APPROVAL of AGENDA Approval of the Regular Council Agenda of November 1, 2011

REGULAR MEETING OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011, ST ARTING A T 5 : 3 0 P M

In the Franz Wilhelmsen Theatre at Maurice Young Millennium Place 4335 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, BC V0N 1B4

APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approval of the Regular Council agenda of November 1, 2011.

ADOPTION OF MINUTES Adoption of the Regular Council minutes and Public Hearing minutes of October 18, 2011.

PUBLIC QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

PRESENTATIONS/DELEGATIONS RMOW – Tourism A presentation recognizing the Resort Municipality of Whistler-Tourism Whistler Whistler Partnership partnership agreement. Agreement

MAYOR’S REPORT

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

INFORMATION REPORTS Third Quarter That Council receives Information Report No. 11-116 on Investment Holdings as of Investment Report – September 30, 2011. 2011 Report No. 11-116 File No. 4572

Regular Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2011 Page 2

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS LLR 128: Conference That Council authorize hours of liquor sale from 11:30 am on Saturday, February Centre Extension of 11, 2012 to 4:00 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012 at the Whistler Conference Hours for Winterpride Centre; and further Report No. 11-117 File No. LLR 128 That Council authorize staff to support Tourism Whistler’s application to the provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Branch for a Temporary Change to a Liquor License for the event.

LLR 1073: Whistler That Council authorize the resolution attached as Appendix “A” to Administrative Golf Course Hours of Report No. 11-118 providing Council’s recommendation to the BC Liquor Control Sale and Patron and Licensing Branch in support of an application from Whistler Golf Course for a Participation Permanent Change to Licensed Hours of Sale for Food Primary License No. Entertainment 124710, to extend hours of sale to 9:00 am to 1:00 am Monday through Sunday, Report No. 11-118 and further, File No. LLR 1073 That Council authorize the resolution attached as Appendix “B” to Administrative Report No. 11-118 providing Council’s recommendation to the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in support of an application from Whistler Golf Course for a Permanent Change to a Liquor License to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement to Food Primary License No. 124710.

Whistler Transit System That Council receive Administrative Report No. 11-119 entitled “Whistler Transit Financial and Facility System Financial and Facility Review Findings” wherein staff present Transit cost Review Findings reduction measures equivalent to $528,800 worth of service, with a net savings to Report No. 11-119 the Municipality of $230,000; and File No. 537 That Council request BC Transit change the amortization period for the Whistler Transit Maintenance Facility from 30 to 40 years and direct staff to work with BC Transit to realize the cost savings from this change; and

That Council approve in principle a $111,176 increase (from the 2011 budget of $854,824 to a maximum of $966,000 in 2012) in the allocation of the 2012 – 2% Additional Hotel Room Tax (AHRT) funding to the Transit Budget to fully cover the 2012 Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) share of the costs for the free Village Shuttle transit services (Marketplace, Upper Village/Benchlands and Lost Lake), and incorporate this increase into the RMOW Five Year Financial Plan every year thereafter; and

That Council authorize the Mayor and Corporate Officer to execute the 2011- 2012 Whistler Transit Annual Operating Agreement (I) (AOA) – Amendment 1 Effective July 1, 2011 for the period April 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011 reflecting lower costs; and

That Council authorize the Mayor and Corporate Officer to execute the 2011- 2012 Whistler Transit Annual Operating Agreement (II) (AOA) Effective October 1, 2011 for the period October 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 reflecting the new service levels and costs as a result of the Whistler Transit Service Review. Regular Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2011 Page 3

Five-Year Financial That Council considers giving first, second and third readings to the Five-Year Plan 2011-2015 Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011. Amendment Report No. 11-115 File No. 4530

Emerald Dreams That the Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler in open meeting assembled, Report No. 11-120 hereby resolves that the Municipality, as sole shareholder of Emerald Dreams File No. Vault Conservation Co. Ltd; pass the consent resolutions of the sole shareholder of Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd; a copy of which is attached to this resolution, and that the Mayor and Corporate Officer execute and deliver the resolutions on behalf of the Municipality.

POLICY REPORTS Official Community That Council pass a resolution to adopt the policy for the consultation with First Plan First Nations Nations attached as Appendix A to Policy Report No. 11-121. Referral Policy Report No. 11-121 File No. 3024

MINUTES OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS Forest and Wildland Minutes of the Forest and Wildland Advisory Committee meeting of September Advisory Committee 14, 2011.

BYLAWS FOR FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD READINGS Five-Year Financial Plan The purpose of Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011-2015 Amendment 2011 is to repeal “Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw 1979, Bylaw No. 1987, 2011 2011 and, amend Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Bylaw 1963, 2011.

BYLAWS FOR THIRD READING Zoning Amendment The purpose of Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Drive – Social Bylaw (1519 Spring Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011 is to add “Social Service Centre” to the list of Creek Drive – Social permitted uses in the ID1 (Institutional Daycare One) Zone, amend the parking Services Centre) No. schedule for a “social service centre”, and add a definition of “Social Service 1985, 2011 Centre” to the list of definitions.

OTHER BUSINESS

Regular Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2011 Page 4

ITEMS HAVING RECEIVED PRIOR NOTICE OF MOTION Cheakamus Crossing That Council direct staff of the RMOW to enter into negotiations with the strata Lot corporations of Cheakamus Crossing to lease an appropriate lot to the strata corporations that wish to utilize such a parking and storage space. As a condition of the lease, the strata corporations that are signatories would be required to pay for all insurance and maintenance cost associated with the use of the lot. The RMOW would be named as a co-insured on the insurance.

CORRESPONDENCE Remembrance Day Correspondence from Brian Buchholz, Committee Chair for the Whistler File No. 3009 Remembrance Day Service, dated October 26, 2011, inviting Council, their families and all RMOW staff to attend the Whistler Remembrance Day Service.

Alpha Creek Lands/ Correspondence from Peter C. Lang, Associate with IBI/HB Architects, dated Whistler U Rezoning October 13, 2011, regarding an update on Rezoning Application 438 and the Application Update Whistler U proposal. File No. RA.438

Draft Official Correspondence from Peter C. Lang, Associate with IBI/HB Architects, dated Community Plan October 26, 2011, regarding objection to the new draft Official Community Plan. Policies File No. 10601

Draft Official Correspondence from Robert S. Anderson, with Farris, Vaughan, Willis & Murphy Community Plan and LLP, asking that the municipal representatives consult with OKA prior to Alpha Creek Lands Council’s consideration of the draft Official Community Plan. File No. 106001, RA.438

BC Hydro Annual Correspondence from Arlene Shwetz, Community Relations Manager for BC Report Hydro, dated October 5, 2011, regarding the BC Hydro Community Relations File No. 3009 2011 Annual Report for the Squamish-Lillooet Region.

Housing for Adults with Correspondence from the BC Community Living Action Group (BC-CLAG), dated Developmental October 13, 2011, regarding cuts to housing and program supports funded by Disabilities Community Living BC for adults with developmental disabilities, and requesting File No. 9108 Council consider bringing forward the enclosed resolution that was passed by the Vancouver City Council.

Columbia Institute Correspondence from Charley Beresford, Executive Director of the Columbia Publications Institute, dated October 13, 2011 regarding two new publications: Catch $25: File No. 3009 How Mandatory Carbon Offsets are Undermining Real Emissions Reductions in BC School Districts, and This Green House: Building Fast Action for Climate Change and Green Jobs.

Regular Council Meeting Agenda November 1, 2011 Page 5

Habitat Improvements Correspondence from Lyall Fetherstonhaugh dated October 18, 2011, thanking File No. 831.1 the RMOW for habitat improvements made this year on the Cheakamus Lake Road wildlife corridor.

New Car Dealers of Correspondence from Blair L. Qualey, President and CEO of New Car Dealers of British Columbia British Columbia, dated October 21, 2011, regarding a study entitled Social and File No. 3009 Economic Impacts of the Members of the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia.

Literacy Correspondence from Brenda LeClair, Chief Executive Officer of Decoda Literacy File No. 3009 Solutions, dated September 27, 2011, regarding literacy in British Columbia.

ADJOURNMENT

REGULAR MEETING OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011, STARTING A T 5 : 3 0 P M

In the Franz Wilhelmsen Theatre at Maurice Young Millennium Place 4335 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, BC V0N 1B4

PRESENT: Mayor K. Melamed

Councillors: R. Forsyth, G. Lamont, T. Milner, C. Quinlan, T. Thomson, E. Zeidler

Chief Administrative Officer, M. Furey General Manager of Community Life, B. MacPherson Acting General Manager of Environmental Services, J. Paul General Manager of Resort Experience, J. Jansen General Manager of Economic Viability, L. Landry General Manager of Policy and Program Development, M. Vance Corporate Officer L. Miller Manager of Communications, M. Comeau Communications Officer, G. Inglese Manager of Environmental Operations, M. Day Manager of Fiscal Planning, K. Roggeman Transit Demand Management Coordinator, E. DalSanto Manager of Recreation Services, R. Weetman Manager of Community Planning, B. Brown Director of Human Resources, D. Wood Commuter Challenge Coordinator, D. Savage Recording Secretary, A. Winkle

APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Councillor G. Lamont Seconded by Councillor T. Thomson

That Council approve of the Regular Council agenda of October 18, 2011, including the following additions: – an item regarding Service Review under “Items Brought Forward From Closed Meetings”; – a resolution regarding Tri Area Pass under “Other Business” – a Notice of Motion under “Other Business” by Councillor C. Quinlan.

CARRIED MINUTES Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2011 Page 2

ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor E. Zeidler Seconded by Councillor C. Quilan

That Council adopt the Regular Council minutes of October 4, 2011. CARRIED

PUBLIC QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD Adam Protter, 1144 Whitewater Drive, asked about overflow parking changes at Cheakamus Crossing. Mayor Melamed responded there has been a recommendation from WDC to extend the deadline until April 30th. The first consultation is planned for the first week of November whereby staff can consult with the residents about a shorter and a longer term solution. He commented that this is subject to the possible liability about snow clearing.

Mr. Protter asked if communication has gone out. Mayor Melamed responded no, that the meeting is being organized.

Mr. Protter asked about the use of the gravel lot. Mayor Melamed responded that issues will be addressed at the first meeting, and meetings will continue as needed.

Mr. Protter asked about parking issues in other neighbourhoods in Whistler, and asked about the possibility for a taskforce regarding parking and transit. Mayor Melamed responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Protter asked about awareness that the provincial government was renewing the license of occupation for the 13 hectares that the asphalt plant sits on in 2007 while the athletes’ village was being built. Mayor Melamed responded that he had no personal recollection of that. He commented on intergovernmental communications that may be improved by a possible restructure at the provincial level of government.

PRESENTATIONS/DELEGATIONS 2011 Commuter A presentation was given by Donna Savage, Commuter Challenge Coordinator, Challenge regarding the results of the 2011 Commuter Challenge.

MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Melamed reported that municipal crews are busy preparing for the 2011- 2012 cross-country skiing and snowshoeing season. On October 4, Whistler Council approved pricing for the upcoming season and early bird passes are now available for purchase until November 24 at the Meadow Park Sports. The RMOW continues to work with Whistler Sports Legacies and Callaghan Country to offer dual area season passes and potentially a tri-area pass product this year. Details will be released as they are confirmed. For updates, pass pricing and information throughout the season, visit www.whistler.ca/xcountry.

