjusted annually and be determined by population figures from BC Stats. Staff was subsequently directed to report on implications for doing so.
Determining Number of Directors and Votes Representation on the regional district board balances the need for representation by population and representation by community. This is accomplished by a combination of the number of directors and number of votes.1
1 Primer on Regional Districts in British Columbia, British Columbia Ministry of Community Services 2006 (Page 11)
4206871 RD-123 Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: September 2, 2010 Page 2 of 4
The Metro Vancouver board comprises 37 directors from 24 political units: 22 municipalities (one of which is a member for parks purposes only), one electoral area, and one First Nation. Metro Vancouver directors have one vote for every 20,000* population in their political unit up to a maximum of five votes per director. The board has an overall voting strength of 125 votes.
*20,000 is the ‘voting unit’ specified in Letters Patent.
The equation for calculating representation is: Population ¸ Voting Unit = Number of Votes (rounded up if required) Votes ¸ 5 = Number of Directors (rounded up if required)
For example, the population of the City of Vancouver is 579,412. When divided by the voting unit of 20,000, the number of votes Vancouver has is 29 (rounded). When divided by 5, the number of directors Vancouver has is 6 (rounded). Votes have to be distributed as equally as possible, and no director can have more than 5 votes. Therefore, in Vancouver five directors have five votes each; one director has four votes.
The Local Government Act specifies population is established by census. The federal census is conducted every five years. The population figures take effect in the year following the federal census when the figures have been certified by the province, generally in early fall. Based on the current policy the next adjustment to director positions and voting allocation will be made in 2012, the year following the 2011 federal census.
Using BC Stats as the basis for determining director positions and voting allocation As noted in the correspondence from the City of Surrey, with the federal census being conducted every five years, it is acknowledged as undercounting the true population. Its population figures are not current and become progressively less current as time passes between the dates that the census was taken and adjustments to voting allocation and director positions. The inequities with this approach are particularly evident for high growth cities in the region, such as Surrey, which experiences annual growth in the range of 10,000 people a year. Using BC Stats annual population figures will reflect the current population growth of members and provide accurate representation in voting allocation and director positions.
The down side of making annual adjustments would be the recurring changes to the board in voting allocation and/or director positions. There may be a loss of continuity and stability on the board which may impede the decision making process. This is minimized now by the timing of the federal census being conducted every five years. New members would have to be brought up to speed quickly to effectively exercise their duties.
Nonetheless, the impact of making annual adjustments to the board may be minimal when annual growth in directors and votes is considered. Attachment 2 shows an estimated increase of one member on the board until 2013, and two members on the board from 2013 until year 2019.
Timing A potential challenge regarding timing may result when an increase in population would require the addition of one or more members to the board. The province has advised that BC Stats population figures will be available in December. Given inaugural meetings are held in December, there may not be sufficient time to complete the adjustment process for the inaugural meeting. Adjustments would therefore have to be made in the New Year.
RD-124 Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: September 2, 2010 Page 3 of 4
A delay in receiving the population figures may cause setbacks for the board chair in establishing standing committees and appointing members. This process generally occurs in early January. Full knowledge of board membership is required in making committee appointments. In the years that director positions increase, there may be a delay in establishing standing committees and appointing members.
Potential effect of board size on governance A related matter facing the board is its size and whether board performance and efficiency of board governance is at risk. As noted in Attachment 2, over the next ten years the board can expect an estimated increase in directors to 45 and voting strength to 163; this does not include additional First Nations. If the board deems board performance and efficiency of board governance is at risk, due to an increase in board size, board size can be stabilized by adjusting the equation for representation.
Inequity between large and small members Under current policy, with a voting unit of 20,000, the member with the smallest population holds one vote and the member with the largest population, having an estimated 857 times the population of the smallest member, holds 36 votes. The smaller members therefore have relatively stronger voting strength by population than the larger, but larger members have the greater number of votes based on population. The disproportionate weight given to smaller members can be addressed by decreasing the voting unit.
Per capita inequity If the voting unit was decreased to 5,000, for example, the member with population less than 5,000 would still have one vote, but the per capita inequity would be reduced. To maintain neutrality on board size, a corresponding increase in the maximum number of votes a director holds, to 20, would be required. Applying this equation to the current board results in 37 directors and a voting strength of 458.
Board size To restrict the size of the board, the equation for representation would have to be adjusted by decreasing the voting unit and increasing the maximum number of votes a director can hold. If the voting unit was decreased to 5,000 and the maximum number of votes a director holds was increased to 35, for example, the number of directors on the current board would decrease to 30 (from 37), and voting strength would increase to 458 (from 125).
Refer to Attachment 3 for details on the examples given above.
Implications to the Province The five year federal census has been the accepted single source for maintaining a consistent representational approach for all local governments throughout the province. If the BC Stats annual adjustment method were to be adopted, the province would have to determine whether it would apply only for Metro Vancouver or all regional districts. Regulations related to the Metro Vancouver board will have to be adjusted and submitted to Cabinet for consideration. If the application is restricted to Metro Vancouver, a potential consequence is that other regional districts may wish the same concession.
3. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives for the basis for determining number of directors and votes: a) Maintain the status quo whereby director positions and voting allocation is based on federal census population figures made available every five years.
RD-125 Use of BC STATS Population Figures for Determining Number of Directors and Voting Allocation Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: September 2, 2010 Page 4 of 4 b) Request the province to consider making changes to regulations related to Metro Vancouver to allow director positions and voting allocation to be based on BC Stats population figures so that adjustments can be made annually. This is the recommended option.
Alternatives for addressing board size and voting weight a) Staff seeks direction on this matter.
Any proposed change(s) will require provincial changes to legislation and regulations.
4. CONCLUSION
This report responds to board direction to report on implications of using BC Stats population figures to annually determine voting allocation and the number of directors. In addition, given board size is expected to increase over the coming years due to increases in population, it considers the question of board size and equity between large and small members.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence from the City of Surrey Re: Annual Adjustments to Voting Allocations and 5.X Director Positions on the Metro Vancouver Board Using BC Stats Population Figures 2. Estimated Growth in Number of Votes and Directors to Year 2020 Attachment 2 3. Impact of Changing Voting Unit and/or Number of Votes a Director Holds
RD-126 Attachment 1
RD-127
RD-128 Attachment 2
Estimated Growth in Number of Votes and Directors to Year 2020
Political Unit 2010 Directors 2011 Directors 2012 Directors 2013 Directors 2014 Directors 2015 Directors 2016 Directors 2017 Directors 2018 Directors 2019 Directors 2020 Directors 2010 Votes 2011 Votes 2012 Votes 2013 Votes 2014 Votes 2015 Votes 2016 Votes 2017 Votes 2018 Votes 2019 Votes 2020 Votes
Abbotsford 7 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 9 2 9 2 Anmore 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Belcarra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bowen Island 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Burnaby 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 Coquitlam 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 8 2 8 2 Delta 5 1 5 1 5 1 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 Electoral Area A 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Langley City 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Langley Township 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 7 2 7 2 Lions Bay 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maple Ridge 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 New Westminster 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
North Vancouver 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 RD-129 City North Vancouver 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 District Pit Meadows 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Port Coquitlam 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 Port Moody 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 Richmond 10 2 11 3 11 3 11 3 11 3 11 3 11 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 Surrey 24 5 24 5 25 5 26 6 26 6 27 6 28 6 29 6 30 6 31 7 32 7 Tsawwassen 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vancouver 32 7 33 7 33 7 33 7 34 7 34 7 35 7 35 7 35 7 36 8 36 8 West Vancouver 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 White Rock 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Total for Metro 138 40 141 41 143 41 145 43 146 43 149 43 153 43 156 43 157 43 162 45 163 45
Estimates are based on average growth rates from 1996 – 2006 from BC Stats population figures for individual municipalities.
- This Page Left BLANK Intentionally - RD-130 Attachment 3
Impact of Changing Voting Unit and/or Number of Votes a Director Holds
Member Population Current Status Per Capita Inequity Board Size based on Voting Unit 20,000 Decrease Voting Unit to Decrease Voting Unit to 2006 Maximum Votes a 5,000 5,000 Federal Director Holds is 5 Increase Number of Increase Number of Census Votes a Director Holds Votes a Director Holds to 20 to 35 Director Voting Director Voting Director Voting Positions Strength Positions Strength Positions Strength Abbotsford 124,121 2 7 2 25 1 25 Anmore 1,785 1 1 1 1 1 1 Belcarra 676 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bowen Island 3,362 1 1 1 1 1 1 Burnaby 202,799 3 11 3 41 2 41 Coquitlam 114,589 2 6 2 23 1 23 Delta 97,402 1 5 1 20 1 20 Electoral Area A 11,099 1 1 1 3 1 3 Langley City 23,606 1 2 1 5 1 5 Langley Township 94,252 1 5 1 19 1 19 Lions Bay 1,328 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maple Ridge 68,949 1 4 1 14 1 14 New Westminster 58,549 1 3 1 12 1 12 North Vancouver City 45,734 1 3 1 10 1 10 North Vancouver District 84,407 1 5 1 17 1 17 Pitt Meadows 15,869 1 1 1 4 1 4 Port Coquitlam 52,692 1 3 1 11 1 11 Port Moody 27,512 1 2 1 6 1 6 Richmond 174,461 2 9 2 35 1 35 Surrey 395,085 4 20 4 79 3 79 Tsawwassen 674 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vancouver 579,412 6 29 6 116 4 116 West Vancouver 44,258 1 3 1 9 1 9 White Rock 18,755 1 1 1 4 1 4 Totals 37 125 37 458 30 458
RD-131
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
RD-132 Section E 2.3
Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: July 20, 2011
To: Intergovernmental Committee
From: Lois E. Jackson, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board Roger Quan, Division Manager, Policy and Planning Department
Date: June 21, 2011
Subject: Resilient Cities 2011 Congress and Mayors Adaptation Forum, Bonn, Germany, June 3-5, 2011
Recommendation:
That the Board receive for information the report dated June 21, 2011, titled “Resilient Cities 2011 Congress and Mayors Adaptation Forum, Bonn, Germany, June 3-5, 2011”.
1. PURPOSE
To report on the Resilient Cities 2011, 2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change, and Mayors Adaptation Forum held June 3 - 5, 2011 in Bonn, Germany.
2. CONTEXT
ICLEI is an international association of local governments and national/regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. ICLEI provides technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level.
In April 2009 the Board identified ICLEI as one of four international organizations for collaboration under Metro Vancouver’s International Engagement Program. In April 2011, the Board authorized the Chair to appoint a Metro Vancouver Director to participate in the ICLEI Resilient Cities 2011 Congress and Mayors Adaptation Forum in Bonn, Germany, June 3 – 5, 2011. The Congress was attended by about 600 delegates. Lois E. Jackson, Board Chair, and Roger Quan, Air Quality Policy and Management Division Manager represented Metro Vancouver at the Congress.
Resilient Cities The program for Resilient Cities (Attachment 1) included seven parallel streams: 1. Urban risk assessment: methods and tools; 2. Socio-economic dimensions of climate change adaptation; 3. Institutional dimensions; 4. Strategy, policy integration and mainstreaming; 5. Urban adaptation planning and practice: experiences and solutions; 6. Costs and financing of urban climate change adaptation; and 7. Applied technologies for adaptation of settlements and infrastructure.
5241471 RD-133 Resilient Cities 2011 Congress and Mayors Adaptation Forum, Bonn, Germany Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Page 2 of 3
Some of the key themes which were discussed during the three days of keynote addresses, technical sessions and plenaries included: · “Resilience” is more than just successful adaptation to climate change – there is a need to realize synergies and the broader concept of resilience needs to include water, energy, food security and ecosystems. · Sound assessments of vulnerability and risk are essential, but the data at present is not sufficiently rich; there is a need for ongoing assessment as data becomes available. · Planning needs to move from stand-alone climate adaptation planning to “mainstreaming” with ongoing planning, budgeting and infrastructure investments, and planning needs to be at the appropriate scale. · A governance gap was identified between local and national levels. There was a call for increasing attention from the national and international levels to finance local adaptation, and an acknowledgement of local government capacity to engage with the private sector and academic institutions to harness community knowledge and resources. · Financing was a key issue. Several sessions explored the question of how the resilient city can be financed with public and private funds. The momentum is not with adaptation, but rather with city building.
Further to the last topic, an ICLEI white paper on “Financing the Resilient City” was launched at the Congress, and an overview is provided in Attachment 2.
This was the second Resilient Cities Congress, and the closing plenary noted several areas of progress since last year. There is a growing awareness and readiness to act, particularly at the local level, which is key for developing responses to climate risk. Many cities are already in the process of assessing risk and implementing adaptation and resilience strategies. And there has been rapid growth in information exchange and platforms to achieve this, such as the Mexico City Pact and carbonn Cities Climate Registry (which Metro Vancouver and a number of municipalities are participating in).
While progress has been made, the closing plenary also identified gaps and challenges, mainly related to the idea that the integration of climate change mitigation and water, energy, food security and ecosystems into building resilience is still at an early stage. The interaction between local science, policy and practice needs to be better defined.
Mayors Adaptation Forum
The Mayors Adaptation Forum was a special Mayors’ segment which occurred during the second and third days of the Resilient Cities 2011 Congress. Over thirty local leaders from around the world participated, and discussions focused on: · bottom-up financing for urban adaptation, and · global climate reporting from local governments with a specific focus on adaptation actions.
The forum built on previous work of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, including the World Mayors Summit on Climate which was attended by Chair Jackson in Mexico City last November. The Mayors Forum expressed renewed and increased support for the Mexico City Pact, calling for more cities to join and report their climate data to the carbonn Cities Climate Registry.
RD-134 Resilient Cities 2011 Congress and Mayors Adaptation Forum, Bonn, Germany Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: July 20, 2011 Page 3 of 3
A key outcome of the Mayors Adaptation Forum was the 2011 Bonn Declaration of Mayors (Attachment 3). The Declaration expresses a confirmed commitment to globally coordinated local climate action and declares 13 action points. It was announced that signatories to the Mexico City Pact will convene in a Conference of Signatories during the international UN climate conference (COP17) in Durban, South Africa in December 2011.
3. ALTERNATIVES
None presented.
4. CONCLUSION
Participation in the ICLEI Resilient Cities 2011 Congress supports the strategic direction endorsed by the Board and the Intergovernmental Committee and builds on Metro Vancouver’s commitment to actively engage with international organizations playing a leadership role with respect to local government and global issues such as sustainability, climate change and others.
Although there was a limited influence for Metro Vancouver on program and agenda setting, the Congress provided a learning opportunity on the important role that local governments play in addressing climate change, with respect to both mitigation and adaptation. In addition, key networks and international contacts continue to be fostered.