MINUTES Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2011 Page 3

Mayor Melamed reported that during this year’s Fall Yard Waste Drop-off program, Whistler residents secured 0.45 metric tonnes of invasive species and diverted 11.13 metric tonnes of organic yard waste to the Whistler Composter. This combined with the waste diverted during the Spring Drop-Off Program brings the total to 23.63 metric tonnes of diverted waste. This has been the program’s most successful year to date.

Mayor Melamed reported that the Cheakeamus Community Forest is holding an open house on Thursday, November 3rd from 3 p.m to 6 p.m at the Whistler Public Library in the common room to review the summer’s logging activities and seek input on the draft Old Forest Plan. The CCF is asking the public’s input on additional areas of old forest that should be considered for protection.

Mayor Melamed reported that the Sea-to-Sky Clean Air Society is coordinating a Wood Stove Exchange in Squamish Lillooet Regional District communities from Furry Creek to D’Arcy. The program will run until December 31, 2011. Eligible participants receive a minimum $250 rebate, which when combined with other offers can total almost $1,000 in savings. The Wood Stove Exchange is a program designed to encourage British Columbians to change out their older smoky wood stoves for newer low emission stoves including wood, gas, propane, and wood pellets. New wood stoves are proven to burn one third less wood, to reduce emissions by up to 70 percent and to significantly reduce risks of chimney fires. For more information or to find out how you can participate, please visit the Sea-to-Sky Clean Air Society’s website: seatoskyairquality.ca.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Heat Recovery System Moved by Councillor C. Quinlan at the Whistler Seconded by Councillor T. Thomson Compost Facility Report No. 11-114 That Council directs staff to amend the Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 File No. 655.10 Bylaw No. 1963, 2011 to provide funding for a capital project for a Waste Heat Recovery System (WHRS) at the Whistler Compost Facility, in the amount of $131,000; the expenditure will be funded with a $10,000 grant from the Climate Action Innovation Fund (CAIF) and the remaining $121,000 to be reallocated from Environmental Services operating program 6621 Composter-General Operating Budget, Account 6415 (Building Maintenance).

Opposed: Councillor R. Forsyth CARRIED

6:00 p.m. a Public Hearing was held for Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Drive – Social Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011.

6:22 p.m. the meeting resumed.

MINUTES Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2011 Page 4

Crown Referral Moved by Councillor T. Milner Regarding the Seconded by Councillor R. Forsyth Issuance of a Licence of Occupation for the Whereas Council is aware of significant concerns expressed by the local Expansion of the neighbourhood respecting a gravel operation at this location; and Whistler Aggregates Quarry Whereas Zoning Bylaw 303 clearly expresses the community’s view that mineral Report No. 11-113 extraction should not occur on RR1 zoned lands; File No. CR2410102, RZ 1025, RZ 1047 That Council authorize staff to inform the Ministry of Forest, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, that the Municipality does not support the continued activation of Licence of Occupation 241127, being the Licence of Occupation for the expansion area. CARRIED

MINUTES OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS Measuring Up Select Moved by Councillor T. Milner Committee Seconded by Councillor R. Forsyth

That minutes of the September 7, 2011 meeting of the Measuring Up Select Committee be received. CARRIED

BYLAWS FOR THIRD READING Zoning Amendment No action was taken regarding Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Bylaw (1519 Spring Drive – Social Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011. Creek Drive – Social Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011

BYLAWS FOR ADOPTION Parks and Recreation Moved by Councillor R. Forsyth Fees and Charges Seconded by Councillor C. Quinlan Amendment Bylaw, 1984, 2011 That Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges Amendment Bylaw, 1984, 2011 be adopted. CARRIED

ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM CLOSED MEETINGS Service Review Moved by Councillor T. Thomson Seconded by Councillor R. Forsyth

That Council endorse the proposed service changes identified in the Service Review and as presented by the Chief Administrative Officer.

That Council direct staff to move forward with the changes identified in the Service Review. CARRIED MINUTES Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2011 Page 5

OTHER BUSINESS Tri Area Pass Moved by Councillor T. Milner Seconded by Councillor C. Quinlan

That Council authorize staff to enter into reciprocal use agreements with the Whistler Legacies Society and Callaghan Country Wilderness Adventures Ltd. for the provision of a Tri Area Pass for the Lost Lake, Whistler Olympic Park and Callaghan Country trails for the next five years with up to an average 33% pass price discount provided on the Lost Lake portion of the combined pass price conditional on reciprocal proportional revenue splitting and a minimum 3% administration fee allowance for the seller. CARRIED

Notice of Motion Moved by Councillor C. Quinlan

That Council direct staff of the RMOW to enter into negotiations with the strata corporations of Cheakamus Crossing to lease an appropriate lot to the strata corporations that wish to utilize such a parking and storage space. As a condition of the lease, the strata corporations that are signatories would be required to pay for all insurance and maintenance cost associated with the use of the lot. The RMOW would be named as a co-insured on the insurance.

ITEMS HAVING RECEIVED PRIOR NOTICE OF MOTION Council Procedures Moved by Councillor C. Quinlan Bylaw Seconded by Councillor T. Thomson

That Council amend the council procedures bylaw to add an agenda item for Council Committee reports following the Mayor’s Report on a trial basis, and be referred to the Governance Committee.

Opposed: Councillor R. Forsyth, Councillor E. Zeidler CARRIED

CORRESPONDENCE Fitzsimmons Berm Moved by Councillor R. Forsyth Access Seconded by Councillor T. Milner File No.516 That correspondence from Markus Samer dated October 6, 2011, in support of removing the gates along the Fitzsimmons Creek Berm be received and include to the file on the subject. CARRIED

Whistler Transit Moved by Councillor T. Thomson File No. 538 Seconded by Councillor R. Forsyth

That correspondence from Brian Wolfgang Becker, dated October 11, 2011, regarding options for transit in Whistler be received and referred to the Transit Operating Committee. CARRIED MINUTES Regular Council Meeting October 18, 2011 Page 6

Co-owner Agreement for Moved by Councillor C. Quinlan Waste Removal Seconded by Councillor R. Forsyth Services File No. 8254 That correspondence from Scott Schober, Strata Property Agent for Whistler Resort Management, dated October 3, 2011, regarding the split for cost sharing for garbage and recycling removal services for The Springs and Chiyakmesh in Cheakamus Crossing be received including the response from WHA. CARRIED

Protection of Animals Moved by Councillor R. Forsyth File No. 3009 Seconded by Councillor T. Milner

That correspondence from Andrea Assaly, Administration for Fur-Bearer Defenders, dated October 4, 2011, regarding election candidates’ intentions for the protection of animals be received. CARRIED

Foster Family Month Moved by Councillor T. Thomson File No. 3009 Seconded by Councillor G. Lamont

That correspondence from The Honourable Mary McNeil, Minister of Child and Family Development, dated October 1, 2011, regarding October having been proclaimed as Foster Family Month in British Columbia be received and proclaimed. CARRIED

Mayor Melamed reported Helmut Banka has passed away.

ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor T. Milner

That Council adjourn the October 18, 2011 Council meeting at 7:19 p.m.

CARRIED

______MAYOR: K. Melamed

______CORPORATE OFFICER: L. Miller

PUBLIC HEARING OF MUNICIPAL COUNCI L

MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011 STARTING AT 6 : 0 0 P M

In the Franz Wilhelmsen Theatre at Maurice Young Millennium Place 4335 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, BC V0N 1B4

PRESENT

Mayor K. Melamed

Councillors: R. Forsyth, G. Lamont, T. Milner, C. Quinlan, T. Thomson, E. Zeidler

The Public Hearing is convened pursuant to Section 890 of the Local Government Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323 to allow the public to make representations to Council respecting matters contained in “Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Drive – Social Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011” (the “proposed Bylaw”).

Everyone present shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the proposed bylaw. No one will be discouraged or prevented from making their views known. However, it is important that remarks be restricted to matters contained in the proposed Bylaw.

When speaking, please commence your remarks by clearly stating your name and address.

Members of Council may, ask questions following presentations however, the function of Council at a Public Hearing is to listen rather than to debate the merits of the proposed Bylaw.

Public Hearing Minutes Page 2 October 18, 2011

As stated in the Notice of Public Hearing,

Explanation Explanation was given by Bill Brown, Manager of Community Planning, concerning the proposed Bylaw.

Correspondence Lonny Miller, Corporate Officer, indicated that no correspondence was received regarding the proposed Bylaw.

Submissions Lorna Van Straaten, Whistler Community Services: commented the building would be renamed “The Whistler Blackcomb Foundation Social Services Centre” and would become a hub for social services for Whistler and the Sea to Sky community. commented that the building would offer Whistler and Sea to Sky non- profits shared space for offices and programming. commented that the Howe Sound Women’s Centre would sublet a wing of the building. commented that the building would have a community room for other non- profits available for meetings and activities that would be booked for free. expressed hopes for new and stronger partnerships between non-profits and improved programming for citizens. office space would be provided for the Howe Sound Women’s Centre, Sea to Sky Community Services, Zero Ceiling, Training Innovations, Alzheimer’s’ Society and Trex groups. commented that the food bank will run out of the back area of the building, where it will have its own entrance, be out of sight of the neighbours, and offer shelter to participants of the programs. commented that the food bank program runs one day a week, and the majority of food bank users are the underemployed. commented that an outreach worker is on site and in contact with every user of the service, and how it is beneficial to have the food bank on the same site as the office. commented on the opportunity to expand programming in the proposed location. commented on the intention to run a hub for volunteers for all non-profits from this location. clarified for Mayor Melamed that they do need to vacate their current location for the food bank due to zoning and safety issues.

Sheila Allen, Howe Sound Women’s Centre Society commented that it is the 30th anniversary for the Howe Sound Women’s Centre servicing the Sea to Sky corridor. expressed an interest in expanding services in the area. commented that they provide a safe home, transition house in Squamish and a second stage pilot project in Squamish. commented that they off the Children Who Witness Abuse counseling in Squamish, Whistler, and Pemberton. commented that they have a drop in centre in Squamish that with over

Public Hearing Minutes Page 3 October 18, 2011

3,500 visits per year and anticipate that clients in Whistler would use the same services. commented they offer a multicultural outreach program in Squamish and hope to offer the same in Whistler. commented that they offer a First Nations Women’s Safety Network through all of the nations in the Sea to Sky corridor. commented that they offer youth education programs throughout the Sea to Sky corridor and run a not-for-profit social enterprise in Squamish. commented that they have done a needs assessment for Whistler and can provide copies for anyone interested.

Shanna Murray, Howe Sound Women’s Centre, 38021 Squamish, BC commented on services they would like to offer in Whistler that are not already being offered. commented that having this space would allow for the expansion of the Children Who Witness Abuse program could expand hours and get kids off of the waitlist. commented on providing support and counseling for women in difficult or abusive relationships. commented on supporting mothers and children in different programs and provide referrals for the safe home in Pemberton and the transition home in Squamish. commented on assisting women with referrals, advocacy to find lawyers, and completing applications. commented on collaboration with Whistler Community Services to make a stronger social services centre.

Les Marks 1529 Thynebridge Lane, read his wife’s submission that: expressed opposion to rezoning proposal and intended use of the property as a social services centre. commented on the family-oriented residential neighbourhood, and that the proposed uses are incompatible with the residential character of the neighbourhood. commented that the existing school and fire hall compliment the neighbourhood. commented that this type of facility needs to be close to the village centre for accessibility proximity to services and amenities. commented that she worked at a similar centre in England, and expressed safety concerns that women at risk might be sought out by ex- partners, and commented on security requirements at the centre she worked at. expressed concerns regarding proximity to the school. commented that public transportation is impractical for users of the centre with no personal means of transportation due to recently reduced bus service and no south-bound bus stop at Spring Creek on the highway. proposed reverting the use to single-family residential and suggested selling the property if the facility cannot be used for its intended purpose.

Public Hearing Minutes Page 4 October 18, 2011

Luis Araujo, 8326 Valley Drive commented that he is a counselor for Howe Sound Women’s Centre and works with other non-profit agencies in the community. expressed that the need for this facility. commented on the cost of office space in the village. commented on clients not having cars and many cannot afford private counseling in the community. commented on the usefulness of the services he provides for children and families that witness violence as violence is on the rise in the community. commented on the practice of spacing of appointments for reasons of privacy, confidentiality, and safety. commented he has not witnessed any incidents of violence or safety risks occur outside the office in Whistler. commented on their ability to officer other forms of counseling and support, workshops, youth training, financial literacy, and legal advice. commented that they are open to suggestions from the community and the local Spring Creek community. commented on the opportunity to work in a hub with other non-profit organizations. commented that by being able to provide more hours of counseling for the funding they receive from the Ministry of the Solicitor General in the proposed building, where currently a majority of it is being spent on the rental of office space in the village.

Mayor Melamed called three times for anyone wishing to make representations for the matters contained in the proposed bylaw.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further comments, the Pubic Hearing adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

______Mayor, K. Melamed

______Corporate Officer, L. Miller

REPORT INFORMATION REPORT TO C OUNCIL

PRESENTED: November 1, 2011 REPORT: 11-116 FROM: Economic Viability FILE: 4572 SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER INVESTMENT REPORT - 2011

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER That the recommendation of the General Manager of Economic Viability be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives Information Report No. 11-116 on Investment Holdings as of September 30, 2011.

REFERENCES Appendix A – Investment Holdings and Returns as at September 30, 2011

PURPOSE The purpose of the report is to advise Council of the investment holdings as of September 30, 2011, pursuant to Section 16.0 of Council Policy A-3 Investments (the “Policy”).

DISCUSSION Section 16.0 of the Policy charges the General Manager of Economic Viability with the responsibility of reporting to Council on investment holdings on a quarterly basis, investment performance on an annual basis, as well as reporting deviations from policy.

As at September 30, 2011, the investment portfolio was in compliance with the Policy.

Investment holdings of the Municipality at September 30, 2011, had a market value of $75,026,779 (2010 - $75,713,490). A list of investment holdings is attached as appendix A.

The Municipality holds investment balances in order to earn investment income on cash that is not currently required for operations, projects or capital purposes. Cash held for capital purposes often makes up the largest portion of the investment holdings, as it is savings accumulated over time and will not be expended until years in the future. Operating cash balances also exist, particularly in June and July when most property tax payments are received by the Municipality. Investment holdings are often at their lowest in the months just prior to the property tax collection date.

Second Quarter Investment Report - 2011 Page 2 ... November 1, 2011

WHISTLER 2020 ANALYSIS W2020 TOWARD Descriptions of success that resolution Comments Strategy moves us toward The long term consequences of decisions The investment strategy is compliant with the Finance are carefully considered. Policy and seeks to maximize investment returns while preserving principal. The Policy is readily understood and complied with. Common evaluation criteria are used to Finance assess actions. Investment performance is reported and evaluated on a regular basis.

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

None.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS Investment income, including changes in market values, for the six months ended September 30, 2011 was $1,748,044 (unaudited). This is 90% of the total budgeted investment income for the year and an overall annualized return of 3.49% of the average monthly investment balances. Investment income however will also be dependent upon future market conditions. Most investment income is allocated to reserves to fund future expenditures and the remainder is allocated to operations throughout the year. During the third quarter, investment types were reviewed and expanded to include a series of term deposits that mature over one to nine month terms and help to facilitate monthly cash flow requirements.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION

Investments are reported on publicly every quarter.

SUMMARY The current investment strategy complies with the Policy and Community Charter requirements. As well, the strategy is providing a reasonable return on investment and allows the Municipality to manage its cash flows effectively and efficiently.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken Roggeman MANAGER, FISCAL PLANNING for Lisa Landry GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC VIABILITY

Resort Municipality of Whistler Appendix A Investment Holdings and Returns As at September 30, 2011

Market Value Holder Fund 30-Sep-11 30-Sep-10 30-Sep-09

RBC Dominion Securities Renaissance Real Return Bond Fund 4,691,027 4,425,469 4,027,276

Municipal Finance Authority Bond fund 35,750,161 43,679,300 41,841,882 Municipal Finance Authority Intermediate fund 14,475,833 - 11,223,737 Municipal Finance Authority Money Market fund 3,654 5,760,221 26,275,448

North Shore Credit Union Term deposits 17,800,000 - -

RBC Operating Account 2,306,105 21,848,500 2,875,414

75,026,779 75,713,490 86,243,757

Investment Returns As at September 30, 2011 RMOW Actual Returns *** MFA Pooled Rates Year-to-Date YTD Actual 1 year actual Year-to-Date 3 Years Non-annualized Annualized % Annualized % Non-annualized 1 Year Annualized Sep 30/11 Sep 30/11 Dec 31/10 Sep 30/11 % % MFA Money Market Fund 0.88 1.18 0.71 0.78 1.02 1.09 DEX 91-Day Treasury Bill Index** 0.66 0.87 0.74

MFA Intermediate Fund 1.36 1.82 0.79 1.41 1.71 2.60 DEX 365-Day Treasury Bill Index 1.65 1.87 1.89

MFA Bond Fund 2.72 3.64 3.60 3.18 3.02 5.97 DEX Short Term Bond Index 3.98 3.67 5.34 Renaissance Real Return Bond 8.76 17.67 8.24 NA NA NA Fund NSCU Term Deposits 0.40 1.80 NA NA NA NA RBC Operating Account 0.90 1.20 0.82 NA NA NA

* All results/indices presented after net fees of 20 basis points (Bond, & Intermediate Funds) and 15 basis points (Money Market Fund) have been applied. ** BENCHMARK: DEX 30-Day T-Bill Index from May 1, 1989 to July 31, 2001; DEX 91-Day T-Bill Index thereafter. *** Actual returns of RMOW varies from the pooled results depending on the timing of investment purchases and sales. DEX™ = Derivatives Canada – Canadian Derivatives Exchange Pooled investment results are provided by MFA and prepared by Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. Investment returns includes interest, capital gains and mark to market changes.

REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE REPOR T TO COUNCIL

PRESENTED: November 1, 2011 REPORT: 11-117 FROM: Resort Experience FILE: LLR 128 SUBJECT: LLR 128: CONFERENCE CENTRE EXTENSION OF HOURS FOR WINTERPRIDE

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER That the recommendation of the General Manager of Resort Experience be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize hours of liquor sale from 11:30 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012 to 4:00 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012 at the Whistler Conference Centre; and further

That Council authorize staff to support Tourism Whistler’s application to the provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Branch for a Temporary Change to a Liquor License for the event.

REFERENCES Appendices: “A” – Tourism Whistler Letter of September 29, 2011

PURPOSE OF REPORT For a temporary change in hours of liquor sale for a liquor primary establishment the provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) requires local government comment, usually provided by RMOW staff. However, Council approval is required by municipal policy for any extension of hours of liquor sale past 2:00 am.

This report requests that Council authorize extended hours of liquor sale to 4:00 am for the Snowball event, part of the annual WinterPride festival. The report also requests that Council provide authorization for staff to support Tourism Whistler’s application to the LCLB for a temporary change to its liquor license for the event.

DISCUSSION Tourism Whistler’s liquor-primary license No. 106769 at the Whistler Conference Centre permits hours of liquor sale from 11:30 am to 1:30 am, Monday through Saturday and 11:00 am to 1:00 am on Sunday. TW has applied to the Municipality and to the LCLB for a temporary extension of hours of liquor sale until 4:00 am on the night of February 11/12, 2012. The Snowball dance party will have approximately 1,200 guests for the final event of the February 5 – 12, 2012 WinterPride festival produced by WinterPride/Alpenglow Productions Corp. This is the 20th annual Gay Ski Week, a festival that attracts visitors to the resort from across North America and internationally. The Snowball event has been conducted in past years without problems, and the 4:00 am closing of liquor sale has the support of the Whistler Detachment of the RCMP.

To mitigate the potential for noise and disturbances from the event, the organizers propose that all attendees leaving the event will use doors exiting directly to the Conference Centre surface parking lot. Event organizers will communicate with taxi companies as taxis are needed and advise where to pick up passengers. Patrons waiting for taxis will line up inside of the Conference Centre under the supervision of event security personnel. Some attendees will come up to the event from Vancouver LLR 128: Conference Centre Extension of Hours for Winterpride Page 2 November 1, 2011

by coach, and at the end of the event the coach will meet those guests for the return trip to Vancouver. The event organizers are also exploring the possibility of providing guests with an early breakfast event at a nearby restaurant. This was done for previous events and provided guests with a venue until regular bus service was available. A letter from Tourism Whistler further explaining the proposed Snowball event is attached as Appendix “A”.

The proposed measures should mitigate the potential for noise and disturbances from patrons leaving the event. Council has previously authorized Conference Centre 4:00 am closing times for WinterPride events (2009 – 2011) and for Telus World Ski & Snowboard Festival events (2008 – 2011), and there were no negative impacts on the community.

WHISTLER 2020 ANALYSIS

W2020 TOWARD Descriptions of success that Comments Strategy resolution moves us toward Whistler holds competitive advantage in The WinterPride festival provides a unique the destination resort marketplace as a combination of mountain recreation and Economic result of its vibrancy and unique character, innovative leisure activities, including the products and services Snowball dance party. The Snowball event provides an opportunity for Community members and organizations the food and beverage sector, local government Visitor work collectively to ensure exceptional and enforcement agencies to work together to Experience experiences that exceed visitor enable memorable visitor experiences while expectations maintaining order and respecting the rights of other residents and visitors. The Snowball dance party is the concluding Recreation & event of the WinterPride festival, an annual Recreation and leisure is a core event that generates a large number of room contributor to the Whistler economy Leisure nights and maintains Whistler’s leadership in the gay and lesbian travel market.

W2020 AWAY FROM Mitigation Strategies Descriptions of success that Strategy and Comments resolution moves away from Noise from patrons leaving an event serving alcoholic beverages can be disruptive to visitors staying in the Village. Event organizers are arranging taxi service to be available at the Visitors and residents can readily Conference Centre so that patrons will not have to walk through the Village to the taxi loop. The Built Environment immerse themselves in nature, free from taxi line-up will be indoors. Patrons leaving after noise and light pollution 4:00 am will not likely interact with those leaving nightclubs, which close at 2:00 am. The Snowball event clientele have not been a problem in the past, and the RCMP support the late closure for the event. Community members eat healthy food, Any extended opportunity for the sale of alcohol exercise and engage in leisure and other has the potential for over-service. The applicant stress relieving activities that assist in has signed a Good Neighbour Agreement that Health & Social preventing illness and they avoid the commits the establishment to procedures and abusive use of substances that evidence training to avoid potentially adverse effects of indicates have negative effects on their products and services. TW staff and physical and mental health managers are Serving It Right certified.