Attachments 1. Program: Resilient Cities 2011 – 2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change (Orbit 5241585) 2. Financing the Resilient City, An ICLEI White Paper – Overview (Orbit 5241368) 3. 2011 Bonn Declaration of Mayors (Orbit 5241763)
RD-135
- This Page Left BLANK Intentionally -
5241471 RD-136 Foto: Presseamt Bundesstadt Bonn
2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change Program
Bonn, Germany 3-5 June 2011
With the patronage of Joan Clos, Under Secretary General and Executive Director, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat); Chair, Resilient Cities 2011 Steering Board
RD-137 1 vents of recent months have demonstrated that climate impacts are already hitting Ecommunities worldwide. Several cities, including ICLEI member cities, have suffered considerable human and economic losses. While some communities will take years to return to their normal activities, others have already bounced back. In these rebound situations, resilience is the key word. Since 2010, with Resilient Cities, ICLEI has fulfilled a growing need: to bring together in a single place the knowledge, the experience, and the solutions required by local governments and their partners to adapt to climate change. With your participation and a unique stakeholder platform of over 30 organizations, Resilient Cities will become the place where local governments will find the inspiration and means to anticipate changes and prepare their communities to cope with a historic challenge. David Cadman President, ICLEI
warm welcome to Bonn, Germany‘s United Nations City, and welcome to Resilient ACities 2011. On the threshold of the Subsidiary Bodies to the UN Climate Convention, the second edition of this leading platform on cities and climate adaptation brings together mayors, city leaders and experts from all over the world! Already in 2010, mayors from five continents postulated their need of multilevel cooperation and a new design of international funding strategies. Now we will again listen to the voices of cities worldwide. And like in 2010, we will be able to reach out to national delegations within an official side event on the first day of the UN Subsidiary Bodies meeting. As Mayor of Bonn and Vice Chair of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, I count on the expertise and experience of the local level to adapt to climate change. And I am particularly happy that so many African and Asian cities will be part of the dialogue this year and will share their knowledge with us. Bonn has been a partner of ICLEI from the beginning and it is our common hope that Resilient Cities 2011 will help to find ways to advance both financing and implementing the good concepts in cities worldwide. I am looking forward to fruitful debates with you and to hearing about your inspiring ideas for successful climate adaptation! Jürgen Nimptsch Mayor, City of Bonn; Vice Chair, WMCCC
he Cancun Agreements were a relative success. Progress was made not only in Tadvancing commitments to the Green Climate Fund and to an Adaptation Framework, but also in recognizing local governments as governmental stakeholders in the UNFCCC process. Still, more commitments are needed to have a chance to keep the global average temperatures under the 2°C threshold. In the meantime, climate impacts are already being felt worldwide. Many local leaders, because they are directly accountable to their communities, have already taken action to embark on a low-carbon and resilient path. To make sure these efforts are recognized, world cities signed the Mexico City Pact in November 2010 cementing the ambition of the 2010 Bonn Declaration of Mayors and committing to report their climate actions globally in a measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) way. On this solid basis, Resilient Cities 2011 and its Mayors Adaptation Forum provide a great opportunity to go even further by giving flesh to the concept of inverted finance mechanisms for urban sustainability and resilience. We can all be excited to discuss in Bonn the ideas assembled in ICLEI’s White Paper “Financing the Resilient City” , which makes a groundbreaking contribution on the road to Durban and the COP17. Marcelo Ebrard Mayor, Mexico City; Chair, WMCCC RD-138
2 reparing for the impacts of climate change on the world’s cities is a major challenge of Pthe 21st century. It will be those living in poverty, especially in the developing countries, who will suffer most in any climate crisis. It is heartening that local leaders are beginning to find solutions. Cities are assessing which communities, places and sectors are most vulnerable. They are investing in climate proofing their infrastructure networks. They are integrating adaptation action in urban planning initiatives and municipal finance scenarios. We salute the Resilient Cities congress and commend ICLEI for taking the lead in forging the partnership of organizations supporting the congress. Local officials and leaders often learn best from one another, and this congress is a golden opportunity. The congress also offers an ideal opportunity to forge a common position from which to lobby for a fair share of the adaptation resources pledged – resources cities so desperately need to become more resilient. UN-Habitat is honoured to serve on the Program Committee of the Resilient Cities congress, and I am pleased to serve as a Patron of the congress. I wish the distinguished delegates in the Resilient Cities congresses every success with their deliberations. Dr. Joan Clos Under Secretary General and Executive Director, UN-Habitat; Congress Patron
elcome to the second world congress on urban resilience and cities’ adaptation to Wclimate change! Resilient Cities has been successfully established as the global forum for climate change adaptation and resilience-building in cities and towns. Its second edition, Resilient Cities 2011, will once again provide a platform for cities and local governments, urban planners, national governments and multilateral organizations, finance institutions, science and research organizations, infrastructure solution providers and development organizations to share, learn, and exchange on challenges, approaches, solutions and experiences. For the coming decades, making our cities and towns resilient to the effects of climate change will be a key challenge for human societies and economies across the globe. Building resilience to climate change cannot reasonably be decoupled from achieving resilience to natural and industrial disasters. Moreover, the task is to work on urban resilience as a more general concept. Resilient Cities 2011 will see a continuation from the discussions of 2010. For example ICLEI’s White Paper “Financing the Resilient City” will be launched at a high-level panel in response to a mandate given at Resilient Cities 2010 to further investigate the concept of finance „inversion“. This report proposes a framework for matching bottom-up resilience demand with locally responsive finance supply. Resilient Cities 2011 will see a great diversity of activity including four plenaries, three thought-provoking Strategy Dialogues, four Reality Check workshops each focusing on one city over a half-day session, eight City-in-Focus sessions, 25 theme sessions, among many others. It will also host the two-day Mayors Adaptation Forum convened by the World Mayors Council on Climate Change. Other partners have chosen Resilient Cities 2011 as the place to sign agreements, announce initiatives and events, and launch reports and tools. Organized back-to-back with the UNFCCC June talks, the Resilient Cities congress will reach out to the global climate community through the voice of the Mayors Adaptation Forum. Thank you for being part of it!
Konrad Otto-Zimmermann Secretary General, ICLEI; Congress Chair RD-139 3 Resilient Cities 2011 main features
ll Keynote presentations ll 2-day Mayors Adaptation Forum ll 3 Strategy dialogues on key aspects of climate adaptation and resilience ll 4 Reality Check Workshops: Adaptation on the Ground ll 8 City-in-Focus sessions ll 25 theme sessions with panels and presentations ll Young Researchers‘ Forum and poster sessions ll 5 pre- and 2 post-events ll Networking evening and screening session ll Exhibition area featuring agreements‘ signing, reports launching and much more
Patronage ll Joan Clos, Under Secretary General, Executive Director, UN-Habitat Steering Board Leading representatives of renowned organizations and local governments have agreed to be part of the Steering Board for Resilient Cities 2011! Guided by their expertise and field experience of strategic relevance, the Congress Committee for Resilient Cities 2011 has delivered a provocative and inspirational program.
ll Chair: Joan Clos, Under Secretary General, Executive Director, UN-Habitat ll Monique Barbut, Chief Executive Officer, Global Environment Facility (GEF) ll David Cadman, Councilor, City of Vancouver, Canada; ICLEI President ll Marcelo Ebrard, Mayor, Mexico City, Mexico; Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change ll Jürgen Nimptsch, Mayor, City of Bonn, Germany; Vice-Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change ll Achim Steiner, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) ll Kadir Topbas, Mayor, Metropolitan Istanbul, Turkey; President, United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) ll Veerle Vandeweerd, Director, Environment and Energy Group, Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ll Margareta Wahlström, Special Representative of the Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Program Committee The Program Committee for the Resilient Cities 2011 congress is composed of experts from partner organizations centrally involved in the theme of climate change adaptation and local governments from various continents. Program Committee members provide advice on congress themes and proposed presentations, and have an advisory role in the review process of the Call for Contributions.
ll Chair: Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, Secretary General, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability
ll Joern Birkmann, Head of Section, Vulnerability Assessment, Risk Management and Adaptive Planning, United Nations University - Institute for Environment and Human Security
ll Jeb Brugmann, Managing Partner, The Next Practice ; Founder of ICLEI and member of the ICLEI Advisory Board
ll Martha Delgado Peralta, Minister of the Environment, Mexico City, Mexico
ll David Dodman, Senior Researcher, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
ll Mikaela Engert, City Planner, City of Keene, USA
ll Pan Jiahua, Director, Institute for Urban and Environmental Studies
ll Abha Joshi Ghani, Manager, Urban Development and Local Government Unit, World Bank
ll Arab Hoballah, Chief, Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
ll Alex Nickson, Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Manager, Greater London Authority, UK
ll Gregg Oelofse, Head of Environmental Strategy and Policy, City of Cape Town, South Africa
ll Andreas Rechkemmer, Chief Science and Policy Advisor, Global Risk Forum (GRF)
ll Violeta Seva, Senior Advisor, Makati City, Philippines
ll Anthony Socci, Senior Advisor on Climate and Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ll Raf Tuts, Chief, Urban Environmental Planning Branch, UN-Habitat
ll Thorsten Schlurmann, Scientific Advisory Committee Member, DKKV - German Committee for Disaster Reduction
ll Helena Molin Valdés, Acting Director, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)
ll Carlos Villacis, Global Risk Identification Programme (GRIP) Coordinator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) RD-140 4 Friday, 3 June 2011
Program
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Pre-events Gustav-Stresemann-Institut
Local HFA monitoring tool workshop (open to interested city representatives) S18 Organizers: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and UNISDR Building capacity on urban resilience in universities Organizers: UNU and UN-Habitat Integrating climate change in the city development strategies (expert meeting) Organizers: UN-Habitat in collaboration with the Wold Bank and UNEP Energy training (open to registration) S35 Organizer: Rian van Staden, Principal & Senior Consultant, Intelligent Renewable Energy (Int-RE) A European perspective for regional and urban adaptation & resilience strategies (closed meeting) Organizers: ICLEI European Secretariat, European Commission’s DG CLIMA
Friday, 3 June 2011
08:00 Registration opens
10:00 – 12:30 Welcome & Strategy keynotes Plenary room
Welcome and congress opening Chair: Martha Delgado Peralta, Secretary of Environment, Mexico City, Mexico; ICLEI Vice President
ll David Cadman, Councilor, City of Vancouver, Canada; ICLEI President ll Jürgen Nimptsch, Mayor, City of Bonn, Germany; Vice Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change (WMCCC) ll Dr. Hans-Ulrich Krüger, Secretary of State, Ministry of Domestic and Municipal Affairs, State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany ll Dr. Helge Wendenburg, Director-General, Water, Waste Management and Soil Protection, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany ll Joan Clos, Under Secretary General and Executive Director, UN-Habitat; Resilient Cities 2011 Congress Patron ll Margareta Wahlström, Special Representative of the Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Switzerland Strategy keynotes Understanding the scientific data: Projections and impacts ll Professor Juergen Kropp, Head of the North-South Research Group, Postdam Institute of Climate Change, Postdam, Germany Resilience: Shifting the debate from risk to opportunity ll Jeb Brugmann, Managing Partner, The Next Practice, Canada Making cities more resilient through innovative risk management ll Michel Liès, Chairman Global Partnerships, Member of Executive Board, Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd., Switzerland Addressing urban resilience: A status overview ll Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, Secretary General, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability; Resilient Cities 2011 Congress Chair
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch Y1 S34-35 Lunch will be provided to all registered congress participants at the venue. Please remember to bring your lunch vouchers with you. Young Researchers‘ Forum Scientific market place (introduction and discussion) Facilitator: Vilma Hossini, Educational Officer a. i., United Nations University Organized by: UNU-EHS
RD-141 5 Friday, 3 June 2011