LLR 128: Conference Centre Extension of Hours for Winterpride Page 3 November 1, 2011

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Council policy on extended hours of liquor sale was established by the adoption of Business Regulation Amendment Bylaw (Licensed Premises) No. 1616, 2002. This regulation restricts the hours of liquor sale to between 9:00 am and 2:00 am except to the extent that Council may authorize extended hours for specified dates, either generally or in respect of individual premises specified in the authorizing resolution. This exception was included in the regulation as recommended by the municipal Liquor License Advisory Committee specifically to accommodate special dates, such as New Year’s Eve, or special events that have a community-wide benefit.

On October 4, 2011 Council amended Council Policy G-17 Municipal Liquor Licensing Policy to include a policy on temporary extension of closing hours. The policy states, “The Municipality does not support extensions of closing hours for licensed establishments past 2:00 am, except for specific dates/events established by policy or for proposals that are determined by Council to generate extraordinary benefits to the resort community and do not have any unacceptable negative impacts on the community or the resort.” The WinterPride festival event at the Whistler Conference Centre is one of the specific dates/events established by the policy for a 4:00 am closing, subject to annual review, Council approval, plans approved by the Municipality for the mitigation of potential negative impacts and the Conference Centre being in Good Standing. The February 11/12 Snowball event satisfies these criteria and is appropriate for Council consideration.

The RMOW liquor license application review process takes into consideration the compliance and enforcement history of the licensee and operator of the establishment. The Whistler Detachment of the RCMP has reviewed the applicant’s compliance history and determined them to be in “Good Standing”.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION In accordance with Council Policy G-17, the request for extended hours has been referred to individual members of the municipal Liquor License Advisory Committee for their comment. (Under the LLAC process, the committee as a whole does not consider the application and there is no formal recommendation from the committee.) There were no concerns expressed by LLAC members.

SUMMARY This report presents an application from Tourism Whistler for a temporary extension of hours of liquor sale until 4:00 am on the night of February 11/12, 2012 for the Snowball event as part of the WinterPride festival. Staff recommends that Council approve the extension of hours and authorize staff to support the Tourism Whistler application to the provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Branch for a Temporary Change to a Liquor License for the event.

Respectfully submitted,

Frank Savage PLANNER for Jan Jansen GENERAL MANAGER OF RESORT EXPERIENCE

APPENDIX A

REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE REPOR T TO COUNCIL

PRESENTED: November 1, 2011 REPORT: 11-118 FROM: Resort Experience FILE: LLR 1073 SUBJECT: LLR 1073: WHISTLER GOLF COURSE HOURS OF SALE AND PATRON PARTICIPATION ENTERTAINMENT

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER That the recommendation of the General Manager of Resort Experience be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the resolution attached as Appendix “A” to Administrative Report No. 11-118 providing Council’s recommendation to the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in support of an application from Whistler Golf Course for a Permanent Change to Licensed Hours of Sale for Food Primary License No. 124710, to extend hours of sale to 9:00 am to 1:00 am Monday through Sunday, and further,

That Council authorize the resolution attached as Appendix “B” to Administrative Report No. 11-118 providing Council’s recommendation to the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in support of an application from Whistler Golf Course for a Permanent Change to a Liquor License to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement to Food Primary License No. 124710.

REFERENCES Applicant: Whistler Golf Course Location: 4001 Whistler Way

Appendices: “A” – Council Resolution – Change to Hours of Sale “B” – Council Resolution – Patron Participation Entertainment “C” – Location Plan “D” – Whistler Golf Course letter dated November 22, 2010 “E” – Minutes of October 13, 2011 LLAC Meeting (relevant excerpts)

PURPOSE OF REPORT For a permanent change to a food primary liquor license for hours of sale past midnight and to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement the provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) requires local government comment in the form of a resolution from Council regarding the suitability of the license change and specifically addressing considerations relating to the potential for noise, the impact on the community, whether the amendment may result in the establishment being operated in a manner that is contrary to the primary purpose and the views of residents.

The proposed resolutions in favour of the application, including the rationale for support, are attached as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B”.

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 2 November 1, 2011

DISCUSSION The Whistler olf Course clubhouse restaurant is located at 4001 Whistler Way (shown on Appendix “C”) and operates under food primary liquor license No. 124710 with a licensed indoor capacity of 57 and a patio capacity of 143.

Application for Permanent Change to Hours of Sale The current and requested hours of liquor service are shown in the table below: Current Hours of Sale Requested Hours of Sale Monday through Saturday 9:00 am to 11:00 pm 9:00 am to 1:00 am Sunday 11:00 am to 11:00 pm 9:00 am to 1:00 am

The applicant is requesting to expand its hours of sale to the full extent of the Municipality’s hours of liquor service guidelines, which for restaurants are 9:00 am to 1:00 am, Monday – Sunday.

Application for a Patron Participation Entertainment Endorsement The Whistler Golf Course is also applying to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement to food primary license No. 124710. The patron participation entertainment endorsement would allow for dancing at weddings and other social events. If granted, LCLB policy requires that any patron participation entertainment (dancing) must end no later than midnight, even though the establishment’s applied for closing time is 1:00 am.

Zoning and Permitted Uses The Whistler Golf course property is RR1 zone (Rural Resource One). The RR1 zone permits “indoor and outdoor recreation” and associated “auxiliary uses” which provide for the requested patron participation entertainment.

LCLB Policy and Approval Process An application to the LCLB for a permanent change to a food primary license for hours past midnight or to add a food primary patron participation entertainment endorsement requires comment from local government, and the LCLB process requires that such comment be in the form of a resolution from municipal council. Specific conditions regarding the license must be addressed and comments provided to the LCLB in a specifically worded and formatted resolution. The resolution must address the potential for noise, the impacts on the community, whether the license change might result in the establishment being operated in a manner that is contrary to its primary purpose, and the views of the residents if the license amendment may affect nearby residents.

Current Good Standing Status In order for the Municipality to give consideration to an application requesting a permanent change to a license the applicant must be in “Good Standing” with respect to the compliance and enforcement history of the establishment. A Good Standing review was conducted to determine the compliance history of the applicant. The application was referred to the LCLB inspector, the Whistler Detachment of the RCMP, the Whistler Fire Rescue Service and the RMOW Building and Bylaws Departments. Each was asked to provide a written list of any contraventions and their disposition for the 12-month period preceding the date of the application and any other comments considered to be relevant. There were no compliance issues identified, and the RCMP have determined the applicant to be in Good Standing.

Local Community Input The applicant advertised the proposed permanent license change in the November 11, 18 and 25, 2010 editions of Pique Newsmagazine and requested comment be provided in writing to municipal

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 3 November 1, 2011

staff on or before December 11, 2010. The applicant also posted a sign at the front of the building to advise the public of the proposed change. No responses were received.

Noise Mitigation Measures In November of 2010 the Whistler Golf Course applied for the permanent license changes to extend hours of service and add a patron participation endorsement to allow them to host wedding receptions at the golf course clubhouse. In early December 2010 the application for a permanent license change was put on hold, and the Whistler Golf Course, with the encouragement of the Municipality, applied for a temporary license change as a trial period. On February 2, 2011 the LCLB granted a temporary license change to allow hours of service from 9:00 am to 1:00 am daily and to permit patron participation entertainment ending by midnight for the period of April 1 – November 1, 2011. During the trial period, the Whistler Golf Course hosted a total of four events with dancing, conducted on the nights of August 4, 20, 26 and September 4. No complaints were received by the golf course or the Municipality.

Social events with dancing have the potential to disturb neighbouring residents. Potential sources of noise include music and activities on the restaurant patio, amplified music from the indoor restaurant and noise from dispersing guests. In its letter of November 22, 2010 (attached as Appendix “D”) the applicant proposed the following measures to limit disturbances to neighbours: Patio noise: The patio area is on the opposite side of the building from the Eagle Ridge Crescent residences, providing some shielding from direct noise transmission. The establishment has committed that all outdoor speakers and all outdoor entertainment will end by 9:00 pm. Amplified music from indoor restaurant: The applicant has committed to close all door and windows by 9:00 pm. Further, any indoor speakers or musicians will be situated to direct music away from neighbours, and management will have the right to control music volume levels. Noise from dispersing guests: At event dispersal time staff will discourage guests from loitering at the entrance or in the parking lot. The applicant has committed to a dispersal plan.

LCLB policies permit certain noise mitigation measures to be included in the terms and conditions of an amended liquor license, provided that the license holder is in agreement. The Whistler Golf Course has agreed to the following additions to its liquor license terms and conditions and these are included in Council’s resolution in Appendix “B”: All doors and windows shall be closed by 9:00 pm. The establishment shall have a dispersal plan and adequate staff available to clear the area of patrons at the conclusion of an event.

Though the Whistler Golf Course is applying for a 1:00 am closing time of liquor service, LCLB policy requires that patron participation entertainment end no later than midnight. Further, the Whistler Golf Course has stated that all indoor entertainment will also cease by midnight.

Liquor License Advisory Committee (LLAC) Review Process Under policies developed and supported by the LLAC and in Council Policy G-17, Municipal Liquor Licensing Policy, a change in hours of sale past midnight and the addition of a patron participation entertainment endorsement to a food primary license requires review and recommendation by the LLAC and a resolution from Council. A summary of the applicant’s proposal was referred by e-mail to LLAC members on November 5, 2010.

The LLAC member representing the nightclub sector objected to the application, suggesting that there are existing establishments in the Village currently licensed for 1:00 am closings and patron participation entertainment. Other LLAC members commented but no other concerns were

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 4 November 1, 2011

expressed about the application. A report was prepared and presented by staff at the October 13, 2011 meeting of the committee. A discussion was held at that meeting, with relevant excerpts of the minutes attached herein as Appendix “E”. The committee passed the following motions:

That the Liquor License Advisory Committee support the application by the Whistler Golf Course for a permanent change to their food primary license to change hours of liquor sale until 1:00 am daily and to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement.

WHISTLER 2020 ANALYSIS

W2020 TOWARD Descriptions of success that resolution Comments Strategy moves us toward Whistler holds competitive advantage in The Whistler Golf Course with its unique setting Economic the destination resort marketplace as a provides a desirable venue for weddings and Strategy result of its vibrancy and unique character, receptions within walking distance of Whistler products and services Village.

The Whistler Golf Course and clubhouse as a venue for weddings and receptions is of economic benefit to the resort community. Recreation & Recreation and leisure is a core Wedding guests generate room nights in local Leisure Strategy contributor to the Whistler economy hotels, patronize local restaurants and stay for extra days to take part in the variety of activities available to Whistler visitors. The golf course and restaurant are a desirable venue and in demand for weddings. The golf The resort community’s authentic sense of course provides a setting for the wedding Visitor place and engaging, innovative and ceremony, and the restaurant/patio provides a Experience renewed offerings attract visitors time and venue for a dinner. A positive experience by Strategy time again wedding attendees will increase the likelihood that they will return to the resort and/or provide word of mouth promotion

W2020 AWAY FROM Mitigation Strategies Descriptions of success that Strategy and Comments resolution moves away from Weddings and other events at the Whistler Golf Course clubhouse have the potential to cause noise disturbances for residents of the adjacent Visitors and residents can readily neighbourhood. Golf course management have Built Environment immerse themselves in nature, free from incorporated measures in their operating noise and light pollution procedures to limit disturbances. During the 2011 trial period of temporary licensing, there were no noise complaints received by the golf course, the RCMP or Bylaws. Community members eat healthy food, Any expanded opportunity for the sale of exercise and engage in leisure and other alcohol has the potential for over-service. The stress relieving activities that assist in applicant has signed a Good Neighbour Health & Social preventing illness and they avoid the Agreement that commits the establishment to abusive use of substances that evidence procedures and training to avoid potentially indicates have negative effects on adverse effects of their products and services. physical and mental health

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 5 November 1, 2011

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Under policies developed and supported by the Liquor License Advisory Committee and in Council Policy G-17 Municipal Liquor Licensing Policy, a permanent license change to hours past midnight and to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement to a food primary license specifies a public advertising period, a good standing review, a LLAC referral/report/recommendation, a staff report to Council and a resolution from Council addressing a number of specific criteria. The resolutions of Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” satisfy those requirements.

Council Policy G-17 hours of liquor service guideline for restaurants is "9:00 am to 1:00 am Monday through Sunday". Council Policy G-17 further states that, “Establishments that have existing hours of service that are less than the general range for the applicable category of establishments are eligible to apply for an extension of hours to the limits of the range for the category, with approval being subject to the municipal review process including consideration of the compliance and enforcement history of the establishment.” The Whistler Golf Course application complies with all provisions of Council Policy G-17, and, therefore, satisfies municipal policy requirements.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION The applicant advertised the proposed permanent license change in the November 11, 18 and 25, 2010 editions of Pique Newsmagazine and requested comment be provided in writing to municipal staff on or before December 11, 2010. The applicant also posted a sign at the front of the building to advise the public of the proposed change. No responses were received.

SUMMARY This report provides information on an application from the Whistler Golf Course for an extension of closing hours to 1:00 am and for the addition of a patron participation entertainment endorsement to its food primary license. The report also provides resolutions in support of the application for Council’s consideration that address criteria specified by the LCLB. Those resolutions are a result of the application of municipal policy and consultation with the community.

Respectfully submitted,

Frank Savage PLANNER for Jan Jansen GENERAL MANAGER OF RESORT EXPERIENCE

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 6 November 1, 2011

APPENDIX A

General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch

RE: Application for a Permanent Change to a Liquor License for a change to hours of sale to Whistler Golf Course food primary license No. 124710.

At the Council meeting held on November 1, 2011 the Council passed the following resolution with respect to the application for the above named amendment:

“Be it resolved that:

1. The Council recommends the amendment to the license for the following reasons: The proposed licensing will provide for improved customer service for both visitors and residents alike and will not have any significant negative impacts on the resort community. The applicant has entered into a Good Neighbour Agreement and Noise Mitigation Plan with the Municipality.

2. The Council’s comments on the prescribed considerations are as follows:

(a) The potential for noise if the application is approved: If Whistler Golf Course application for a permanent 1:00 am closing is approved, it is not anticipated that there will significant noise from the establishment. The Whistler Golf Course currently has a closing time for liquor sales of 11:00 pm and has not had a history of noise or disturbances. A trial period with a 1:00 am closing time (in conjunction with a temporary patron participation entertainment endorsement) was conducted starting on April 1, 2011 through the summer 2011 and no noise complaints were recorded by the RCMP or municipal Bylaw Services. The Whistler Golf Course is subject to the provisions of the RMOW Noise Control Bylaw No. 1660, 2004. The Good Neighbour Agreement commits the applicant to limit noise disturbances and comply with the municipal Noise Control Bylaw.

(b) The impact on the community if the application is approved: If the application is approved the impact on the community will likely, on balance, be positive by meeting the service expectations of both visitors and residents. Negative impacts on the community are not anticipated as a result of the requested change to the license.

(c) Whether the amendment may result in the establishment being operated in a manner that is contrary to the primary purpose: It is unlikely that a 1:00 am closing time of liquor service will result in the establishment being operated in a manner that is contrary to its primary purpose, as the emphasis is on food service rather than liquor service with this application. The establishment’s operating procedures must ensure that it is operated at all times in a manner appropriate to its food-primary license.

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 7 November 1, 2011

editions of the weekly local newspaper, Pique Newsmagazine, commencing November 11, 2010. No comments were received. Further, the municipal Liquor License Advisory Committee, comprising various community representatives, voted to support the application.”

The undersigned hereby certifies the above resolution to be a true copy of the resolution passed by the Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler on November 1st, 2011.

Sincerely,

Lonny Miller CORPORATE OFFICER Resort Municipality of Whistler

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 8 November 1, 2011

APPENDIX B General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch

RE: Application for a Permanent Change to a Liquor License to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement to food primary license No. 124710.

At the Council meeting held on November 1st, 2011 the Council passed the following resolution with respect to the application for the above named amendment:

“Be it resolved that:

1. The Council recommends the amendment to the license for the following reasons: The proposed licensing will provide for improved customer service for both visitors and residents alike and is not expected to have significant negative impacts on the resort community. The potential negative impacts of the amendment to the license are to be mitigated by the license terms and conditions and the Good Neighbour Agreement and Noise Mitigation Plan, which the applicant has entered into with the Municipality and the RCMP.

2. The Council’s comments on the prescribed considerations are as follows:

(a) The potential for noise if the application is approved: If Whistler Golf Course application for a permanent patron participation entertainment endorsement is approved, it is not anticipated that there will significant noise from the establishment. The establishment has implemented a number of noise mitigation measures to manage the potential negative impacts of wedding events on neighbouring residences. A temporary patron participation entertainment endorsement (in conjunction with a temporary 1:00 am closing time) was conducted starting on April 1, 2011 through the summer 2011 and no noise complaints were recorded by the RCMP or municipal Bylaw Services.

The Whistler Golf Course has stated that wedding clients will be asked to sign a contract that includes noise mitigation measures. Further, the Whistler Golf Course is subject to the provisions of the RMOW Noise Control Bylaw No. 1660, 2004. The Good Neighbour Agreement commits the applicant to limit noise disturbances and comply with the Noise Control Bylaw.

To further mitigate the potential for noise the Municipality is requesting that the LCLB add the following terms and conditions to Whistler Golf Course food primary liquor license No. 124710: 1. All doors and windows shall be closed by 9:00 pm 2. The establishment shall have a dispersal plan and adequate staff available to clear the area of patrons at the conclusion of an event.

(b) The impact on the community if the application is approved: If the application is approved the impact on the community will likely, on balance, be positive by meeting the service expectations of both visitors and residents. Whistler Golf Course is a desirable venue for weddings and other social events that may include dancing. The approval of the permanent license amendment to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement will give Whistler Golf Course assurance in booking future events. Weddings at Whistler Golf Course are an important amenity

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 9 November 1, 2011

for the Whistler resort community. Wedding guests stay several nights in the resort, supporting the accommodation, food and beverage, and activity sectors.

Whistler Golf Course has taken a number of measures to limit the potential negative impacts of its events on nearby residents.

(c) Whether the amendment may result in the establishment being operated in a manner that is contrary to its primary purpose: Whistler Golf Course restaurant would continue to operate as a food primary establishment with the primary emphasis on food. The patron participation entertainment endorsement would only be used for dancing at special events (weddings or other social functions with invited guests), and these events would include meal service. Events with dancing would not be open to the general public, so there would not be a risk that the establishment would operate as a cabaret or nightclub.

(d) The views of residents: Council believes that residents are in favour of the application and that residents are not opposed to the application. The method used to gather the views of residents was placement of an information sign at the front of the clubhouse building (commencing November 11, 2010) and advertisements in three consecutive editions of the weekly local newspaper, Pique Newsmagazine, commencing November 11, 2010. No comments were received. Further, the municipal Liquor License Advisory Committee, comprising various community representatives, voted to support the application.”

The undersigned hereby certifies the above resolution to be a true copy of the resolution passed by the Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler on November 1st, 2011.

Sincerely,

Lonny Miller CORPORATE OFFICER Resort Municipality of Whistler

LLR 1073: Whistler Golf Course Hours of Sale and Patron Participation Entertainment Page 10 November 1, 2011

APPENDIX C

LOCATION PLAN –WHISTLER GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE

SUBJECT LANDS

APPENDIX D

4010 Whistler Way, Whistler, B.C., Canada, V0N-1B4 Ph: (604) 938-5887; fax (604) 932-4015; email: [email protected]

November 22, 2010 Mr. Frank Savage Planner, Resort Experience Resort Municipality of Whistler 4325 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, B.C. V0N 1B4

Dear Mr. Savage RE: Application for Permanent Change to a food primary Liquor License #124710 to extend hours of service to 1:00am and to apply for the patron participation endorsement.

Over the past 3 years the Whistler Golf Course has been trying to attract and host some of the small wedding business; from 20 – 150 guests, that comes to Whistler over the summer months. Our venue is able to provide a stunning location to hold a serene ceremony and afterward cater to any food and beverage needs that the guests may require. Due to our current liquor license we are faced with some constraints that do not suit the guests’ needs and thus are not able to attract the amount of wedding business we would like to. For the most part our guests would like to be able to eat and drink alcohol after 11pm and be able to rent a band or some form of musical entertainment to dance to. Even though our neighbors are a fair distance from our building, we at the Whistler Golf Course will take the following steps to ensure that they are not disturbed.

1. All outdoor speakers will be turned off by 9:00pm. 2. All doors and windows will be closed by 9:00pm. 3. All indoor speaker or in the case of live musicians will be situated in a way to direct their music away from neighboring dwellings. 4. Any outdoor entertainment will cease by 9:00pm. 5. All indoor entertainment will cease by 12:00pm. 6. Any band booked at the Whistler Golf Course will not consist of more than 4 musicians. 7. Any and all entertainment must be approved by a member of the Whistler Golf Course management team before they are approved to play. 8. Wedding clients will be asked to sign a contract that includes these noise mitigation policies. 9. The Whistler Golf Club will have a line in the contract that states the Whistler Golf Club can control the volume level of any type of music played. 10. The Whistler Golf Club will have an adequately staffed dispersal plan to ensure all guests are off site by 1:00am and do so in a timely and orderly manner. 11. The Whistler Golf Club has executed 4 small weddings a year over the last three years with all attendees being off site by 11pm. We have yet to have a noise complaint. The Whistler Golf Club feels that due to the small size of the venue, our volume control and noise mitigation policies and the distance from any residential property that dancing until midnight will not adversely affect any residential properties.

Alan Kristmanson General Manager APPENDIX E

October 13, 2011 LLAC MEETING MINUTES (Relevant Excerpts)

LLR 1073: WHISTLER GOLF COURSE HOURS OF SALE AND PATRON PARTICIPATION ENTERTAINMENT APPLICATION Resort Experience representative presentation regarding the application: The RMOW has received an application from the Whistler Golf Course (WGC) for a permanent change to its food primary license. In November 2010 the WGC submitted the application for a permanent change to the hours of sale to 9:00 am to 1:00 am daily and to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement to allow dancing at weddings and other social events. Experience with similar applications in 2009 from Nicklaus North Golf Club and Edgewater Lodge, shows that noise from wedding receptions can have an impact on neighbouring residents. The WGC has proposed measures to mitigate those impacts, but to test those measures the WGC conducted a “trial period” using a temporary license change. The WGC applied for and the LCLB granted a temporary license change for the period of April 1 – November 1, 2011. During the trial period, the WGC hosted 4 events with dancing and no noise complaints were received. The trial period is now complete and the WGC is re-activating its permanent license change application.