13:30 – 14:30 Poster session Exhibition area Tools Water and energy Green Combined insights Assessing social Research on flood infrastructure Raanana: Strategic plan for a sustainable city vulnerability and resilient communities: Greening in modules: ll Ronit Davidovich-Marton, Director, D.M.R Planning & resilience of urban Overview of the Era-Net A challenge for Development, Israel populations in Africa Cru funding initiative resilient cities TURaS: Transitioning to urban resilience and sustainability ll ll Anna Kunath, Annegret Thieken, Director, ll Sven Benthin, Tutor, ll Marcus Collier, Researcher, University College Dublin, Ireland Researcher, Climate Service Center, Project Laboratory Helmholtz Centre HZG, Germany How do we ensure linkage between climate change Greening in Modules, adaptation and disaster risk reduction? for Environmental Governance Technische Universität, ll Kenshi Baba, Researcher, Central Research Institute of Electric Research (UFZ), arrangements for Berlin, Germany climate adaptation and Power Industry, Japan Germany Potential of urban the scope for public and/ CapHaz-Net: Social capacity building for natural Climate adaptation riparian green and or private involvement hazards: Towards more resilient cities Santiago: Socio- open spaces in spatial hazard ll Yat Ting Flora Lim, Master adapting Santiago ll Chloe Begg, Research Assistant, Helmhotz Centre for assessment Student, Master of de Chile to climate Environmental Research, Germany ll Kerstin Krellenberg, Environmental Studies and change Integrated natural hazards management for railway Researcher, Helmholtz Sustainability Sciences, ll Alexis Vásquez, infrastructure adaptation: Relevance to urban areas Centre for Lund University, Sweden Lecturer, University of ll Christian Kamburrow, IZT Institute for Futures Studies and Environmental Resilient urban habitat: Chile, Santiago, Chile Technology Assessment, Germany Research (UFZ), Towards decentralized Meeting the climate change challenge: A task for multi- Germany and integrated resource level governance? management concepts Quality Habitat Index ll Jackie McGloughlin, PhD Researcher, National University of Ireland in Berlin ll Rahul Singh, Student Maynooth , Ireland ll Lorenzo Chelleri, of Mathematics and Researcher, UAB Finding new patterns to design sustainable cities by Statistics, lit Kanpur, University, Barcelona, using traditional urban patterns India ll Spain Faris Hameed, University Professor, The International University for Science and Technology, IUST Syria
The poster presenters will be available for your comments and questions
14:30 – 16:00 Parallel session
A1 S27-28 A2 S34-35 A3 S29-31 A4 S25-26 Tools for adaptive urban Assessing vulnerability Building resilience Urban agriculture, governance Speed panel in Asian cities climate change and food Panel Facilitator: Melissa Stults, Climate Panel security: Responses in Facilitator: Matthias Garschagen, Research Director, ICLEI USA Facilitator: Debra northern and southern Associate, UNU-EHS, Germany Panelists: Roberts, Deputy Head, cities Panelists: ll Zach Ferdana, Senior Marine Environmental Planning Panel
ll Conservation Planner, The Nature and Climate Protection, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Senior Research Facilitator: Marielle Dubbelling, Conservancy, USA City of Durban, South Africa Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Global Coordinator, Resource ll Sonja Schlipf, Academic Studies, USA Panelists: Centres on Urban Agriculture and ll Collaborator, HafenCity University ll William Solecki, Professor, Huntern College Bach Sinh, Director, Food Security (RUAF), Netherlands of the City of New York, USA (tbc) (HCU), Hamburg, Germany NISTPASS, Vietnam
ll Panelists: ll Soraya Smaoun, Programme Manager, Bam Razafindrabe, Senior Project ll G. K. Bhat, Director, TARU ll Jon Padgham, Programme Urban Environment, UNEP, France Researcher, Research Institute for Leading Edge, India Director, Global Change SysTem ll Violeta Seva, Senior Advisor, Makati City, Humanity and Nature, Japan ll Steve Gawler, Director, for Analysis, Research and Philippines; Secretary General, Earthquakes ll Florence Crick, Research Fellow, International Programs, Training (START), USA and Megacities Initiative (EMI) Griffith University, Australia ICLEI Oceania Secretariat ll ll Andrea Rau, Scientific Assistant, ll Bernhard Heinrichs, President, Academy of Tommy Firman, Professor, ll Marcus Moench, Director, Technische Universität, Berlin, Spacial Research and Planning, Germany Institute of Technology, Bandung, ISET, USA Germany ll Jörn Birkmann, Head of Section, Indonesia Organized by: Rockefeller ll Roger Quiroga, Disaster Risk United Nations University, Institute for ll Stephen Flood, PhD Researcher, Foundation and ICLEI Reduction and Adaptation Environment and Human Security, Germany NUI Maynooth, Ireland Oceania Secretariat l Coordinator, OXFAM Organized by: UNU-EHS l Stéphane Hallegatte, Lead Climate Change Specialist, World Bank International, La Paz, Bolivia and Meteo-France Organized by: RUAF and START
RD-142 6 Friday, 3 June 2011
A5 S30-32 A6 S17-18 Cities in focus I: Building resilience through Reality Check: Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam adaptation planning Adaptation on the Ground Presentations Workshop - Part 1 Facilitator: Allison Ashcroft, Senior Environmental Planner, City of Victoria, Facilitator: Jeb Brugmann, Managing Partner, The Next Practice, Canada Canada Panelists: A science-policy approach towards local adaptation planning? ll Nguyen Van Phuoc, Deputy Director of the Department of Natural Resources and The case of Santiago de Chile Environment (DONRE), Head of Environmental Management, Ho Chi Minh City
ll ll Kerstin Krellenberg, Researcher, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Le Minh Tam, Expert, Solid Waste Management Office (DONRE), Ho Chi Minh Research (UFZ), Germany City Adapting cities to climate change: Scenarios for urban ll Bao Thanh, Director of Sub-Institute of Hydrometeorology and Environment of neighborhoods in the City of Essen South Vietnam, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Ho Chi Minh City ll Alexander Schmidt, Professor, Institute of City Planning and Urban Design, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany ll Ly Khanh Tam Thao, Vice Chief, Division of General Planning Management, Department of Planning and Architecture (DPA), Ho Chi Minh City Implementing urban sustainable redevelopment in Sao Paulo, ll Thuan Anh Nguyen, Head of Research and Training Division, Architectural Brazil Research Center, Department of Planning and Architecture, Ho Chi Minh City ll Carlos Leite, Professor, Mackenzie Presbyterian University School of ll Harry Storch, Senior Researcher, Megacity Research Project, University of Architecture and Planning, Brazil Cottbus, Germany, Building resilient cities in Eastern Europe: The GEO-Cities ll Ulrike Schinkel, Research Associate, Megacity Research Project, University of process in Tbilisi and Tirana Cottbus, Germany ll Nora Mzavandze, Consultant, UNEP GEO Collaborating Center, Central Organized in cooperation with: Megacity Research Project: HCMC (Future European University, Hungary Megacities) of the BTU Cottbus, funded by BMBF
16:00 – 16:30 Coffee break Exhibition area Signing ceremony: Memorandum of Understanding between ICLEI and Global Risk Forum Announcement of EcoMobility Changwon 2011, World Congress on Mobility for the Future of Sustainable Cities
16:30 – 18:00 Parallel sessions
B1 S27-28 B2 S29-31 B3 S25-26 Tools and implementation Adapting cities to climate Multi-level governance: Knowledge and Presentations change and the urban poor: information for resilient cities Facilitator: Jon Bolduc, Experiences of the German Panel Environmental Planner, City of Development Cooperation in Facilitators: Birgit Georgi, Project Manager Urban Issues, Cambridge, USA Bangladesh European Environment Agency, Denmark; Holger Robrecht, ICLEI adaptation tools: Examples Panel Director, Sustainability Management, ICLEI European Secretariat from USA, Canada and Africa Facilitator: Alexander Jachnow, Principal Panelists: ll Melissa Stults, Climate Director, ll Advisor, Good Urban Governance Project, Rosario Bento, Head of Unit, Adaptation, Directorate General for ICLEI USA GIZ, Bangladesh Climate Action (DG CLIMA), European Commission ll Ewa Jackson, Manager, ICLEI Canada ll Panelists: Sandy Taylor, Head of Climate Change & Sustainability, City of ll Lucinda Fairhurst, Adaptation ll Shamim Haque, Professor, Urban and Rural Birmingham, UK Coordinator, ICLEI Africa Secretariat ll Planning, Khulna University, Bangladesh Maria José Festas, Senior Advisor, Directorate General for Spacial Local HFA online monitoring tools ll Peter Rooney, Senior Engineer, KfW Planning and Urban Development, City of Lisbon, Portugal to reduce disasters Development Bank, Germany ll Tracey Wheatley, Coordinator, Hungarian Association of ll Helena Molin Valdés, Acting Director, ll NN, City of Khulna, Bangladesh Climate-Friendly Cities, Hungary ll UNISDR, Switzerland ll Mehedi Ahsan, Urban Development Expert, Stéphane Hallegatte, Lead Climate Change Specialist, World Resilient Sheffield: Assessing key Good Urban Governance Project, GIZ, Bank and Meteo-France vulnerabilities and opportunities Bangladesh ll Gayle Donagoglu, Vice President, Congress of Local and Regional
using a system based approach l l Franz Marré, Head of Section, Water, Authorities, Council of Europe, Belgium ll Bernd Hoermann, Sustainable Energy, Urban Development, Geo Science, ll Hartmut Fuenfgeld, Research Fellow, Climate Change Development Officer, Sheffield City BMZ, Germany Adaptation Program, RMIT University, Australia Council, UK ll Aleksandra Kazmierczak, Research Associate, University of Organized by: German Federal Ministry for ll Rachel Sandham, Consultant, Ove Manchester, UK Economic Cooperation and Development Arup and Partners, UK (BMZ) Organized by: EEA and ICLEI European Secretariat
RD-143 7 Friday, 3 June 2011
B4 S34-35 B5 S30-32 B6 S17-18 Building sustainable action plans Cities in Focus II: Vulnerability Reality Check: Ho Chi Minh City, in mid-size Latin American cities Assessment in Action Vietnam Panel Presentations Adaptation on the Ground Facilitator and introduction: Carlos Villacis, Facilitator: Gary Penway, Deputy Director, Workshop - Part 2 Global Risk Identification Programme (GRIP) Community Development Department, City of Facilitator: Jeb Brugmann, Founding Partner, The Coordinator, United Nations Development North Vancouver, Canada Next Practice, Canada Programme (UNDP), Switzerland Vulnerability and climate change Panelists: Panelists: adaptation for the City of Johannesburg ll Nguyen Van Phuoc, Deputy Director of ll David Wilk, Unit Chief, a.i., Sustainable Energy l l Linda Phalatse, Deputy Director, Climate the Department of Natural Resources and and Climate Change Unit, Inter-American Change, City of Johannesburg, South Africa Environment (DONRE), Head of Environmental Development Bank, USA Beyond the storm: Risk-based process Management, Ho Chi Minh City ll Mercedes López, Advisor to the Mayor, City of and tool to enable better management of ll Le Minh Tam, Expert, Solid Waste Management Trujillo, Peru climate adaptation risks Office (DONRE), Ho Chi Minh City ll l Gabriella Feola, Coordinator, Intersectoral l l l Vesna Stevanovic-Briatico, Transportation Bao Thanh, Director of Sub-Institute of Climate Change Group; Director, Coordinator, City of Toronto, Canada Hydrometeorology and Environment of South Environmental Quality Laboratory Services, Mapping risk and vulnerabilty in Sao Paulo Vietnam, Ministry of Natural Resources and City of Montevideo, Uruguay Metropolitan Region Environment, Ho Chi Minh City ll Organized by: Inter-American Development Bank ll Andrea Young, Researcher, UNICAMP, Brazil Ly Khanh Tam Thao, Vice Chief, Division of General Planning Management, Department of Applying a climate disaster resilience index to enhance plannin decisions in Chennai, Planning and Architecture (DPA), Ho Chi Minh City India ll Thuan Anh Nguyen, Head of Research and ll Jonas Joerin, Doctoral Student, Kyoto University, Training devision, Architectural Research Center, Graduate School of Global Environmental Department of Planning and Architecture, Ho Chi Studies, Japan Minh City Vulnerability assessment in Latin American ll Harry Storch, Senior Researcher, Megacity cities focusing on the cases or Cartagena Research Project, University of Cottbus, Germany and Quito ll Ulrike Schinkel, Research Associate, Megacity ll Patricia Leon, Regional Officer (Caribbean Research Project, University of Cottbus, Germany and Colombia), Climate and Development Organized in cooperation with: Megacity Research Knowledge Network (CDKN) Project: HCMC (Future Megacities) of the BTU Cottbus, funded by BMBF
18:00 Special session S34-35 Launch of the Inter-American Development Bank’s Emerging and Sustainable Cities platform Cheese and wine will be served at the end of the launch
19:30 Reception buffet Hosted by the City of Bonn Location: Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, Bonn Tram stop Museum König on tram lines 16, 63 and 66 (15 minutes from the congress venue) Transfer from the congress venue by tram will be organized starting at 19:00 with the meeting point at the registration desk
RD-144 8 Saturday, 4 June 2011
Saturday, 4 June 2011
9:00 – 10:30 Parallel sessions
C1 S29-31 C2 S27-28 C3 S34-35 Strategy dialogue Mainstreaming adaptation and Resilience to climate change: Urban design for resilience: Water, resilience planning National and state-level legislation energy and food security in the Presentation and local government response urban system Facilitator: Anthony Socci, Senior Advisor on Panel Panel Climate and Energy, Office of Global Affairs and Facilitator: Robert Kehew, Human Settlements Policy, Office of International and Tribal Affairs, Facilitator: Felix Dodds, Executive Director, Advisor, UN-Habitat, Kenya U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA Stakeholder Forum, UK ll Manny Gotis, Head, Bureau of Local Incorporating an integrated climate action Panelists: Government Development, Department planning into Indonesian cities operations of Interior and Local Government (DILG), ll Uschi Eid, Co-Chair Bonn 2011 Process, Vice Chair, Secretary General‘s Advisory Board on Purnomo Sidi, Senior Advisor, PAKLIM – GIZ, Government of the Philippines l Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB), Germany Indonesia l Alejandro Callejas, Sub-Secretary, Secretariat of Environment, Housing and Natural History of ll NN, German Federal Ministry for Economic Increasing preparedness for local acting Cooperation and Development, Germany on emergencies resulting from the climate the State of Chiapas, Mexico ll Mthobeli Kolisa, Executive Director, Municipal ll Julia Marton-Lefevre, Director General, IUCN, change impacts: Case from Slovakia Infrastructure and Services, South African Local Switzerland ll Ladislav Hegyi, Head of the Environmental Government Association (SALGA), South Africa ll Xuefeng Lin, Director, Sino-Singapore Tianjin Governance Program, Carpathian Development l Eco-city Administrative Committee, China (tbc) Institute, Slovakia l Gotelind Alber, Head, Sustainable Energy and Climate Policy, Germany ll Martha Delgado, Minister for the Environment, Combining urban development with Mexico City, Mexico; ICLEI Vice President climate change adaptation using a systems Organized by: UN-Habitat ll Carol Howe, Project Manager, SWITCH; Leader approach of the IWA Cities of the Future Transitioning ll Christian Walloth, Doctoral Student, University Group, Netherlands Duisburg-Essen, Germany ll Jeb Brugmann, Managing Partner, The Next Urban planning as a policy instrument for Practice, Canada climate change adaptation: A comparative ll Zafar Alam, Director, Department of analysis of selected cities Environment, Ministry of Environment and ll Lai-Choo Malone-Lee, Director, Centre for Forest, Bangladesh Sustainable Asian Cities, School of Design and Organized in cooperation with: German Federal Environment, National University of Singapore, Ministries for Economic Cooperation and Singapore Development and for the Environment, Nature Sustainable perspective for understanding Conservation and Nuclear Safety. climate change adaptation in Dhaka City of Bangladesh This panel is organized as a contribution to the ll Ronju Ahammad, Mission Expert, Community preparatory process of the international conference Development Associate, Community Based “The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus: Adaptation to Climate Change through Coastal Water resources in the green economy”, being Afforestation Project, UNDP, Bangladesh hosted in Bonn in November 2011. This conference will be a part of the German Ministry‘s efforts toward Rio+20.