As part of the municipal review process the Liquor License Advisory Committee (LLAC) is to review the application with respect to the “LLAC review criteria” in Council Policy G-17 Municipal Liquor Licensing Policy and prepare a recommendation to Council. Council will then provide comment in the form of a resolution to the LCLB. The review criteria and comments (in italics): a) There must be a proven need for the license (change): The golf course and restaurant are a desirable venue and in demand for weddings and receptions. There is demand for liquor service past the current closing time of 11:00 pm and for dancing at weddings. Neither is permitted with the current license. b) There must be minimal adverse impacts on the community The noise mitigation measures proposed by the WGC should be adequate to prevent nearby residents from being adversely impacted by: noise from the patio, noise from the restaurant interior or noise from dispersing patrons. The trial period has demonstrated this.

Alan Kristmanson, Director of Golf, Whistler Golf Course, noted a demand from the public for a facility close to the Village to host small weddings and receptions. Most of the music will be the DJ variety but there may also be requests to have a small band. WGC hosted 4 weddings in 2011 and does not see wedding events exceeding 12 in a year. WGC’s primary focus is golf, and they are only open for the 6 month golf season. Mr. Kristmanson noted that their wedding business is secondary to golf, and the WGC will not become a late-night entertainment venue (nightclub) that could be a problem to the community.

Member Comments: Food & Beverage Sector Representative – Pubs/Bars - This is an exceptional venue opportunity for driving extra room nights. With the WGC required by its license to end dancing at midnight, this would complement and not compete with the nightclub business in Whistler. Food & Beverage Sector Representative – Nightclubs - Concerns from the nightclub sector regarding destructive completion within the Village and noted this application is tough to explain to the nightclub group. o Alan noted WGC is not completing for the nightclub business and does not see a wedding venue as offering the same type of venue or clientele as a nightclub. - The push back from the nightclub sector comes from knowing the WGC team would have the opportunity to open the on other nights of the week to compete with existing businesses in Whistler. o Alan noted the WGC will not be a 7 night a week dance club; that is not their business model. - Primary concern is that Tourism Whistler (TW) would look to be successful by utilizing the venue for other opportunities. o Alan noted that he works for WGC not TW, and is he sensitive to the community businesses. - Agrees that weddings can provide financial spin offs for many of the businesses in Whistler. Also feels that the operator will have the opportunity to run the business 7 days a week to midnight, competing with other venues. Food & Beverage Sector Representative – Restaurants - Believes weddings means more room nights, more customers to patronize restaurants and go out to clubs, bars etc. - Does not think that noise will be an issue. - We have to remember that the dancing ends at midnight, with patrons having the opportunity to patronize other establishments in Whistler. Accommodation Sector Representative - What is the maximum space for this type of event being held outside on the deck? o Alan noted the restaurant has an indoor capacity of 57 and a patio capacity of 143. People are attracted to WGC due to the outdoor experience including the rustic feeling but still being close to the Village. - Wondered if his group (Whistler Hotel Association) would feel that Whistler is under served with venues for lower budget weddings? The real WGC niche is their outdoor option. Public Safety (RCMP) Representative - After 9:00 pm, will patrons still be permitted outside on the patio? o Yes, this is the current practice with golf patrons also. However, there can be no outdoor speakers or outdoor entertainment on the patio after 9:00 pm. Public Safety (Whistler Fire Services) Representative - No fire concerns; believes that other similar venues in Whistler are more susceptible to noise issues. Resort Experience Staff Representative - Edgewater Lodge statistics noted the average wedding guest was staying 3-4 nights, driving up room nights for the resort as well as supporting other venues in Whistler. Believes weddings are a positive model for the resort. - Noted this is a food primary license, thus the focus must be on food, with restrictions on the hours and type of entertainment. Council Representative - WGC revenues go toward generating additional funds to TW, thus supporting all businesses in Whistler.

Motion by Steve LeClair Second by Kevin Wallace That the Liquor License Advisory Committee support the application by the Whistler Golf Course for a permanent change to their food primary license to change hours of liquor sale until 1:00 am daily and to add a patron participation entertainment endorsement. CARRIED

REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE REPOR T TO COUNCIL

PRESENTED: November 1, 2011 REPORT: 11-119 FROM: Environmental Services FILE: 537 SUBJECT: WHISTLER TRANSIT SYSTEM FINANCIAL AND FACILITY REVIEW FINDINGS

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER That the recommendation of the General Manager of Environmental Services be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive Administrative Report No. 11-119 entitled “Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings” wherein staff present Transit cost reduction measures equivalent to $528,800 worth of service, with a net savings to the Municipality of $230,000; and

That Council request BC Transit change the amortization period for the Whistler Transit Maintenance Facility from 30 to 40 years and direct staff to work with BC Transit to realize the cost savings from this change; and

That Council authorize the Mayor and Corporate Officer to execute the 2011-2012 Whistler Transit Annual Operating Agreement (I) (AOA) – Amendment 1 Effective July 1, 2011 for the period April 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011 reflecting lower costs; and

That Council authorize the Mayor and Corporate Officer to execute the 2011-2012 Whistler Transit Annual Operating Agreement (II) (AOA) Effective October 1, 2011 for the period October 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012 reflecting the new service levels and costs as a result of the Whistler Transit Service Review.

REFERENCES Appendix A RMOW Minimally Acceptable Route Structure map Appendix B Letter dated February 14, 2011 to BC Transit, Re: Whistler Transit System – Financial Review – Terms of Reference Appendix C Whistler Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility – Audit Report, April 15, 2011, Anthony Steadman and Associates Inc. Appendix D Letter dated August 5, 2011 from BC Transit, Re: Whistler Transit System – Financial Review Appendix E 2011/2012 AOA (I) Amendment #1 Effective April 1, 2011 Appendix F 2011/2012 AOA (II) Effective October 1, 2011 Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 2 November 1, 2011

OTHER IMPORTANT REFERENCES Whistler Transit Service Review, presented to Council September 6, 2011 Whistler Transit System Service Review, presented to Council May 17, 2011

PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to present Council with the results of the Whistler Transit System Financial Review, the Whistler Transit Facility Review, and to demonstrate the changes between the 2011 Whistler Transit System (projected 75,000 hour referred to as Business-As-Usual) and the 2012 system with a projected 60,500 hours of service.

KEY FINANCIAL FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. As a result of Council’s direction to conduct the Service Review and the Financial Reviews, the total cost of delivering Transit Services to Whistler has been reduced from $13.4 million to $11.12 million, a reduction of $2.28 million or 17%. The Municipal share of this cost reduction is $1.22 million.

2. $2.175 million is currently provided to fund the Municipal share of Transit in the 2011-2015 Five Year Financial Plan which includes the $.85 million from the 2% Additional Hotel Room Tax (AHRT) contribution.

3. The amount that remains unfunded after the reduction noted above is $950,000. It is proposed by staff that $111,176 of this unfunded amount which is directly associated with funding the free Village Shuttle services (Marketplace, Upper Village/Benchlands and Lost Lake) be funded from the AHRT. That will reduce the unfunded amount to $840,000. The 2012-2016 Five Year Financial Plan budget bylaw will need to address this unfunded amount with a decrease in expenditures elsewhere or an equivalent increase in revenues which could include the retroactive credits resulting from the Financial Review to compensate for this unfunded amount.

4. The annual lease cost of the Hydrogen bus to the RMOW is $30,000, which is equal to the RMOW lease costs of the diesel buses that constitute the remainder of the Whistler Transit System fleet. It has been clearly demonstrated to staff that the extra costs for the Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the Hydrogen components of the Whistler transit maintenance facility are not being paid by the Resort Municipality of Whistler.

5. It is staff’s position that the Whistler Transit Maintenance Facility footprint would have been more compact with only diesel fuelling facilities. Therefore, staff are working with BC Transit to come to a resolution on an operating legacy contribution (see Section 7.3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project Operating Legacy) for items such as increased snow clearing costs, snow storage requirements, future asphalt replacement related to the larger development footprint and maintenance of garage gas detection and ventilation systems.

DISCUSSION 1. Background – Whistler Transit Service Reviews

During the 2011 municipal budget process it became clear to staff that there was a growing gap between available transit funding and the estimated funding needed to maintain current levels of transit service into the future. Therefore, Council instructed staff to work with BC Transit to review the transit service structure and concurrently review the Whistler Transit system financials.

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 3 November 1, 2011

The goal of these reviews was to define and implement a transit system that the community can afford for Winter 2011/2012.

2. 2011 Financial Bridging Strategy

A financial bridging strategy was needed for 2011 to allow time for the Whistler Transit service, facility and financial reviews to be completed. The bridging strategy included increasing transit system revenues by implementing a transit system fare increase as of February 1, 2011, and authorizing the re-assignment of the transit advertising sales agent, as well as cutting costs by reviewing service levels and cutting inefficient routes. Service cuts were implemented during the April 25, 2011 (Spring) and July 1, 2011 (Summer/Fall) transit schedule changes. The remainder of the funding gap in 2011 is being bridged using a deferred contribution for transportation purposes which was previously used to fund the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) share of the Squamish-Whistler Commuter.

As of September 2011, revenue is tracking $200,000-$300,000 above budget, and costs are tracking lower than budgeted. The majority of these saving are related to the fact that five diesel vehicles were removed from the system as of July 1, 2011 as part of our initial system optimization efforts. Therefore, the amount of bridge funding needed in 2011 from the deferred contribution for transportation purposes may ultimately be reduced in magnitude.

3. Whistler Transit System Service Review

The Whistler Transit System service review process used a collaborative, data-intensive approach which started with an information gathering stage from mid-December 2010 through mid-February 2011. During this stage, ridership data was collected throughout the existing system using automatic passenger counters and was recorded by route, by stop, and by time of day. BC Transit had a team of short-range and long-range transit planners review the data. The goal of the BC Transit team was to answer the question set out by Council:

“What is the transit system that Whistler needs now and to grow transit in the future?”

On September 6, 2011, Council approved the reconfiguration of the Whistler Transit System route structure and service levels, which is operationally referred to as the RMOW recommended minimally acceptable (RMOW MA) transit route structure and service level. Appendix “A” contains a map detailing this structure. The RMOW MA system is a combination of the BC Transit proposed minimally acceptable service (58,600 service hours) with additions and deletions based on comments by community stakeholders and the public. The RMOW recommended minimally acceptable transit service level has 60,500 annual service hours.

The RMOW MA service represents a service hour reduction of approximately 19% from the Business as Usual transit service of 75,000 service hours (equal to the 2011 budgeted transit service level). By removing the under-performing routes and services, it is projected that farebox revenue will decline by only 10% as a result of this 19% service reduction. The fact that revenue is predicted to decline much less than the service cuts is a confirmation that the cuts were appropriately designed. Moreover, the recent trend of higher than projected revenues, seems to further support the placement of the service cuts.

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 4 November 1, 2011

Full details of the Whistler Transit service review process and recommendations are described in the September 6, 2011 report to Council entitled Whistler Transit Service Review.

4. Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review

4.1 Process

As part of the Whistler Transit System overall review process, BC Transit agreed to a Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review (the financial review) assisted by KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants and Anthony Steadman and Associates Inc.

The Terms of Reference for the financial review can be found in Appendix “B” - Letter dated February 14, 2011 from staff to BC Transit, Re: Whistler Transit System – Financial Review – Terms of Reference (Terms of Reference letter).