RD-145 9 Saturday, 4 June 2011
C4 S30-32 C5 S17-18 Cities in Focus III: Green infrastructure for urban Reality Check: Lagos State, Nigeria resilience Adaptation on the Ground Presentation Workshop - Part 1 Facilitator: Jason Hartke, Vice President, National Policy, U.S. Facilitator: Shagun Mehrotra, Managing Director of Climate and Cities, Columbia Green Building Council, USA University, USA The Green Infrastructure Transect: An organizational Panelists: framework for mainstreaming adaptation planning policies ll Muiz A. Banire, Hon Commissioner, Lagos State Ministry of the Environment ll ll Yaser Abunnasr, Visiting Assistant Professor, American University Olusegun Oniru, Hon Commissioner for Waterfront Infrastructure, Lagos State of Beirut, Lebanon Ministry of the Environment ll Maximus Ugwuoke, Head, Climate Change Adaptation, Lagos State Ministry of the Changwon climate change action project Environment ll Mi-kyung Moon, Policy Advisor Secretary, Environmental Policy ll Damilola Ogunbiyi, Senior Special Assistant to Governor on PPP, Lagos State PPP Department, City of Changwon, South Korea Office Bridging the gaps: The role of an NGO in the process of ll Hakeem Ogunbambi, Director, Drainage Department, Lagos State Ministry of the building urban resilience in Brazil Environment ll Cecilia Herzog, President, Inverde - Instituto de Estudos, Pesquisas l l Olubori Olubodun, Deputy Director, Waste Management Operations, Lagos State e Projetos em Infraestrutura Verde e Ecologia Urbana, Brazil Waste Management Authority Development of a climate proof water system for the new ll Ismaila Akorode, Waste Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority quarter De Vloei (City of Ieper, Belgium) ll Adeboye Ajibola, Waste Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority
ll Tine Ostijn, Consultant Arcadis Belgium, Belgium ll Oluremi Williams, Geologist, Lagos State Ministry of the Environment
10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break Exhibition area Launch of the Switch Adaptation handbook
RD-146 10 Saturday, 4 June 2011
11:00 – 12:30 Parallel sessions
D1 S27-28 D2 S29-31 D3 S34-35 Towards a territorial approach for The process of integrated Multi-level governance for adaptation: food nutrition security in urban adaptation planning Focusing on regional government’s role adaptation strategies Presentation Presentation Panel Facilitator: Ewa Jackson, Manager, ICLEI Facilitator: Franklin Cownie, Mayor, City of Des Facilitator: Julien Custot, Coordinator, Food Canada Moines, USA; Board Member, ICLEI USA for Cities, United Nations Food and Agriculture Learning from leaders: Lessons from Canberra urban and regional future: An Organization, Italy urban adaptation champions innovative regional platform for building Food and nutrition security in disaster ll David Dodman, Senior Researcher, IIED, UK resilience risk reduction and management (DRR/M) Building on Australia‘s growing climate ll Barbara Norman, Head of Discipline and Foundation strategies change adaptation experience Chair, Urban and Regional Planning, University of
l l Sylvie Wabbes, United Nations Food and ll Bob Webb, Climate Change Institute, ANU, Canberra, Australia Agriculture Organization (FAO) Liaison and Australia Scotland’s climate change adaptation Operations Officer, Emergency Operations ll Hartmut Fuenfgeld, Research Fellow, Climate framework: Mainstreaming climate change and Rehabilitation Division, RUAF Change Adaptation Program, RMIT University adaptation Contribution of urban and peri-urban Australia ll Anna Beswick, SCCIP Public Sector Officer, SNIFFER, UK agriculture to urban adaptation Planning for climate change adaptation: strategies Exploring adaptation planning processes Climate change guidelines for urban planning ll Marielle Dubbeling, Global Coordinator, and outcomes in the Basque Country Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and ll Jeremy Carter, Research Fellow, University of ll Carlos Castillo, Project Manager of Biodiversity Food Security (RUAF), Netherlands Manchester, UK & Climate Change Department, Inobe, S.A. Integrating agriculture in urban A methodology to integrate adaptation Environmental Public Society of Basque Government planning, management and governance and development objectives during Ecological land use planning for urban in the context of climate change adaptation planning development: Coastal Vietnam
l l Raf Tuts, Chief, Urban Environment and ll Stelios Grafakos, Academic Staff, Institute for ll Kapil Chaudhery, Urban & Regional Planner, Spatial Planning Branch, UN-Habitat, Kenya Housing and Urban development Studies Decisions, India Strengthening urban-rural linkages for (IHS), Netherlands Integrated roadmapping to shape regional more resilient food systems The need for an integrated approach in adaptation processes in metropolitan areas l l Arthur Getz, Ph.D. Researcher, Cardiff local climate adaptation planning ll Jens U. Hasse, Project Coordinator, dynaklim, University, UK ll Maria Berrini, Director, Ambiente Italia, Italy Research Institute for Water & Waste Management, Organized by: FAO RWTH Aachen University (FiW), Germany
D4 S30-32 D5 S17-18 Cities in focus IV: Engaging stakeholders in Reality Check: Lagos State, Nigeria resilience building Adaptation on the Ground Presentation Workshop - Part 2 Facilitator: Patrick Hays, Mayor, City of North Little Rock, USA; Facilitator: Shagun Mehrotra, Managing Director of Climate and Cities, Columbia Board President and Chair, ICLEI USA University, USA Panellists: Toward an integrated adaptation policy for the ll Muiz A. Banire, Hon Commissioner, Lagos State Ministry of the Environment Mediterranean cities: The ACT project ll Olusegun Oniru, Hon Commissioner for Waterfront Infrastructure, Lagos State Ministry ll Marco Cardinaletti, Project Manager for Sustainable of the Environment Development, Municipality of Ancona, Italy ll Maximus Ugwuoke, Head, Climate Change Adaptation, Lagos State Ministry of the Suwon City’s preparation strategies for climate change Environment ll Tae-Young Yeom, Mayor, Suwon City, Republic of Korea ll Damilola Ogunbiyi, Senior Special Assistant to Governor on PPP, Lagos State PPP Supporting civil society action on adaptation Office
ll ll Andy Johnston, Director & Laura Wilkes, Policy Manager, LGiU, UK Hakeem Ogunbambi, Director, Drainage Department, Lagos State Ministry of the Environment Transition to a Sustainable Edmonton: Moving from good intentions to concrete action ll Olubori Olubodun, Deputy Director, Waste Management Operations, Lagos State Waste Management Authority ll Jim Andrais, Program Manager, Corporate Environmental Management Systems, City of Edmonton, Canada ll Ismaila Akorode, Waste Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority ll Adeboye Ajibola, Waste Manager, Lagos State Waste Management Authority Public participation in urban transition management ll Oluremi Williams, Geologist, Lagos State Ministry of the Environment ll Julia Wittmayer, Researcher, Erasmus University Rotterdam, FSW, DRIFT, Netherlands
RD-147 11 Saturday, 4 June 2011
12:30 - 12:50 Special session: Joint publication launch Exhibition area
ll UN-Habitat report on Human Settlements „Cities and Climate Change“ ll ARC3 report „Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network“ Technical discussion with the authors will follow the launch of the reports
12:50 – 13:30 Lunch Y2 S34-35 Lunch will be provided to all registered congress participants at the venue. Please remember to bring your lunch vouchers with you. Young Researchers’ Forum Learning Café Facilitator: Vilma Hossini, Educational Officer a. i., United Nations University Organized by: UNU-EHS
13:30 – 14:30
Mayors Adaptation Forum Römerkeller Welcome session (invitees only)
13:30 – 14:30 Poster session Exhibition area Tools Water and energy Climate change related labor Heat islands reduction by mean of rain and purified waste water reuse
market implications for the ll Philippe Maillard, New Urban Services Manager, Veolia Environment - Sustainable Development and New Urban construction and property Services, France industry Energy systems for the future: Resilient and/or smart? The concept of northwest 2050 ll Peter Glynn, Research Student, ll Sönke Stührmann, PhD Student, University of Bremen, Germany Bond University, Australia Renewable energy potential for adaptation of the energy supply infrastructure in Chemnitz, Germany Quality Habitat Index ll Petra Schneider, Head of Department, C&E Consulting und Engineering GmbH, Germany ll Veerender Kumar, Student, IIT Kanpur, India Green-driven growth: How adaptation can make money for cities in emerging markets ll Ulrich Mans, PhD Candidate, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Green infrastructure Combined insights Collaborative research on Absorption of urban built future expansion of cities in the concept of sustainable physical development potential impacts of green roof ll Faris Hameed, University Professor, International University of Science and Technology, Syria infrastructure in the city of Institutional obstacles to adaptation Cincinnati ll Stéphane La Branche, Research Fellow, Institute of Political Studies, France ll Ishi Buffam, Assistant Professor of Biology, Geology, University of Sustainable development strategies at local level: A case study of Dumbrava Narciselor, Brasov, Romania Cincinnati, USA ll Mihai Baltador, Director, CRFCAPL Sibiu, Romania The recipe for ‘influencers, doers and thinkers‘ to collaborate in creating resilience and adaptability in our cities ll Maja Zidoy, MSLS Thesis Team, Sweden Resilis project: Urban resilience within the context of climate change ll Eric Tromeur, Iosis Concepts, France Elicited expert perceptions for climate change risks and adaptation in Japanese agriculture and food production ll Kenshi Baba, Researcher, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan The conceptualization of urban agriculture: Designing a green productive infrastructure for the emerging megacity Casablanca, Morocco ll Christoph Kasper, Project Coordinator, Technische Universität, Berlin, Germany
The poster presenters will be available for your comments and questions
RD-148 12 Saturday, 4 June 2011
14:30 – 16:00 Parallel sessions E1 S29-31 E2 S27-28 E3 S25-26 Overcoming climate Participatory knowledge Multi-level governance for adaptation: Focusing on adaptation barriers: generation for resilient national government’s role Insights from cities: Sustainable urban Presentations communities and lessons planning in practice Facilitator: Stephen Granger, Head: Major Programmes and Projects, from a global survey Facilitators: Isa Baud, Professor, Environmental Resource Management Department, City of Cape Town, South Workshop University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Africa Laura Petrella, Human Settlements Facilitator: Melissa Stults, National impetus for development of local adaptation strategies in Officer, UN-Habitat, Kenya Climate Director, ICLEI USA Norway Panelists: ll Panelists: Gry Backe, Project Coordinator CCA, Norwegian Directorate for Civil ll Sara Liliana Miranda, Coordinator, Protection and Emergency Planning, Norway ll JoAnn Carmin, Scholar, Cities For Life Forum, Peru Massachusetts Institute of Development of local government’s adaptation capability to climate ll Ulrich Mans, Researcher, University of Technology, Cambridge, USA change in the Republic of Korea
Amsterdam, The Netherlands ll ll Nikhil Nadkarni, Graduate Ji Young Shin, Researcher, KACCC, Korea Environment Institute, Korea (ROK) ll Swaib Lwasa, Lecturer, Makerere Student, Massachusetts Toward a national adaptation strategy in the U.S.: Joining federal, University, Uganda Institute of Technology, regional, and local efforts ll Michaela Hordijk, Staff Member, Cambridge, USA ll Robert Verchick, Professor of Law, Loyola University, New Orleans, USA University of Amsterdam, The Breakout facilitators: Netherlands Enhancing city resilience through improving policy responses in ll Ewa Jackson, Manager, ICLEI Bihar, India ll Vasco de Oliveira Araujo, Deputy Canada ll Secretary of Environment, Gyaneshwar Singh, Programme Coordinator, AMRITA Agency for ll Jade Jackson, Project Assistant, Municipality of Belo Horizonte, Brazil Multidimensional Research, Implementation, Training & Advocacy, India ICLEI Canada ll Jana-Axinja Paschen, Research Urban adaptation planning and practice: Experiences and solutions ll Kara Reeve, Manager, ICLEI USA Fellow, Monash University, Australia ll Garima Nayyar, Urban Designer, INTACH, India
E4 S30-32 E5 S34-35 E6 S17-18 Cities in Focus V: Urban water supplies for the future Reality Check: London, UK Reality Check: Semarang, Presentations Adaptation on the Ground Indonesia Facilitator: Barbara Anton, Project Coordinator, Water, ICLEI European Workshop - Part 1 Adaptation on the Ground Secretariat Facilitator: Holger Robrecht, Workshop - Part 1 Municipal responses against urban impacts for desertification Director, Sustainability Facilitator: Steve Gawler, Director, process Management, ICLEI European International Programs, ICLEI ll Sita Ouattara, Deputy Mayor for Environment Municipality of Bobo- Secretariat Panelists: Oceania Secretariat Dioulasso, Burkina Faso Panelists: ll Alex Nickson, Strategy Manager, Sustainable water resource management scheme in Kaohsiung City, ll Hendrar Prihadi, Vice Mayor, Chinese Taipei Climate Change Adaptation, Greater London Authority, UK Semarang City, Indonesia ll Tsan-Min Lin, Division Chief of Environmental Protection Bureau, Kaohsiung ll Ir. Purnomo Dwi Sasongko, Head of ll Juliette Daniels, Manager, London City Government, Chinese Taipei Climate Change Partnership, UK Spatial and Development Division, Water crisis: Public management of an emergency situation Local Development Planning Board ll Timothy Reeder, Climate Change ll Dafne Mazo, Project Assistant, Ecoinstitut Barcelona, Spain Programme Manager, South East (BAPPEDA), Indonesia Resilient water supply and sewage disposal Region, Environment Agency, UK ll Budi Chairuddin, Project Coordinator, Asian Cities Climate ll Ivan Benes, Chairman and Managing Director, CITYPLAN, Czech Republic ll Keith Jones, Director of Resources Change, Resilience Network Managing water in the face of rapid urbanisation and climate & Head of Department, University (ACCCRN), Mercy Corps Indonesia change in Kampala, Uganda of Greenwich, UK ll ll Feri Prihantoro, Executive Director, ll Emmanuel Serunjoji, Deputy Mayor, Secretary for Works, Roads, Transport, Celeste Morgan, Associate Director, BINTARI, Indonesia Housing and Water, Kampala City Council, Kawempe Division, Uganda AECOM
Mayors Adaptation Forum Römerkeller Financing Resilient Cities: Rationale for bottom-up infrastructure project planning and finance (invitees only) Mayors dialogue with United Nations leaders: Joan Clos, UN-Habitat and Margareta Wahlström, UNISDR (invitees only)
RD-149 13 Saturday, 4 June 2011
16:00 – 16:30 Coffee break Exhibition area 2011 Gwangju Summit of the Urban Environmental Accords and Urban CDM presentation
16:30 – 18:15 Parallel sessions
F1 S29-31 F2 S27-28 MAF Strategy dialogue: Adapt or insure? Towards more resilient water infrastructures Panel Presentations Keynote: Howard Kunreuther, Co-Director, Cecilia Yen Koo Professor of Decision Facilitator: Lucinda Fairhurst, Adaptation Coordinator, ICLEI Africa Secretariat Sciences & Public Policy, Risk Management & Decision Processes Center, The Adapting water management to a changing climate in a developing Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA country Facilitator: Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer, Program Leader Risk, Policy and ll Marina Herrere-Pantoja, Manager of the Hydro Meteorological Center, Vulnerability, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Queretaro Water Commission, Mexico Austria Towards more resilient water infrastructures Panelists: ll Jörg Felmeden, Research Assistant, Water Infrastructure and Risk Analysis, ll Herbert Bautista, Mayor, Quenzon City, Philippines; Member, World Institute for Social-Ecological Research ISOE GmbH, Germany Mayors Council on Climate Change (WMCCC) Climate adaptation strategies for a sustainable water management in ll David Bresch, Director Sustainability and Emerging Risk Management, the Metropolitan Region of Santiago de Chile Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, Switzerland ll Laura Simon, Scientific Researcher, Institute for Technology Assessment and ll David Dodman, Senior Researcher, Team Leader, Cities and Climate Change Systems Analysis ITAS, Germany International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK Drinking water supply security in crisis situations ll Jan Falconer, Manager Projects, Partnerships and Funding, Aberdeen City ll Jana Caletkova, Head of Department of Water Management and Resilience, Council, UK CITYPLAN, Czech Republic ll Muchadeyi Masunda, Mayor, City of Harare, Zimbabwe, Co-President, UCLG Modeling studies of integrated water resource under changing climate ll Mike Kreidler, State of Washington Insurance Commissioner, National in Kairouan Bassin. Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), USA ll Chulli Chulli, Researcher, Water Researcher and Technology Center, Tunisia ll Lindene E. Patton, Chief Climate Product Officer, Zurich Financial Services, USA
F3 S25-26 F4 S30-32 F5 S34-35 F6 S17-18 Building equitable urban resilience Cities in focus VI: Action Reality Check: Reality Check: Presentations plans for adaptation London, UK Adaptation Semarang, Indonesia Facilitator: Alexander Petersen, Founder and and resilience in on the Ground Adaptation on the Executive Director, Adaptation International, USA Alexandria, Casablanca, Workshop - Part 2 Ground Building equitable urban resilience: The Tunis Facilitator: Holger Robrecht, Workshop - Part 2 institutional challenge for climate change Panel Director, Sustainability Facilitator: Steve Gawler, adaptation in cities Management, ICLEI European Director, International Facilitator: Andrew Steer, Secretariat ll Wendy Steele, Ph.D., Griffith University, Australia Programs, ICLEI Oceania Special Envoy for Climate Panelists: Socio-economic dimensions of climate Secretariat Change, World Bank, USA ll Alex Nickson, Strategy change adaptation in Nigeria Panelists: Panelists: Manager, Climate Change ll ll Hendrar Prihadi, Vice Mayor, Kudirat Ola‘Opoola, Past District Representative, ll Anthony Gad Bigio, Regional Adaptation, Greater London Rotaract Club of Oshodi, Nigeria Semarang City, Indonesia Study Coordinator, World Bank Authority, UK ll Ir. Purnomo Dwi Sasongko, ll The urban tide: Children displaced by Tamer Abougharara, Program ll Juliette Daniels, Manager, Head of Spatial and climate change Manager, Arab Academy London Climate Change ll Development Division, Local Nidhi Mittal, Climate Change Adviser, Save the for Science, Technology and Partnership, UK Children UK, UK Development Planning Maritime Transportation, Egypt ll Timothy Reeder, Climate Board (BAPPEDA), Indonesia Liveable and just: Social and equity impacts ll Mohammed Nbou, Environment Change Programme ll of climate change adaptation on local Budi Chairuddin, Project Director, Kingdom of Morocco Manager, South East Region, Coordinator Asian Cities communities l l Noureddine Kaabi, Environment Agency, UK Climate Change, Resilience ll Heinz Kreutz, Councillor Victorian Local Infrastructure Director, ll Keith Jones, Director of Network (ACCCRN), Mercy Governance Association, City of Boroodara, Republic of Tunisia Australia Resources & Head of Corps Indonesia ll Stéphane Hallegatte, Lead Department, University of ll Quality of life integrated approach for Feri Prihantoro, Executive Climate Change Specialist, Greenwich, UK resilient cities in developing countries Director, BINTARI, Indonesia World Bank ll Celeste Morgan, Associate ll Sameer Deshkar, Asst. Professor,Visvesvaraya Organized by: World Bank National Institute of Technology, India Director, AECOM
RD-150 14 Sunday, 5 June 2011
18:00 – 18:30 Break
18:30 - 19:30 MAF special open session S30-32 18:00 Special session S34-35
Mayors Task Force on Urban Poverty and Climate Change Launch of the European Partnership Presentation of findings on Integrated Urban Sustainability Chair: Konrad von Ritter, KRITTER Consulting Services, Germany Management ll Andrew Steer, Special Envoy for Climate Change, World Bank, USA A cocktail reception will follow the launch ll Marcelo Ebrard, Mayor, Mexico City, Mexico; Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change ll Didas Massaburi, Mayor, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania ll Guilherme F. Mattar, Secretary for International Relations, City of Sao Paulo, Brazil ll H. Fauzi Bowo, Governor Jakarta, Indonesia (tbc)
19:30 - 21:00 Evening program
Networking dinner Restaurant area Mayors Adaptation Forum Römerkeller After the break the participants will gather in the restaurant area and discuss Dialogue dinner their impressions and thoughts about the first two days of the congress. (invitees only) Screening session Organized by: World Mayors Council on Climate Change A short cartoon prepared by UN-Habitat will be shown in the plenary room With special guests and discussion will follow.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
08:45 - 9:00 The Resilient Cities 2011 congress so far Plenary room A short video capturing the first 2 days of the congress
09:00 – 11:00 MAF special open session: Responsive finance for adaptation Plenary room
Chair: Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, Secretary General, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability; Resilient Cities 2011 Congress Chair Introduction of the White Paper: Responsive Finance for Adaptation Jeb Brugmann, Managing Partner, The Next Practice (on behalf of ICLEI) Response: What cities need from the finance sector Marcelo Ebrard, Mayor, Mexico City, Mexico; Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change Panelists: Local goverments ll Didas Massaburi, Mayor, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania ll Joey Sarte Salceda, Governor, Province of Albay, Philippines UNEP Finance Initiative ll Paul Clements-Hunt, Head, UNEP Finance Initiative, Switzerland Private finance ll Johnny El Hachem, Head of Environmental Finance, Compagnie Benjamin de Rothschild, Switzerland Development banks ll Andrew Steer, Special Envoy for Climate Change, World Bank, USA Funds ll Ana Fornells de Frutos, Chair, Adaptation Fund Board, USA (tbc) ll Manfred Konukiewitz, Commissioner for Climate Policy; Head of the Global and Sectoral Policies Directorate, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperati- on and Development (BMZ); Member of the Transitional Committee for the Design of the Green Climate Fund, Germany ll Kadmiel Wekwete, Director, Local Development Division, United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), USA Closing statement: Joan Clos, Under Secretary General and Executive Director, UN-Habitat; Resilient Cities 2011 Patron
RD-151 15 Sunday, 5 June 2011
11:00 – 11:30 Coffee break
11:30 – 13:00 Parallel sessions
G1 S25-26 G2 Plenary room G3 S34-35 Renewable energy for urban Costs and financing of urban climate change Ecosystems, adaptation and resilience Presentations biodiversity Presentations Facilitator: Robert Kehew, Human Settlements Advisor, Panel Facilitator: Emani Kumar, Regional Director, UN-Habitat, Kenya Facilitator: Kobie Brand, Regional ICLEI South Asia Secretariat Introduction Director, ICLEI Africa Secretariat; Global Presenters: ll Monika Wiebusch, Senior Economist, Urban Development, Coordinator, Local Action for Biodiversity ll NN, City KfW, Germany Panelists: ll Rob Melnick, Executive Dean and Sustainability in austerity: Cost-neutral ways for cities ll Imen Meliane, Director, International Presidential Professor, Global Institute of to become more resilient Marine Policy, The Nature Conservancy Sustainability, Arizona State University, USA ll Philip Monaghan, Author, UK USA ll Christoph Rat-Fischer, Project Leader, How local enterprise can contribute to local ll Zach Ferdana, Marine Conservation European Institut for Energy Research, adaptation in Bologna: Green Areas Inner City Planner, The Nature Conservancy, USA Germany Agreement (GAIA) ll Karin Zaunberger, Policy Officer, ll Raffaella Gueze, Head of Sustainability Office, City of Biodiversity Unit, European Bologna, Italy Commission, Belgium ll Debra Roberts, Deputy Head, Improving adaptation integrity Environmental Planning and Climate ll Lisa Elges, Climate Governance Programme Manager, Protection, City of Durban, South Transparency International, Germany Africa
G4 S27-28 G5 S17-18 Tackling the effects of climate change: Cities in focus VI: Urban heat islands Linking mitigation and adaptation Presentations Presentations Facilitator: Victorino Aquitania, Regional Director, ICLEI Southeast Asia Facilitator: Holger Robrecht, Director, Sustainability Management, ICLEI Secretariat European Secretariat Vulnerability assessment towards heat waves in urban areas: City of Plans and projects for a resilient city: An integrated approach in Cologne case study Bologna, Italy ll Torsten Welle, Associate Academic Officer, UNU-EHS, Germany ll Giovanni Fini, Head of Environmental Quality Department, City of Heat waves, an underestimated threat to health: A method for local Bologna, Italy governments to prevent and act Building New Taipei City as a smart resilient low carbon city: ll Ingrid Molander, Environmental Controller, Botkyrka kommun, Sweden Combining hard and soft power Adapting office buildings to climate change: Optimization of thermal ll Wen-yu Liu, Head of Environmental Protection Department, New Taipei comfort and energy demand City Government, Chinese Taipei ll Tania Berger, Senior Researcher, Danube University Krems, Austria Climate neutrality as adaptation planning in the city of Arendal, Cool roofs and pavements to cool the world: An integrated mitigation/ Norway adaptation strategy for cities ll Svein Tveitdal, Environmental Ambassador, City of Arendal, Norway ll Hashem Akbari, Professor, Concordia University, USA Climate change adaptation of Plan of Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain City parks and climate change management: A case study of Chennai (European Green Capital 2012) ll Divya Rajeswari Swaminathan, Post-graduate Student, Westfaelische ll Efrén Feliu, Head of Spatial Development and Urban Sustainability, Wilhelms Universitaet, Muenster, Germany TECNALIA Research and Innovation, Spain Urban climate investigation for urban development strategies in Towards institutionalization of climate adaptation practices: A Tropical Mega Cities case study of Chandigarh, India ll Lutz Katzschner, Head of the Environment Department, University Kassel, ll Manoj Kumar Teotia, Research and Training, CRRID, India Germany
Mayors Adaptation Forum Römerkeller Toward COP17: The Mexico City Pact and its reporting tool, the carbonn Cities Climate Registry (invitees only) Chair: Marcelo Ebrard, Mayor, Mexico City, Mexico; Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change
RD-152 16 Sunday, 5 June 2011
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch Mayors Adaptation Forum lunch (invitees only) Römerkeller Lunch will be provided to all registered congress participants at the venue. Please remember to bring your lunch vouchers with you.
14:00 – 14:30 Special session Exhibition area Signing ceremony Memorandum of Understanding between ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability and UN-Habitat
13:30 – 14:30 Mayors Adaptation Forum closed session Römerkeller
Mayors Adaptation Forum: The Bonn Declaration of Mayors – Drafting session (invitees only) Chair: Jürgen Nimptsch, Mayor of Bonn, Germany; Vice Chair of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change Facilitator: Debra Roberts, Deputy Head, Environmental Planning and Climate Protection, City of Durban, South Africa
14.30 – 16.00 Theme sessions H1 Plenary room H2 S25-26 H3 S27-28 Strategy dialogue Linking mitigation and adaptation Adaptation before disaster: Ecosystem services for Speed panel Taking preemptive action urban resilience: Facilitator: Helena Molin Valdes, Acting Director, Presentations The urgency of action UNISDR, Switzerland Facilitator: Carlos Villacis, Global Risk Identification Panel Space for adapting: Reconciling adaptation and Programme (GRIP) Coordinator, United Nations mitigation in local climate change planning Development Programme (UNDP), Switzerland Facilitator and introduction: ll Elisabeth Hamin, Regional Planning, University of Kobie Brand, Regional Director, Decision making frameworks for adaptation Massachusetts, USA ICLEI Africa Secretariat; Global to extremes in two local government areas: Comparing and contrasting Coordinator, Local Action for The early experiences of local climate change ll Supriya Mathew, PhD student, Macquarie University, Biodiversity adaptation in Norway compared with those of Local Agenda 21 and climate change mitigation Australia Panelists: ll Carlo Aall, Head of Climate Research, Western Norway Putting new climate adaptation measures into ll Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Research Institute, Norway practice: Why bother? Secretary, CBD (video) Integrated climate action: Linking mitigation ll Kim Anema, PhD student, UNESCO-IHE, Netherlands ll David Cadman, Councillor, City and adaptation to make Indonesian cities of Vancouver, Canada; ICLEI Climate proof cities: An integrated research resilient President programme in the Netherlands ll Purnomo Sidi, PAKLIM – GIZ, Indonesia ll Sonja Döpp, Researcher, TNO, Netherlands ll Andreas Rechkemmer, Chief Science and Policy Advisor, Global Scenarios for Paris development in the twenty- Urban underground infrastructure adaptation to Risk Forum, Switzerland first century: An exercise on the prospective climate change
impact of a carbon tax ll ll Naomi Tsur, Deputy Mayor, City of Nikolai Bobylev, Associate Professor, Saint Petersburg ll Vincent Viguié, PhD, CIRED, France Jerusalem, Israel State Polytechnical University, Russia ll Jürgen Nimptsch, Mayor, City Sustainable urban transport, resilient urban Nothing‘s happened yet: Accelerating action on of Bonn, Germany; Vice Chair, transport climate change adaptation ll Angela Jain, Senior Research Fellow, nexus, Germany World Mayors Council on Climate ll Linda Harvey, Lead, Air, Climate Change & Energy, City Change (tbc) Towards a resilient architecture: The case of of Calgary, Canada Brøset, Trondheim, Norway ll Annemie Wyckmans, Associate Professor, NTNU, Norway
RD-153 17 Sunday, 5 June 2011
H4 S34-35 H5 S17-18 Tackling the effects of climate change: Urban flooding Cities in Focus VIII: Presentations Institutional structure of organization to Facilitator: Karl-Otto Zentel, Chief Executive Officer, DKKV master adaptation Towards flood resilient cities Facilitator: Alex Nickson, Strategy Manager, Climate Change Adaptation, Greater London Authority, UK (tbc) ll Linde Vertriest, Consultant, Arcadis Belgium, Belgium Panel Plan to prevent stormwater flooding in the Brussels Capital Region ll Lykke Leonardsen, Head of Office, City of Copenhagen, ll Françoise Onclincx, Head of Division, Bruxelles Environnement, Belgium Denmark Environmental monitoring, assessment, and restoration of Typhoon Morakot disaster ll Gary Penway, Deputy Director, Community Development ll Chih-Ming Kao, Consultant of EPB, Kaohsiung City Government, Chinese Taipei Department, City of North Vancouver, Canada Flood risk protection concept Geising / Altenberg in the flood formation area of Ore ll Susanna Kankaanpää, Climate Specialist, Helsinki Region Mountains, Germany Environmental Services Authority (HSY), Finland ll Petra Schneider, Head of Department, C&E Consulting und Engineering GmbH, Germany ll Stephen Granger, Head: Major Programmes and Projects, Adaptive territorial management in Trinidad, Bolivia Environmental Resource Management Department, City of Cape Town, South Africa ll Roger Quiroga, DRR and Adaptation Coordinator, OXFAM International, La Paz, Bolivia Organized in cooperation with: City of Copenhagen
16:30 – 18:00 Summary & outlook plenary Plenary room
Chair: David Cadman, Councilor, City of Vancouver, Canada; ICLEI President Congress summary Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, Secretary General, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability; Resilient Cities 2011 Congress Chair ll Rafael Tuts, Chief, Urban Environment and Planning Branch, UN-Habitat, Kenya A word from UCLG ll Muchadeyi Masunda, Mayor, City of Harare, Zimbabwe; Co-President, UCLG Strategy panel: The next steps for local governments towards COP17 ll Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ll Edna Molewa, Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, Government & Public Administration, Cabinet & Ministers, Johannesburg, South Africa (tbc) ll Xolile George, Chief Executive Officer, South African Local Government Association (SALGA) (tbc) ll Marcelo Ebrard, Mayor, Mexico City, Mexico; Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change ll New elected Mayor of Durban or Debra Roberts, Deputy Head, Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department, City of Durban, South Africa Mayors Declaration ll Jürgen Nimptsch, Mayor, City of Bonn, Germany; Vice-Chair, World Mayors Council on Climate Change Closing remarks ll Joan Clos, Under Secretary General and Executive Director, UN-Habitat; Resilient Cities 2011 Patron ll David Cadman, Councilor, City of Vancouver, Canada; ICLEI President
18:30 – 20:00 Special closed session A sustainable foundation for Resilient Cities: Steering Board meeting with stakeholders (invitees only) Chair: Joan Clos, Under Secretary General and Executive Director, UN-Habitat; Resilient Cities 2011 Patron Hosted by: City of Bonn
Monday, 6 June 2011
Post- events Training: Building resilience through climate change adaptation (open to registration) Organizer: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability Urban Poverty, Resilience and Registry – Local Response to Global Climate Change (UNFCCC Climate Talks delegates only) ICLEI’s and UCLG’s side event at UNFCCC Climate Talks (13:15-14:45, Hotel Maritim) Organizers: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and United Cities and Local Governments
RD-154 18 Practical Information
Language The congress language is English. Registration and participants help desk The registration and participants help desk will be available for the duration of the congress. Opening hours for the registration and participants help desk are: Thursday, 2 June: 14:00 - 20:00 Friday, 3 June: 8:00 - 19:30 Saturday, 4 June: 8:00 - 20:30 Sunday, 5 June: 8:00 - 18:00 Exhibition An exhibition space with booths and display stands is available at the congress venue. This is the site where special events (publication launches, MoU signing ceremonies and conference announcements), poster session and coffee breaks will take place. Catering The congress venue has a modern buffet-style restaurant. Meal and drink vouchers are required for all meals. Participants accommodated at the congress venue will get their vouchers when checking in at the reception of the venue. Registered participants not accommodated at the congress venue will receive their vouchers (one per meal and one for a drink per meal) at the congress registration desk. Guests can purchase their vouchers at the reception of the venue. For meals outside the congress core days (2 June and 6 June) you can purchase individual meal vouchers at the reception. If you do not use all your vouchers, please return them to the congress team at the registration desk (a special box will be there) when you leave.