The key issues investigated were: The annual cost of vehicles (Use of Asset) to the RMOW (Diesel vs. Hydrogen fuel cell) The annual cost (Use of Asset) of the new Whistler transit facility/garage to the RMOW The cost of the Hydrogen fuel cell project to the RMOW Opportunities for savings to the system

BC Transit hired Anthony Steadman and Associates Inc to produce the Whistler Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility – Audit Report (Steadman Report), April 15, 2011 attached as Appendix “C”. The results of this report were used in the financial review analysis.

Concurrently, BC Transit staff responded to each of the points outlined in the Terms of Reference letter (Appendix “B”) with a letter report entitled “Whistler Transit System - Financial Review” dated August 5, 2011 (attached as Appendix “D”). BC Transit hired KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants to review the content of the information submitted in response to these reviews in order to provide greater confidence to Council. KPMG reviewed the above- mentioned letter report and tested BC Transit’s logic and procedures to arrive at the conclusions. KPMG did not identify any exceptions, anomalies or abnormalities with BC Transit’s response documents to the RMOW.

Staff are satisfied with the information presented in both the Steadman Report and Whistler Transit System Financial Review. Both reports have provided clarity on BC Transit’s calculations and positions with respect to the questions laid out in Terms of Reference letter dated February 14, 2011 (Appendix “B”). This clarity has resulted in immediate and on-going cost reductions to the Whistler Transit System and will assist both BC Transit and RMOW staff with on-going administration of the Whistler Transit System.

It is important to note that even though staff are satisfied with the quality of information submitted, staff do not necessarily agree with all of the positions taken by BC Transit. The outstanding items are outlined below in Section 7-Outstanding Items Moving Forward.

4.2 Key Findings

The financial review has provided clarity with respect to the questions raised in the February 14, 2011 Terms of Reference letter. Clarity does not necessarily imply that RMOW staff agree with all of the responses. Listed below is a summary of the key findings. The full responses

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 5 November 1, 2011

can be found in Appendix “C” - Letter dated August 5, 2011 from BC Transit, Re: Whistler Transit System – Financial Review.

4.2.1 Annual Vehicle Lease Costs (Use of Asset/Debt Service)

4.2.1.1 Lease Cost (Use of Asset/Debt Service) Hydrogen vs. Diesel Vehicle

The RMOW is being charged an annual lease cost of $30,000 for each Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. This amount is referred to by BC Transit as the “incumbent Use of Asset/Debt Service cost”. BC Transit has provided clear evidence that the annual $30,000 charge is equivalent to the annual lease cost to the RMOW for diesel buses in the fleet. Please see Appendix “D” Section 1.0 pages 1 – 3 and 14 for full details of the incumbent Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and diesel vehicle calculations.

Conclusion: It is clearly demonstrated and staff agree that the extra costs for the Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are not being paid by the Resort Municipality of Whistler.

4.2.1.2 Costs Associated with Early Retirement of Orion and Dart buses:

The Whistler Transit System’s original fleet consisted of Orion and Dennis Dart buses which were scheduled to be replaced at the end of their economic lives in 2011 and 2015/2016. However, the buses had to be taken out of service prior to their projected retirement dates. In December 2008, BC Transit assigned 18 Nova diesel buses to Whistler so that the Whistler Transit System could deliver the 2008/2009 Winter service. The Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles arrived in Whistler for Winter 2009/2010.

BC Transit wrote-off all the Orion buses and the Province absorbed the full cost of the early retirement of these vehicles. Under the standard cost sharing arrangement, Whistler’s share of this write-off would have been $554,424 which the RMOW did not have to pay.

BC Transit subsequently decided that the Dennis Darts assigned to Whistler should be refurbished and returned to service elsewhere in the Province. Even though these buses will not been returned to service in Whistler, BC Transit has confirmed that the $894,660 refurbishment cost for the Dennis Dart buses are included in the Use of Asset/Debt Service line item for the Whistler Transit System. The last monthly payment is currently scheduled for July 2015.

Conclusion: The RMOW acknowledges that the added cost of retiring the Orion busses ($554,424) was absorbed by BC Transit. The RMOW believes the Province should also absorb the $894,660 refurbishment cost for the Dennis Darts, as was done with the Orion buses.

4.2.1.3 Costs Associated with the Pemberton Commuter Use of Whistler Vehicles

See Section 4.2.4.1 Pemberton Commuter Service and Squamish-Whistler Commuter Service Costs section below.

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 6 November 1, 2011

4.2.2 Annual Lease Fee Garage/Whistler Transit Facility (Use of Asset/Debt Service)

4.2.2.1 Whistler Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility – Audit Report Findings

Anthony Steadman and Associates Inc. (“Steadman”) were retained by BC Transit to examine the Whistler transit maintenance facility (also referred to as the garage), the circumstances under which the project proceeded, the final project costs, and the operational costs of the new Hydrogen bus fleet. The basic assumptions related to the maintenance facility project, as outlined by BC Transit to Steadman, stated that the facility was to be built to last for at least 40 years, and was to allow for a transit system of up to fifty standard 40 foot buses through a wide variety of climatic conditions.

Steadman specifically states in his report that it was not part of his scope of work to review how the size of the facility was arrived at. Staff continue to assert that without the Hydrogen fuelling infrastructure, the footprint of the facility would be more compact. This is being pursed as one of the outstanding issues moving forward in Section 7.3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project Operating Legacy below.

Steadman concluded (see Appendix “C” for the full report) that given the terms of reference for this project and the firm completion date related to the Olympics, the project costs were managed in a manner that kept control through the design and construction work, especially during the hot pre-Olympic construction market.

Steadman’s work also revealed the following points which were fed into the financial review and resulted in immediate cost savings.

 A cost of $573,901 to cover a Hydrogen premium for the gas removal system had been allocated to the Whistler Transit System and not the Hydrogen system capital costs. (See Appendix “C” page 10) After further discussion with BC Transit, this cost has now been removed from cost of the maintenance facility and assigned to others. See Section 4.2.2.2 Hydrogen Capital Costs below which calculates the annual savings to the RMOW.

 The Steadman report also made several references to a larger unified facility being necessary for the transit service fleet during the Olympics, which assisted staff in convincing BC Transit to reimburse the RMOW for the January and February 2010 local share of the Function Junction transit facility lease fees. See Section 4.2.2.4 Function Lease Payments section below for the lump sum reimbursement.

Conclusion: The findings from the Steadman report were fed into the financial review process and have resulted in cost savings which are summarized later in this report.

4.2.2.2 Hydrogen Capital Costs

The financial review has revealed that not all Hydrogen Fuel Cell bus-related costs had been removed from the Whistler Transit Facility capital cost used in the 2011 Municipal transit budget. As discussed in the Whistler Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility – Audit Report Findings section above, the Steadman report revealed that a cost of $573,901 associated with the gas removal system had not been allocated to the Hydrogen premium (see Appendix “C” page 13). BC Transit also indicated that another $91,153 was yet to be credited. In total, the financial review found $665,054 of costs not

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 7 November 1, 2011

previously attributed to the Hydrogen capital project which equates to a $23,000 annual savings to the RMOW starting in 2010. For the detailed calculation, please see pages 5 and 10 of Appendix “D”.

Conclusion: BC Transit has calculated that based on a 30 year life span of the garage, the previously unidentified Hydrogen Project capital cost amounts will equate to an additional annual savings to the RMOW of $23,000. The RMOW will also receive a $46,000 lump sum credit in 2011 to retroactively adjust miss- assigned costs through to January 2010.

4.2.2.3 Use of Asset – Garage Amortization Period

Currently, BC Transit is financing the Whistler Transit Maintenance Facility (the garage) over a 30 year term while the useful life of the garage is 40 years. BC Transit recovers the RMOW share of that financing cost in form of an annual facility lease cost. At the request of the RMOW, BC Transit has calculated the annual savings and costs to the RMOW with respect to changing the amortization period of the garage from 30 to 40 years. If directed by the RMOW, BC Transit has agreed to change the amortization period for the Local Share of the Use of Asset costs from 30 years to 40 years which will reduce the RMOW annual cost by $73,400. This will equate to approximately 1,200 service hours in 2012 which is equal to adding $168,800 worth of service for free. Because of the nature of the cost-sharing arrangement, the benefits of extending the amortization period by 10 years exceed the costs of paying the debt for the additional 10 years.

Conclusion: Staff support BC Transit changing the amortization period for the debt servicing of the Maintenance Facility from 30 to 40 years to reduce the annual leasing costs to the RMOW by $73,4 00, which will equate to funding for $168,800 worth of service without added costs.

4.2.2.4 Function Junction Lease Early Exit Payments

As a result of the move from the Function Junction site to the new garage, the Function garage lease was broken and an exit payout was negotiated for the Function North site and a separate exit payout for the Function South site. The payouts will end as of March 31, 2012. See page 7-8 of Appendix “D” for details.

BC Transit did attempt to sub-lease the properties for occupancy starting March 2010 but received very little interest. After evaluating all its options, BC Transit found that negotiating an exit pay-out was more economical for the system. As a result of this review, BC Transit has agreed to credit the RMOW $16,318 for the Local Share of the lease costs for January and February 2010 as this land and building lease are seen as an Olympic cost by staff.

Conclusion: As of April 1, 2012, the Whistler Transit System will be free from payments for the early exit of the Function Junction site, saving the RMOW $112,000 per year, thereby reducing costs significantly thereafter. In addition, BC Transit is crediting the RMOW an additional $16,318 for outstanding Olympic costs.

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 8 November 1, 2011

4.2.3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project

4.2.3.1 Capital Costs

BC Transit has provided very clear information that demonstrates that the Whistler Transit System is being charged costs for the Hydrogen fuel cell buses that are equal to diesel buses, and subject to the $665,054 correction noted above, that the capital cost directly associated with the Hydrogen fuel cell demonstration project are not included in the capital costs of the Whistler transit maintenance facility. The annual lease cost of the Hydrogen vehicle is $30,000, which is equal to the lease costs of the diesel buses that constitute the remainder of the Whistler Transit System fleet. Therefore, there will be no credit to the RMOW at the end of the Hydrogen fuel cell bus project as no additional charges have been paid.

Conclusion: It is clearly demonstrated and staff agree that the extra costs for the Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the Hydrogen components of the Whistler transit maintenance facility are not being paid by the Resort Municipality of Whistler.

4.2.3.2 Operating Costs

As discussed in Section 4.2.2.1 Whistler Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility – Audit Report Findings, staff are not satisfied with the responses related to the operating cost of the facility due to the size of the site and maintenance of specialized equipment related to the Hydrogen systems. It is staff’s position that the Whistler Transit Facility footprint would have been more compact with only diesel fuelling facilities.

Conclusion: Staff are working with BC Transit to come to a resolution on an operating legacy contribution (see Section 7.3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project Operating Legacy) for items such as increased snow clearing costs, snow storage requirements, future asphalt replacement related to the larger development footprint and maintenance of garage gas detection and ventilation systems.