How to get to the venue You can reach the congress venue, Gustav-Stresemann-Institut (GSI), via tram from the Bonn main train station (Hauptbahnhof) with tramlines 16 and 63 towards ‘Bad Godesberg‘ (stop at ‘Max Löbner-Str/Friesdorf) or with tramline 66 towards ‘Bad Honnef‘ or ‘Ramersdorf‘ (stop at Robert Schuman Platz) in approximately 15 minutes. Both tram stops are within a 10-minute walking distance from the congress venue. Trams run from about as early as 4:30 until about as late as 00:30, on approximately 10-minute intervals.
RD-155 19 Supporting partners Supporting the congress latest) by on5Juneat [email protected]. thevery contacting any visualmaterial pleaseinform ICLEIimmediatly (by theendof for printandweb publication inthefuture. you If donotwishto appearin video material. The material may beusedby ICLEIandpartners thecongressDuring allsessionswillbedocumented withphotographs and Photography andvideodisclaimer you willbeableto buyyour voucher at thereception desk. voucher isalready includedintheaccommodation Otherwise, package. your internet voucher uponyour check-in at theGSI. The price ofthe have your accommodation bookedat thecongress venue, you willreceive The Gustav-Stresemann-Institut provides wireless internet access. you If Internet access at thevenue Silver Sponsor Tel: Gusta From 2to 5June Fax: Tel: Kaiser-Friedrich-Str. Germany 7,53113Bonn, ICLEI –Local Governments for Sustainability, World Secretariat For media-relatedquestions,[email protected] For questionsregarding theprogram [email protected] pleasecontact For general information pleasewrite to [email protected] www.iclei.org/bonn2011 Resilient Cities 2011Congress Secretariat Preceding theUNFCCC Bonn Talks (14-25May 2012) GermanyBonn, 11 -13May 2012 Resilient Cities 2012 your Mark calendar: Talks. climate changewillbeorganized back-to-back withtheUNFCCC June Once again theglobalforum resilience onurban andadaptation to The dates oftheResilientCities 2012congress are already available. Save thedate: inMay JoinusinBonn 2012! Germany Bonn D-53175 Langer Grabenweg 68 Venue: Gustav-Stresemann-Institut (GSI) e.V.
+49-(0)176 /34533378 +49-(0)228 /976299-01 +49-(0)228 /976299-28 v-Stresemann-Institut, S33 Room
Printed on FSC-certified paperfrom Printedwell-managed · FSCmixedforests onFSC-certified sources credit material
www.gsi-bonn.de Fax: +49-(0)228/8107-197 Tel: +49-(0)228/8107-0 Media partners Media
RD-156 World Bank World Endorsing partners
Photos: © fotolia.com (13), © ICLEI e.V. 2011 KOZ (10), © GSI (5), © R. Naal (2), © Presseamt Bundesstadt Bonn (1), © C. Lin (1) NEW PUBLICATION! ICLEI Global Report Financing the Resilient City, An ICLEI White Paper
It is estimated that up to 80 percent of the expected US$80-100 billion per year in climate change adaptation costs are to be borne by urban areas.
ICLEI’s latest Global Report, ‘Financing the Resilient City’, offers answers on how climate financing for adaptation can be mobilized, leveraged and innovated for the local level.
Authored by Jeb Brugmann, Managing Partner of The Next Practice Ltd. and ICLEI‘s Founding Secretary General, the report argues that we need a bottom-up approach to funding resilience and adaptation to climate change. It also supports the idea of resilience as a coherent approach to future urban planning.
The report answers questions such as: How can local governments finance resilience sustainably? Where does the money come from? How can the money be spent effectively?
We look towards the ‘inversion’ concept being taken up by governments and finance institutions. The ‘how’ and the ‘which’ of financing is as important as the ‘how much’. Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, ICLEI Secretary General
REPORT LAUNCH!
Where: Resilient Cities 2011, MAF opening session: Responsive finance for adaptation When: 5 June 2011, 9-11 am You can also get your copy on www.iclei.org or resilient-cities.iclei.org or in print via [email protected]
RD-157 Overview of the report
Climate finance has become an intense talking point around the world, especially Content overview
for urban areas who will bear up to 80 Executive summary percent of the US$80-100 billion per year 1. Introduction: Background and purpose in climate change adaptation costs. 2. Framing the demand-driven strategy: Mobilizing response by defining opportunity Instead of relying on the top-down 3. The requirements of resilient city building approach to climate financing, cities need 3.1 Resilience upgrading: A description to design infrastructure projects that are 3.2 Performance-oriented investment: Re-focusing optimized according to a set of local the purpose criteria. Meanwhile, finance institutions 3.3 Demand-driven investment: Re-focusing the need to fund what is needed on the approach ground rather than determine what local 4. Creating market conditions for resilient city-building projects should look like. 4.1 Establishing planning processes for resilience upgrading The report presents locally responsive 4.2 Building institutional capacity for comprehensive climate financing investment strategies resilience upgrading and instruments. It argues that finance 5. Financing the resilient city for resilience and adaptation need 5.1 Creating greater financial flows for resilient city- to be demand-driven, rather than building having conventional global financing 5.2 Financial product innovation mechanisms determining which local 6. Conclusion actions are eligible for funding.
Key challenges to financing the resilient city
1. International development assistance strategies are failing to marshal sufficient funds relative to the scale of required financing.
2. Funds are used inefficiently due the top-down nature of fund administration and the often siloed application in single purpose projects.
3. By focusing solely on risk reduction rather than the broader, revenue-generating opportunities for investment, little incentive is created to attract private investment into adaptation and other risk reduction projects.
RD-158 Framing the demand-driven strategy
In mobilizing funds for resilience, an efficient bottom-up demand needs to match with a responsive finance supply.
The local demand-side requires: The supply of financeneeds to consider:
1. a bottom-up planning processes for 1. The market for resilience finance requires identifying vulnerabilities and risks, and a high degree of responsiveness to linking the related risk mitigation solutions differentiated demand, so that the projects with priority performance enhancements in themselves can be locally responsive. relevant areas or systems; 2. Markets require a considerable degree 2. a bottom-up technical and institutional of standardization of the investment capacity for designing comprehensive propositions and predictability about the resilience upgrading projects; for pipeline and subsequent performance of managing and staging complex project the propositions. execution; and for preparing the different 3. Industry needs to learn how to integrate investment propositions related to different resilience as a new design and project components of these projects; and performance element into the front-end of 3. a bottom-up procurement of investment project planning and product design. Until through managed, competitive sourcing then there will be a likely need for new, mechanisms and processes. non-conventional financing instruments to support initial resilience upgrading.
With the right bottom-up capacity local demand can advance a large project as quickly as or perhaps more quickly than in a conventional top-down project planning and financing cycle of an international development institution.
RD-159 Creating a market for resilience
On the basis of such a demand-driven approach to investment planning, design, and finance sourcing, the different measures required in comprehensive resilience upgrades can be identified. The different risk-reward profiles and the performance of these resilience measures in reducing risks (within the context of different types of conventional urban re-development or upgrading projects) can be established. On this basis, financial services providers would be in a position to bundle similar measures, across large numbers of projects, into portfolios. Specific financing instruments could be designed to create diversified, scaled pools for investment. The instruments could each be tailored to a targeted class of measures that share a similar risk-reward profile.
The instruments might take the form of portfolio-based loans, catastrophe bonds, re-insurance, securitization, or other structured finance instruments. In this way, much larger private capital flows could be sourced for adaptation and other kinds of disaster risk reduction.
Way forward
To lead this kind of financial innovation, resources should be channeled to:
1. Developing local institutional capacity to prepare, structure and manage large scale redevelopment;
2. Mainstreaming climate and disaster risk reduction as factors in conventional planning processes, project design and development decision making;
3. Supporting the development of specialized financial instruments for the risk-oriented components of these projects that cannot be addressed via mainstreaming measures; and
4. Broadening financial mechanisms to allow more private investments.
GET A COPY OF THE FULL REPORT! Visit www.iclei.org or resilient-cities.iclei.org or contact [email protected]
RD-160 2011 Bonn Declaration of Mayors
We, Mayors of the World, coming from 35 cities in 30 countries and representing all continents gathered in Bonn, Germany, convened by World Mayors Council on Climate Change together with our partners at the Resilient Cities 2011: 2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change, are dedicated to confirm our commitment to globally coordinated local climate action. Thereby, We, Mayors of the World, Underlining That recent disasters which hit in particular Pakistan, Australia, United States, Canada, Brazil, and Japan, since our last meeting in Bonn in June 2010 remind us that resilience to disasters is of critical importance. Moreover, climate change is likely to exacerbate the intensity and frequency of many disasters, with a disproportionate amount of the associated impacts affecting the urban poor and vulnerable in developed and developing countries. As such, appropriate measures need to be urgently implemented at the local, subnational, national, regional and international levels to build local adaptive capacity for all types of disasters, including those likely to be exacerbated by climate change Recalling The Global Cities Covenant on Climate Change - the ‘Mexico City Pact’ and its reporting mechanism – the carbonn Cities Climate Registry, key outcomes of the World Mayors Summit on Climate in Mexico City on 21 November 2010, as successful implementation of the proposals contained in the 2010 Bonn Declaration of Mayors and acknowledging the African Mayors Climate Change Declaration adopted in Cape Town, South Africa in March 2011 as providing important regional support to this global process. Welcoming The 2011 UN-HABITAT Report on Cities and Climate Change, the outcomes of the Mayor´s Task Force on Urban Poverty and Climate Change, the First Assessment Report on Cities and Climate Change (ARC3) and the IPCC Expert Meeting on Human Settlements in Kolkata, India, on 22-24 March 2011, with a view that the outcomes of all these efforts should be appropriately fed into IPCC 5th Assessment Report and other relevant scientific and global studies in order to reflect the needs and opportunities for immediate climate action at the local level. Building upon The achievements of ‘Making Cities Resilient’ Campaign launched in Bonn in May 2010, under the leadership of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Fully supporting Decision X/22 at of the 10th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its annex - The Plan of Action on Sub-National Governments, Cities and Local Authorities on Biodiversity, which further strengthens Decision IX/28, with a view that UN Climate negotiations should be inspired by such ambitious and innovative decisions. Supporting Opportunities presented by the Cancun Agreements, in particular para.7 of Decision1/CP16 that designates local governments as ‘governmental stakeholders’, introducing city wide approaches on CDM, the launch of the Green Climate Fund for long-term finance and the Cancun Adaptation Framework.
We, Mayors of the World, declare the following Action Points:
Regarding adaptation and urban resilience: 1. Considering the fact that over the next 40 years, particularly in the cities of the Global South, we will have to urgently build the same level of urban capacity that we built over the last 4000 years, efforts on urban resilience and adaptation should shift from a singular, special purpose focus on specific climate-affected infrastructure and locations towards a more integrated focus on overall risks, development conditions, and local area performance. 2. Future urban development should be assessed in terms of its contribution to improved urban resilience. 3. We recognize that the impacts of climate change will most severely affect vulnerable groups within our cities, and commit to pursuing strategies for social, economic, cultural and environmental development that will reduce the vulnerability of all citizens. 4. We recognise that ecosystem based adaptation offers a cost-effective and sustainable approach to adaptation that can improve human wellbeing, particularly of vulnerable groups, in the cities of the Global South.
RD-161
2011 Bonn Declaration of Mayors
5. We recognise the need for financial institutions to fund locally relevant and appropriate development, rather than conventional global financing mechanisms determining which local projects are eligible for funding. As such, we take note of ICLEI’s Global Report: Financing the Resilient City presented at Resilient Cities 2011 and underline the three essential bottom-up features for building adaptive capacities for resilient communities and cities; a. Local planning processes for identifying vulnerabilities and risks, b. Local technical and institutional capacity for designing comprehensive adaptation and resilience upgrading projects; c. Local procurement of investment through managed, competitive sourcing mechanisms and processes. 6. We further encourage efforts to advocate for the implementation of the below findings of the Report at the local, subnational, national and international level, supported via additional appropriate joint initiatives with business and civil society partners; a. Mainstreaming new adaptation and resilience standards into conventional urban development projects, similar to recent ‘green building’ standards that have been mainstreamed into urban development and construction over the last decade. b. Developing specialized financial instruments for comprehensive local adaptation and resilience upgrading projects in urban areas and systems known to be highly vulnerable. c. Building additional local institutional capacity to prepare, structure and manage large scale redevelopment; Regarding UN Climate Negotiations: 7. We urge the UNFCCC delegates to commence relevant processes for the full implementation of para.7 of the Decision1/CP16 that designates local governments as ‘governmental stakeholders’ both at the UNFCCC level and within the negotiations related to international environmental governance, with a view to reach an effective and efficient global environmental system. 8. We encourage national delegations to include local government representation where appropriate. 9. We propose that sustainable and resilient urban development that prioritises climate change adaptation, poverty alleviation and improved human well-being should be defined as a thematic window in the design of the Green Climate Fund under the UNFCCC. Regarding further collaborative actions: 10. We encourage all local governments to further engage in decentralized and city-to-city cooperation in order to advance adaptation actions. 11. We encourage our international networks and in particular ICLEI and UCLG to work closely together maximising the engagement of local governments in the global environmental governance system. We encourage local governments to join the Making Cities Resilient campaign. We further invite interested partners and stakeholders to consider their support in building an alliance that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the Resilient Cities Congress as the global forum for learning, cooperation and networking on all aspects of urban resilience and adaptation to climate change. 12. We call upon national governments, multilateral institutions, and civil society stakeholders to recognize the value of the Global Cities Covenant on Climate - “the Mexico City Pact” and the carbonn Cities Climate Registry, which has 191 signatory cities as of today, representing around 300 million citizens, as the global response by local governments to the call for measurable, reportable, verifiable climate action and access to global climate funds. 13. In preparation for COP 17 in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011, we commit to support the pre-COP conference to be hosted by Durban and its partners, aimed at raising the international profile of adaptation as an urgent priority for the cities of the world, in particular those of the Global South, where high levels of poverty and underdevelopment put vulnerable populations and infrastructure at immediate and severe risk, thereby hindering progress towards achieving global development objectives. On the eve/during COP17 in December 2011, in Durban, we will further communicate outcomes of this pre-COP conference at the Conference of Signatories to the Mexico City Pact, with a view to strengthening adaptation actions alongside those of mitigation.
Adopted unanimously on 5 June 2011, in Bonn, Germany, and declared by Jürgen Nimptsch, Mayor of Bonn and Vice-Chair of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change RD-162 Section E 2.4
GVRD Board Meeting: July 29, 2011
To: Board of Directors
From: Intergovernmental Committee
Date: July 20, 2011
Subject: Vancouver Airport Authority Corporate Bylaw Changes
Intergovernmental Committee Recommendation: That the Board write a letter to the Vancouver Airport Authority (YVR) Board to express concerns about the proposed governance changes, regarding membership on the Board by non-Canadian citizens or non-residents of British Columbia, and particularly the possibility of the Board Chair being non-resident of British Columbia or non-citizen of Canada.
At its July 20, 2011 meeting, the Intergovernmental Committee received a presentation from Mr. Wilson Parasiuk, Director, Vancouver Airport Authority and Metro Vancouver. Members expressed concerns about the proposed YVR Authority governance changes, including membership on the Board by BC non-residents and non-Canadian citizens, and subsequently passed the resolution as presented above.
Attachment: Letter dated April 14, 2011 from Wilson Parasiuk, Director, YVR Board, to Mayor Lois Jackson, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, concerning two proposed changes to YVR Authority corporate by-laws.
5316121 RD-163
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-164 RD-165 RD-166 Section E 3.1
GVRD Board Meeting Date: July 29, 2011
To: Board of Directors
From: Kelly Birks, Office Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department
Date: July 14, 2011
Subject: Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – July 2011
Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated July 14, 2011 titled “Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – July 2011”.
Attachment(s):
a) Stephen R.J. Sheppard, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), UBC b) Ross Buchanan, The 32nd Avenue Alliance. c) Helen Spiegelman
5299782
RD-167
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-168 COMMUNITY CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS (3CS) PROGRAM
REPORT ON LAST 3 YEARS OF FUNDING/REQUEST FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), UBC
Goals of the 3CS Program The Community Climate Change Solutions (3CS) program is a collaboration between the CALP applied research group at UBC and over 25 other groups and agencies attempting to enhance & accelerate the transition to more resilient low-carbon communities. Phase I objectives were to: Apply compelling science-based visual media to synthesize and convey crucial technical and planning information on climate change to communities, in order to engage the public, build climate/energy literacy and capacity, and better inform policy-makers. Conduct 2-3 community case studies which envision climate change solutions to meet GHG reduction targets (mitigation), adapt to impacts, & maintain/enhance quality of life. Develop a guidance manual and tool-kit for communities to operationalize the visioning process and support outreach.
Phase I Work completed Over the first 3 years (2008-2011) of the partnership with Metro Vancouver, with leveraging of other funded research, CALP has met these goals by completing the following deliverables: Provision of visual data sets (including iconic visualisations of alternative adaptation and mitigation options in Lower Mainland neighbourhoods) as presentations and a web-gallery (http://www.calp.forestry.ubc.ca/media/ ) which have received widespread exposure through: o Contributions to Metro’s television documentary series “The Sustainable Region” on northshore snowpack and other climate change issues, and the 2011 Sustainability Congress media displays, in coordination with Metro media staff o Several other broadcast media presentations (eg. CTV, CBC, Global TV). o Over 60 lectures, slide-show presentations, and workshops to schools, public groups, practitioners, councils, ENGOs, and government o Course materials on regional climate change futures for university courses & capacity- building programs (also supported by UBC and Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions). Continued local climate change visioning case studies within Metro Vancouver to map renewable energy resources across the Northshore and develop detailed response scenarios to climate risks in Delta. Producing & disseminating a Visioning Guidance Manual (also supported by BC’s Ministry of Community and Regional Development and Climate Action Secretariat).
Outcomes of research and extension to date The above activities support municipal efforts to meet Climate Action Charter commitments on carbon neutrality and building compact sustainable communities, & to achieve provincial targets. Long-term research with decision-makers involved in early case studies shows that visioning techniques helped build support for mitigation and adaption polices, and iconic local visualisations (eg. snowpack reduction, sea level rise, low-carbon neighbourhoods) continue to resonate with the public, the media, and policy-makers. Visioning processes have enriched the dialogue and enabled/accelerated local government consideration of previously unfamiliar or controversial topics such as community retrofits, “managed retreat”, densification, and biomass energy systems. Visioning methods are starting to be mainstreamed in planning and outreach through training workshops, incorporation in Provincial adaptation guidance, and local projects.
RD-169 Presentation‐Environment and Energy Committee 1 COMMUNITY CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS (3CS) PROGRAM
Proposed Phase II activities enabled by continued Metro Vancouver support
The next 5 years represents the critical period for shifting to pathways that attain 2020 targets of 33% reduction in regional GHGs, as well as other Metro Vancouver Strategic Priorities and Action Plan goals such as energy neutrality and corporate carbon neutrality. Phase II of the 3CS program (2011-2016) will foster better public engagement and build ‘buy-in’ on such policies, targets, and plans. Specific activities planned or underway include:
A new project (partly funded by Neptis Foundation and the GEOIDE Research Network, with local partners Richmond & Surrey and parallel Toronto study) for building public literacy to support policy change on community energy solutions across Metro Vancouver.
Community workshops in the BC Hydro Decision Theatre in the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) at UBC: a forum for public and decision-maker engage- ment using immersive visualisation as a “window on the future of the region”. This cutting-edge facility opens in the fall. It offers a neutral space for stakeholders, governments, and researchers to explore future scenarios with climate change solutions and to test new engagement tools. It will provide access to advanced spatial modelling, interactive visual media, and collaborative processes such as digital charrettes. We hope to work closely with Metro Vancouver staff to exchange spatial and 3D datasets and enhance regional planning and policy efforts.
A continuing outreach and support program for: o capacity-building and social learning on community climate change solutions o training in visioning methods for practitioners and communities wishing to implement these tools and processes, based on rigorous testing and effectiveness evaluation.
Phase II of the 3CS Program is consistent with both Metro Vancouver’s Action Plan and UBC’s new Sustainability Initiative, where the university acts as an “agent of change in the community”. We see it as a key bridge between UBC and Metro Vancouver on outreach and planning issues of mutual interest. We therefore are requesting a renewal of the existing agreement with Metro, with a suggested contribution of $30,000 per year in funding (approximately 10% of the total required) for Phase II. Other partners who have provided support over the last 3 years are listed in the attachment and slide presentation.
CALP and UBC are very appreciative of the past support from Metro Vancouver, and value the opportunity to interact over time with your dedicated professional staff and media groups. We hope that we can continue this highly productive and mutually beneficial partnership.
RD-170 Presentation‐Environment and Energy Committee 2 Clean air for life....metro vancouver
The purpose of this document is to request the opportunity to present to the Environment and Energy Committee of Metro Vancouver on July 12, 2011.
My contact information is.....Ross Buchanan, 604-531-0009, [email protected]
Ross Buchanan is the designated speaker for The 32nd Avenue Alliance.
The 32nd Avenue Alliance...We are Citizens of Surrey, living in the neighborhoods of Kensington Prairie, Grandview Heights, Morgan Creek and Rosemary Heights who are deeply committed to halting the expansion of 32nd avenue to a five lane thoroughfare and securing a ban of highway trucks from 32nd avenue in order to preserve and protect the Public Health and Public Safety of our Families!
The committee I wish to address is the Environment and Energy Committee.
The date of the meeting I wish to speak at is July 12, 2011
Subject of Presentation
Air Quality and looming environmental disaster along the 32nd avenue corridor in Surrey BC relative to the commitment of Metro Vancouver to “ensure clean, clear and healthy air for current and future generations.”
Summary of Presentation
The subject of my presentation is Metro Vancouver’s commitment to “ensure clean, clear and healthy air for current and future generations” relative to what the citizens of the communities of Grandview Heights, Morgan Creek, Kensington Prairies and Rosemary Heights are currently experiencing along the 32nd Avenue Corridor in Surrey. We wish to advise the committee of both the immediate and the future impact of upwards of 7000 diesels highway trucks being channeled to 32nd Avenue and jammed through a narrow opening in the heart of our high density residential neighborhoods where no setbacks are provided. All of this is despite the fact that adequate and acceptable highway truck routes are already provided for with setbacks that meet the Best Practice Guidelines for Public Health on Highway10 and Highway 15. The Best Practice Management Guidelines of the Ministry of Environment for the Province of BC for busy roads like 32nd avenue is 150 meters. Surrey’s setbacks are 4.5 meters. Special concern needs to be given to the fact that we are being gassed! Diesel exhaust kills. Given that diesel is a known carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen we believe that it is both immoral and foolish to ram what may well be the highest concentration of diesel highway trucks in BC (exceeding Deltaport by 291%) through the heart of our
RD-171 neighborhoods within mere meters of our pre-schools, nursing homes, playgrounds and yes, our homes and our families. We believe that administrative fairness is not being served and that reasonable alternatives are being ignored to serve other purposes and that our lives and the lives of our children are being sacrificed to serve these other purposes.
Make no mistake about it. Air Quality matters! Just talking about it isn’t good enough. We need to take action to protect the lives of the citizens of Metro Vancouver. We are what we breath. It is not reasonable to jam thousands of diesel highway trucks through this narrow opening in the heart of our high density neighborhoods and it is unreasonable not to direct the diesel highway trucks onto the highways that we have already built for them at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and which provide adequate setbacks to protect the health and public safety of the citizens of Metro Vancouver.
Specific Action Request
The specific action we are asking the committee to take is that relative to Metro Vancouver’s Sustainable Region Initiative and Metro Vancouver’s “commitment to the well being of current and future generations and the health of our planet, in everything we do,” and the stated purpose of “ensuring clean, clear and healthy air for current and future generations,” we respectfully request that the committee act to protect our lives and direct staff to conduct an environmental assessment of the air quality along the 32nd avenue corridor in Surrey, especially between 152nd and 160th which is about to be expanded to a five lane thoroughfare with no setbacks to further accommodate rapidly increasing diesel highway trucks in and out of the City of Surrey’s mega (2000 acres) industrial complex. The City of Surrey, through their wholly owned subsidiary Surrey Development Corporation, is the anchor developer of this project. This situation gravely endangers the health and safety of the residents of Surrey living in the 32nd avenue corridor. In our opinion this looming environmental disaster needs to be halted immediately, the data collected and analyzed and administrative fairness be served with a decision by an independent, impartial, objective committee that protects the health all of our families...especially our children. We call on the members of this committee to take the leadership role and conduct an assessment of the current and future impact of deadly diesel exhaust on the citizens of Metro Vancouver residing along the 32nd Avenue Corridor in Surrey. .
RD-172 Executive Summary: application of Helen Spiegelman, citizen, to speak to the Metro Environment and Energy Committee July 12, 2011:
When you apply please include:
o It is important to provide a summary of your presentation for inclusion in the agenda package so that board members are familiar with your subject. The Summary can be up to two pages (single sided). Copies of presentations or other handouts cannot be distributed at meetings however, you may submit to the Secretary a copy of your complete presentation or other relevant background material for the record.
I will advise the Committee that I will be sending a letter to the Provincial Government regarding the groundless concerns raised in this Metro Staff Report. I will say in the letter that I support the differential treatment of landfills and incinerators in BC legislation.
The provincial policy is justified for the following reasons:
· GHG emissions are unavoidable in the operation and design of incinerators. Combustion is by its nature a process that instantly ejects GHGs into the atmosphere. This is why provincial policy imposes a cost on incineration to reflect the instant and irreversible losses that are inevitable in the process. Burning plastic is no different than burning gasoline in your car. · GHG emissions are preventable at landfills. They can be prevented by changing the operation and design of landfills. This is why provincial policy imposes a requirement on landfills that they capture GHGs as part of their normal operation. · I would like to see the Metro Board call on the province to establish a province-wide ban on disposal of organic materials to landfill, as Metro intends to do within the region by 2015 and as the province of Nova Scotia did in the 1990s. · The common objective of both Metro and the Province should be to drive materials up into their highest and best end use. Incinerators lock in bad design by providing publicly subsidized management systems that provide a justification for producers continuing to sell wasteful products and packaging. · In addition to emitting GHGs, cinerators irreversibly destroy materials that may have future use. A well- managed landfill, on the other hand, could end up providing temporary storage for materials that can later be dug up and used once scarcity of raw and refined materials becomes severe.
RD-173
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-174
REPORTS NOT INCLUDED ON CONSENT AGENDA
RD-175
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-176 Section G 1
GVRD Board Meeting Date: July 29, 2011
To: Board of Directors
From: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver Christina DeMarco and Regional Planning Team, Policy and Planning Department
Date: July 19, 2011
Subject: Adoption of the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy
Recommendation:
That the Board:
a) give third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010” as contained in the Attachment; b) reconsider, pass and finally adopt “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010” as contained in the Attachment; c) notify the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development that the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010; and d) notify all affected local governments and other organizations and governments who participated in the development of the Regional Growth Strategy that the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010.
1. PURPOSE
For the Board to consider adoption of the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy.
2. CONTEXT
The Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy was developed over several years of preparation, consultation and review with member municipalities, other government agencies, the public, and business groups. The Strategy replaces the 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan.
On November 12, 2010, the Metro Vancouver Board gave first and second readings to the Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010, and on January 14, 2011, gave the bylaw second reading (as amended). The Regional Growth Strategy was then submitted to affected local governments and they had 60 days to either accept or not accept the Regional Growth Strategy.
RD-177 Adoption of the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy GVRD Board Meeting Date: July 29, 2011 Page 2 of 2
Affected local governments include: Metro Vancouver member municipalities, Tsawwassen First Nation, Fraser Valley Regional District, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, and TransLink.
Unanimous acceptance is required by the 24 affected local governments before the Regional Strategy Bylaw can be adopted. The City of Coquitlam did not accept the Regional Growth Strategy. On April 28, 2011, the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development directed Metro Vancouver and Coquitlam to begin a non-binding dispute resolution process. After four dispute resolution meetings Metro Vancouver and Coquitlam agreed that the dispute could be resolved through an Implementation Agreement and a GVRD Procedures Bylaw.
On July 15, 2011, the Board adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2010, authorized the Metro Vancouver Chair to sign the Implementation Agreement between Metro Vancouver and Coquitlam, and directed the Technical Advisory Committee to establish a working group to investigate the feasibility of developing consistency and clarity around the application of the concept of regional significance. On July 18, 2011, the City of Coquitlam Council resolved to sign the Implementation Agreement, and Council is scheduled to consider acceptance of the Regional Growth Strategy on July 25, 2011.
All 24 affected local governments have now accepted the Regional Growth Strategy. The Metro Vancouver Board may now adopt the Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw.
3. ALTERNATIVES
The Board may: 1) Give third reading, reconsider, pass, and finally adopt the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010 as provided in this report [recommended]; or 2) Not adopt the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010, and suggest alternative actions.
4. CONCLUSION
The Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy has been developed with considerable consultation, discussion and review over the past several years. The Regional Growth Strategy has now received acceptance by all 24 affected local governments. The Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw can now be adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board.
ATTACHMENT
Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010 (Coloured copies provided under separate cover) (Doc. #5309857).
5302292 RD-178 SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE... TURNING IDEAS INTO ACTION
Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1136, 2010
Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future
Considered by the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board for Third and Final Reading on July 29, 2011
www.metrovancouver.org RD-179
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-180 Section G 2.2
Finance Committee Meeting Date: July 14, 2011
To: Finance Committee
From: Johnny Carline, Chief Administrative Officer Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Jim Rusnak, Chief Financial Officer
Date: July 7, 2011
Subject: Financial Projections for 2012 to 2016
Recommendation:
That the Board endorse the five year financial framework for 2012-2016 for budget and long range planning purposes as outlined in the report titled “Financial Projections for 2012 to 2016” dated July 7, 2011.
1. PURPOSE
To review and endorse financial projections as part of the 2012 Program Planning and Budget Process.
2. CONTEXT
Program Planning and Budget Process A key part of the Program Planning and Budget process is the establishment of a framework of five-year financial projections which are used to set the context for budget development purposes (see Schedule 1 attached for the timeline of our process).
These financial projections reflect, at this point in time, the anticipated program budget changes based on Board-supported initiatives as well as legislative and operational requirements. Some of the key corporate financial drivers impacting on operations are general inflation, inflation affecting labour costs, along with a need for increased maintenance on our aging water and liquid waste system infrastructure. The impact of these factors varies by legal entity/function.
In addition to comments from the pre-budget workshop held on April 8th, the process around these five-year projections has included discussion at the Finance Committee on July 14th. It was at the April Board Workshop that the Board resolved to hold a special meeting to consider the five-year budget projections and discuss not only key budget drivers but also strategic priorities moving forward.
All feedback received from the various meetings has been incorporated into this special meeting for the Board’s consideration in endorsing the five-year financial framework. The projections presented, for the most part, remain consistent with previous five-year projections and Metro Vancouver budget drivers. Some adjustments were made based on feedback received during previous discussions.
RD-181 Financial Projections for 2012 to 2016 Finance Committee Meeting Date: July 14, 2011 Page 2 of 3
As in the past, these projections, subject to unpredictable new cost drivers and uncertainties, are reviewed and endorsed by the Board.
Historical Budget Perspective
The Finance Committee has been interested in understanding the historical progression of the Districts’ budgets. As in the prior years, Schedule 2 shows this information and includes annual budget changes along with explanations of any significant swings.
Staff views these projections as ceiling rather than targets and remain vigilant in reducing costs where possible. As a result, in previous years, staff has presented the Board with budgets that have been below the endorsed projections with the exception of Solid Waste where the budget matched the projection.
Overview of five-year Budget Framework
The framework is consistent with the strategic direction set by the Board and inherent in the various Metro Vancouver management plans and capital programs. These management plans along with operational and legislated requirements, such as the Seymour-Capilano Filtration Project and the treatment plant upgrades, lead to the necessary action plans to meet the organization’s objectives. The action plans generally cover a long term planning horizon and have a multi-year impact on budgets.
The five-year budget framework for each legal entity is presented in the table blow. Overall, the projections shown will increase the average household cost in 2012 for District services by approximately $43 ($57 in 2011). An average household remains at approximately $600,000 in assessed value.
Five Year Budget Projections:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Regional District (*) 2.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Water Rate $0.6407 $0.7093 $0.7556 $0.8009 $0.8453 ($0.5648 (m3)) Liquid Waste (*) 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
SW Tipping Fee $109 $121 $153 $182 $205 ($97 per tonne) Impact to Household $43 $44 $52 $49 $39
Total annual $556 $600 $652 $701 $740 Household cost ($513) (*) Increase reflects the impact on the average household. It is assumed that growth in the region will be 1.5%.
With one exception, the projections presented in the above table for 2012 to 2015 are consistent with those approved by the Board in July 2010. Projections for 2016 have been added to round out the five year horizon.
The previously approved 2012 Regional District projection was 5.5% with the primary driver being the phased progression under the Parks and Greenways Management Plan as RD-182 Financial Projections for 2012 to 2016 Finance Committee Meeting Date: July 14, 2011 Page 3 of 3 approved by the Board several years ago. In response to feedback calling for restraint in light of a slowly recovering economy, we have set an objective to keep the Regional District budget increase in line with inflation or 2.5% for 2012. It should also be noted that new Board initiatives often place pressure on the Regional District budget, as they have in the recent past (e.g. agriculture, culture, international engagement, pan municipal affairs).
In addition, although projecting a Solid Waste Tipping Fee of $109 per metric tonne for 2012, reduced waste flows in the system, have created uncertainty due to a disagreement between Metro Vancouver and our third party operator regarding the distribution of the waste flows and the resulting financial impacts. The uncertainty around this situation could push the 2012 tipping fee as high as $118.
MVHC - Regional Affordable Housing:
The MVHC, the majority of which is governed by partnership operating agreements, is supported by revenue from property rentals which have exceeded expenditures in recent years. Over the past few years a number of operational improvements have been made leading to more efficient use of existing resources, and some properties were refinanced to improve the MVHC financial picture. Despite these improvements, a review in conjunction with our funding partners continues with the goal of a longer term management plan primarily regarding ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of our now aging portfolio.
We continue to move towards resolving some of these issues which should assist in meeting the financial pressures to maintain the existing portfolio in the near future.
3. ALTERNATIVES
1) The Board can endorse the five-year financial framework as presented;
2) The Board can provide direction for amending the five-year financial framework as it considers appropriate.
4. CONCLUSION
While some uncertainties remain, several things have happened since the financial projections were presented during the 2011 Program Planning and Budget process. As a result the projections for 2012-2016 reflect the information known at this time. The projections are reflective of Metro Vancouver’s requirements in order to deliver the established level of service to the region.
While not discussed within this report, an accompanying presentation will provide for in- depth discussion regarding both budget drivers and available strategic alternatives.
Attachments: Schedule 1 - 2012 Program Planning Schedule Schedule 2 - Greater Vancouver Districts’ Historical Budget Analysis
PT/eb
Document #5281421
RD-183
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
RD-184
Schedule 1
2012 Program Planning Schedule
Date (2011) Action Internal Deadlines May 16/17 CAO/Managers' meeting to discuss strategic priorities and key expenditure drivers for 2012 May TBD Info session for Program Owners May 24 2011 PIP open to program owners June 10 Deadline for department dependency identification July 17 Deadline for program owners' completion of programs/budget and staffing July 20-30 Finance department review with Division Managers July 29 Budget Target Board Workshop July 29 Deadline for completion of Managers' program review Aug 2-19 Finance department review of programs Aug 22-26 CAO administrative review Aug 29-Sep 9 Managers' appeal Sep 16 Final adjustments to Finance Five-Year Projections June 16 Five-year Projections to Finance Committee (informal discussion) June 23 Five-year Projections to RFAC June 23 Five-year Projections to RAAC July 8 Five-year Projections to REAC July 14 Finance Committee review and approve Five-year Projections/Targets July 29 Board review and approve Five-year Projections and Long Range Capital Plans Committee Review Oct 5 Parks Committee review of programs Oct 5 Intergovernmental Committee review of programs Oct 6 Labour Relations Bureau review of programs Oct 6 Agriculture Committee review of programs Oct 7 Electoral Area Committee review of programs Oct 11 Environment & Energy Committee review of programs Oct 12 Water Committee review of programs Oct 12 Waste Management Committee review of programs Oct 13 Finance Committee review of programs Oct 13 Finance Committee review of Draft Budget Oct 14 Regional Planning Committee review of programs Oct 14 Housing Committee review of programs Oct Info Sessions for RAAC/RFAC/REAC Public Consultation Oct Public Consultation Session (MV Head Office) Municipal Consultations TBD Municipal Consultation Session – Vancouver City Hall – Staff pre-meeting TBD Municipal Consultation Session – Fraser South, City of Surrey TBD Municipal Consultation Session – Fraser North, Burnaby City Hall TBD Municipal Consultation Session – North Shore, District of North Vancouver TBD Municipal Consultation Session – Richmond City Hall TBD Municipal Consultation Session – Vancouver City Hall – Mayor & Council Board Review Oct 14 MVHC Board - approval of programs & budget Oct 19 Board Budget Workshop Oct 28 RD, WD & SD Boards - approval of programs & budget
RD-185
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
RD-186
Schedule 2
Greater Vancouver Districts’ Historical Budget Analysis
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
REGIONAL DISTRICT:
Tax Requisitions $ 35,141,405 $ 37,765,056 $ 38,792,473 $ 39,633,544 $ 41,755,456 $ 44,032,520
% Change* 4.84% 7.47% 2.72% 2.17% 5.35% 5.45%
Cost Per Average Household $ 33 $ 35 $ 35 $ 35 $ 37 $ 39
With Regional Parks comprising about 60% of the Regional District, their costs were kept relatively flat for several years and although this kept the requisitions down, it also resulted in deterioration of basic parks' infrastructure. Increases in 2003, 2004 and 2005 began to address the maintenance and upgrade of this infrastructure as well as the cost increases associated with an increase in the number of park visitors. 2006 was up primarily due to increases in 911. 2007 and 2008 were up due to new initiatives in Strategic Planning (Agriculture and Environment) and implementation of PGMP. In 2009 there was the continuation of PGMP initiatives. In 2010 there were some additions to General Government and the continuation of the PGMP, and in 2011 the progression of the PGMP continues along with the addition of the International Engagement program in General Government.
WATER DISTRICT
Water Rate $ 0.291 $ 0.348 $ 0.383 $ 0.443 $ 0.496 $ 0.565
% Change 16.23% 19.67% 9.91% 15.76% 11.90% 13.99%
Cost Per Average Household $ 128 $ 151 $ 166 $ 169 $ 190 $ 213 **
2006 Increases due to the continuing construction of the new filtration plant.
2007 Increases due to the continuing construction of the new filtration plant.
2008 Increases due to the continuing construction of the new filtration plant.
2009 Increases due to the completing construction of the new filtration plant.
2010 Increases due to continuation of the Twin Tunnels, increases in maintenance and operating costs of the filtration plant.
2011 Increases due to continuation of the Twin Tunnels, increases in maintenance and annualized operating costs of the filtration plant.
* Impact per average household would be approximately 1.5% less. ** Drop in projected per household consumption from 382 cubic metres to 376. *** Drop in projected per household waste from 97% of a metric tonne due to increased diversion.
RD-187
Schedule 2 (continued)
Greater Vancouver Districts’ Historical Budget Analysis (continued)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
LIQUID WASTE
Sewer Levy $ 130,457,023 $ 136,333,761 $ 144,065,223 $ 151,431,254 $ 157,646,196 $ 167,242,155
% Change* 3.84% 4.50% 5.67% 5.11% 4.10% 6.09%
Cost Per Average Household $ 143 $ 147 $ 153 $ 158 $ 162 $ 170
Increases in the Liquid Waste budget over this period has been relatively consistent and has been the result of increased maintenance and upgrade requirements to an aging infrastructure (both operating and capital).
SOLID WASTE
Tipping Fee $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ 68.00 $ 71.00 $ 82.00 $ 97.00
Cost Per Average Household $ 64 $ 64 $ 67 $ 69 $ 80 $ 91 ***
The Solid Waste Tipping Fee was changed to $65.00 per tonne in 1996 from $69.00 and had remained constant through 2007. This was made possible by increases in waste flows over the years as well as the addition of other sources of revenue such as the sale of steam generated at the Waste-to-Energy facility and the use of that steam to produce and sell electricity. In 2008 and 2009 there was a $3 increase in the Tipping Fee due to the Zero Waste Challenge and other planning initiatives moving forward. 2010 and 2011 increases are primarily the result of contract inflation and a reduction in waste flows.
* Impact per average household would be approximately 1.5% less. ** Drop in projected per household consumption from 382 cubic metres to 376. *** Drop in projected per household waste from 97% of a metric tonne due to increased diversion.
RD-188
OTHER BUSINESS
RD-189
This page left blank intentionally.
RD-190 MV EVENTS
August 2011 September 2011 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa August 2011 123456 123 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 45678910 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Jul 31 Aug 1 2 3 4 5 6 BC Day 11:00am Art in Park Fe Jul 31 - Aug 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11:00am Art in Park Fe Aug 7 - 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 RD-191 Aug 14 - 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Aug 21 - 27
28 29 30 31 Sep 1 2 3 Aug 28 - Sep 3
(C) - Denotes Closed meeting - not open to the public 7/21/2011 8:17 AM MV EVENTS
September 2011 October 2011 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa September 2011 123 1 45678910 2345678 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 91011 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Aug 28 29 30 31 Sep 1 2 3 Aug 28 - Sep 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Labour Day FCM Board of Directors; Nelson, BC 9:00am PARKS Comm 1:00pm AGRICULTURE 12:30pm INTERGOVERN Sep 4 - 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
9:00am Environment & 9:00am WATER Comm 9:00am FINANCE Com 9:00am Regional Plan RD-192 1:00pm WASTE Mgmt 12:00pm ELECTORAL A 1:00pm HOUSING Co Sep 11 - 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 9:00am IRBC Conferen 9:00am IRBC Conferen 9:00am IRBC Conferen 9:00am BOARD Meeti 9:00am POLICING Issu Sep 18 - 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 Oct 1 UBCM Convention; Vancouver Sep 25 - Oct 1
(C) - Denotes Closed meeting - not open to the public 7/21/2011 8:17 AM