4.2.4 Other Opportunities for Savings to the Whistler Transit System

4.2.4.1 Pemberton Commuter Service and Squamish-Whistler Commuter Service Costs

Both the Pemberton Commuter and the Squamish-Whistler Commuter transit services have operated out of the Whistler Transit System garage. The Squamish-Whistler Commuter transit system had three vehicles assigned to the service while the Pemberton Commuter only had one half of a bus assigned to its service. Starting in 2011/2012, the Pemberton Commuter has been contributing costs for a full bus reducing Whistler’s fleet size by one bus. As part of this review, BC Transit has evaluated the costs and credits to the Whistler Transit System associated with both the Pemberton Commuter service and the Squamish-Whistler Commuter service. The evaluation has confirmed that the Squamish-Whistler Commuter was contributing its proportional share of facility capital and operating costs. The review also confirmed that charges such as vehicle insurance, facility use of asset, and facility operations related to the Pemberton Commuter bus have previously been inappropriately absorbed by the Whistler Transit System. In 2010/2011 the Pemberton Commuter started contributing to the garage lease cost based on one half of a bus (see Appendix “D” page 7). As of April 2011, the

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 9 November 1, 2011

Pemberton Commuter has also been contributing toward insurance (see Appendix “D” page 4).

BC Transit has indicated that all of these fleet and facility operating and capital costs are being reviewed for inclusion in the 2012/2013 Pemberton Commuter annual operating agreement (see page 9 Appendix “D”).

Conclusion: BC Transit is continuing to review all costs associated with the Pemberton Commuter. It is projected that the Whistler Transit System’s costs will be reduced by $20,000 annually after the review is completed.

4.2.4.2 Fleet Composition

As part of the Whistler Transit Service Review, staff evaluated the fleet composition with an eye toward lowering costs while delivering a reliable transit service.

4.2.4.2.1 Number of Buses

The Whistler Transit Service Review has resulted in a more efficient delivery of transit service in Whistler resulting in needing fewer buses.

Conclusion: As a result of the Whistler Transit Service Review and moving to the RMOW Minimally Acceptable route structure and service levels, the fleet size has been reduced from 31 buses to 23 buses. This alone reduces annual costs to the RMOW by $240,000 in vehicle lease fees.

4.2.4.2.2 Bus Size

When examining the type of buses being used in Whistler, a frequently asked question is, “Why not convert to a smaller bus?” The advantage to smaller buses is typically in operator wage costs when an operating company has a differential rate between large and smaller buses, since operator wages make up a significant portion of the operating cost. In addition, smaller vehicles can present lower noise and visual intrusion into a neighbourhood that is sensitive to public transit. There is also a theoretical benefit in neighbourhoods where ridership is consistently low or the road system is not conducive to the use of larger buses. However, having a mixed fleet for our system is not practical as our peaks in demand happen concurrently throughout the system. Having a standby fleet of small busses for deployment in off- peak times only, will not result in overall cost reductions for our system. In fact, it would add costs since more buses would be required. In larger systems, there may be sufficient differential service levels throughout the system to allow movement of buses between routes to allow fleet mixing without requiring additional buses.

Through the transit service review, BC Transit has identified some routes that have experienced consistently low ridership levels that may be candidates for smaller buses in the future. Staff and BC Transit will continue to monitor ridership in these areas and as the transit system expands in the future, staff will re-examine available vehicle types to look at the viability of bringing smaller buses into the fleet without increasing costs or compromising our peak carrying capacity.

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 10 November 1, 2011

Conclusion: BC Transit has committed to continue to examine smaller vehicles as opportunities arise for fleet replacement or expansion.

5. Whistler Transit System Revenues

In October 2010 when 2011 budgets were prepared, forecasted 2011 farebox revenue ($2,300,000) accounted for 18% of the total cost of the Business as Usual transit system while the 2% Additional Hotel Room Tax (AHRT) contribution of $854,825 for the Free Village Shuttles accounts for 7% of the total cost of the system. Therefore, as part of the 2011 municipal budget process, staff reviewed all of the Whistler transit system (Business as Usual) revenues including the farebox revenue, the 2% AHRT contribution that funds the free Village Shuttles, and the advertising contract.

5.1 Farebox Revenue

A fare increase was approved in December 2010 and implemented February 1, 2011 on all routes except the free Village Shuttles. At that time, some service was cut from the free Village Shuttle and re-allocated to the Nordic, Whistler Creek and Cheakamus neighbourhoods, where demand for service was stronger than anticipated last Winter.

The 2011 year-to-date farebox revenues have increased by 9% over 2010 even with the service cuts implemented in April and July. Fare revenues continue to remain strong due to three factors: o the fare increase, o an increase in ridership this past Winter and Spring as a result of the new service to the Cheakamus and Rainbow neighbourhoods, and o a reduction in fare evasion due to the strong oversight from BC Transit related to maintenance, collection and reporting with respect to the upgraded GFI fareboxes.

Conclusion: Staff forecast that farebox revenues in 2011 will be 9-14% or approximately $250,000 over budget by year end. Staff do not recommend any further changes to the fare structure at this time.

5.2 Free Village Shuttle and the Hotel Tax Contribution

Since 1991 when the Whistler Transit system was established, the Village Shuttles and later the Lost Lake Shuttle have been funded by the hotel room tax (currently called the AHRT). One of the conditions of the hotel tax funding outlined in the Master Agreement between the RMOW, Whistler Village Land Co. Ltd and the Whistler Resort Association which sets out the rights and obligations with respect to the payment of the Hotel Room Tax first signed in November 1989, was to maintain a Whistler Transit System bus route providing regular public transit at no charge to passengers picked up and dropped off within the Whistler Village and Benchlands.

The AHRT contribution is currently $854,825 per year and was last increased in 2008 even though the cost of providing transit has increased since that time. Both the Council and the public have suggested adding a fare to the free Village Shuttles as an additional source of revenue. Based on the AHRT agreement referred to above, staff have assumed that if a fare is added to the free Village Shuttles, the Whistler Transit System would no longer be eligible for a contribution from the hotel tax. Staff reviewed the implications of adding a fare to the Village Shuttles, including how such a fare would affect ridership. Projections based on a $1 and $2 fare resulted in lower ridership and less total revenue than is currently provided by the 2%

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 11 November 1, 2011

AHRT, and would result in further reductions in service and customer satisfaction on the Village Shuttles.

The Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) reviewed the concept of adding a fare to the free Village Shuttles and cutting service to match the current AHRT funding as part of their review of the overall RMOW MA proposed route structure and service levels at their August 9, 2011 meeting. After much discussion, TAG passed the following recommendation:

TAG requests that the full cost of the #5-Marketplace Shuttle, the #6-Upper Village Shuttle and the #33-Lost Lake Shuttle come from the 2% AHRT and that the #5- Marketplace Shuttle and the #6-Upper Village Shuttle have peak Winter service levels matching Winter 2010/2011.

As a result of dialogue with TAG and with the public through the Service Review consultative process, staff has reintroduced the #5-Marketplace Shuttle in the Winter from 7am to 7pm and the #33-Lost Lake Shuttle from Canada Day through Labour Day. The 2012 projected RMOW cost for the Marketplace Shuttle, the Upper Village/Benchlands Shuttle and the Lost Lake shuttle services is $966,000 which is an increase of $111,176 over the existing 2% ARHT budget assigned to Transit.

On a related note, the use of the AHRT monies has typically been subject to a good deal of dialogue within the tourism sector of the community. Council may wish to direct staff to discuss this allocation with other parties prior to preparation of the 2012 – 2016 Five Year Financial Plan.

Conclusion: The 2012 projected RMOW cost for the free shuttles is $111,176 more than the $854,824 budgeted in the Five Year Financial Plan. In alignment with the recommendation from the Transportation Advisory Group, staff request that Council authorizes an increase in 2% AHRT allocated to transit to cover the full $966,000 municipal cost of providing the free shuttle services.

5.3 Advertising Revenue

In December 2010, the interior advertising contract was reassigned. The current sales agent has reinvigorated the interior bus advertising program.

Conclusion: Staff forecast that by year end, revenue from the interior advertising program will be $3,000 - $5,000 more than budgeted.

5.4 Other Potential Revenue Sources for the Whistler Transit System

5.4.1 Rental of Garage to Third Parties

At the request of the RMOW, BC Transit is exploring opportunities to maximize the utilization of the Whistler Transit Facility and generate additional revenue. Under the BC Transit Act, fee for service commercial ventures must be supported by a viable business case and require Ministerial approval. BC Transit is working with the RMOW and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to assess the opportunities and develop the business case which staff are developing with BC Transit.

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 12 November 1, 2011

5.4.2 Rental of Buses to Third Parties

Historically, the Whistler Transit System has rented out its buses and drivers to third parties for special trips within Whistler where private operators were unable to provide service. The approval process for these special trips has become more formal to make sure that the vehicles are operating within their fleet insurance. There are two types of special transit trips that can occur within Whistler.

5.4.2.1 Special Transit Service – Open to the Public

A third party can provide additional service that is open to the public and is considered to be public transit like although it may not operate at the regular scheduled times or routes. For example, in 2010/2011, the First Night Committee purchased extra transit service that operated after 3AM when there is no scheduled transit service.

5.4.2.2 Special Transit Service – Not open to the Public

This service is considered to be “charter-like”. Under BC Transit’s current insurance program, the Whistler Transit System can provide no more than six trips annually and these trips must have some element of community benefit. Also, these trips should not take away business from local private operators that would provide the service, nor should they interfere with the operation of regularly scheduled Whistler transit service. In the past, most of these charter-like trips occurred in the spring/summer/fall when the Whistler Transit System was operating on a reduced schedule with fewer buses on the road at peak times.

Conclusion: RMOW and BC Transit see a potential to increase revenue for the Whistler Transit system by renting out transit assets to third parties, and are working towards that end.

5.4.3 Revenue Sources Suggested by the Public:

The transit service review survey had an open-ended question “What are your top priorities to improve transit service in Whistler?” Many creative suggestions were received. Listed below are the suggestions related to financing the transit system that have not already been discussed.

o Reduce fares to make them competitive to the cost of driving, especially for families o Change the transfer policy from a directional transfer to a time transfer as in Vancouver o Increase taxes to improve service o Use Hotel Tax to fund service other than the Village Shuttle as workers need to get to work to provide service to the guests of Whistler o Have a direct link from user pay parking to fund transit, for example, all sales from an Employee Pass goes towards transit o Businesses that benefit directly from transit service should contribute directly to transit service such as: . Whistler Blackcomb and the Fairmont should pay for the Staff Housing route . Bars and night clubs should pay for late night transit service . Special events should pay for extra service if needed o Business should have a special tax levy that goes directly towards transit service since the Whistler Transit System provides a safe, efficient and affordable mode of transportation to bring employees to work in Whistler

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 13 November 1, 2011

Conclusion: Staff will continue to invite innovative ideas for diverse funding opportunities for the transit system.

6. Financial Review Successes:

As discussed in detail above, the Whistler transit system financial and maintenance facility reviews have confirmed the following successes. The amounts listed below are related to the RMOW local share only.

2012+ Success 2011 Value Annual Value

Hydrogen Capital Cost Reduction $46,000* $23,000 Change Maintenance Facility Amortization from 30 to 40 years $73,400 $73,400 Pemberton Commuter Costs Contribution $15,000 $20,000 Function Olympic Lease reimbursement (Jan, Feb 2010) $16,300 Function Lease Early Exit payout ends March 2012 $112,000 Hydrogen Operations Legacy (Negotiations on this item are continuing) $1,500 $1,500

Total Cost Saving to the RMOW for 2011 $152,200 Total Annual Cost Saving to the RMOW 2012 and beyond $229,900 *2010 and 2011 retroactive credit

The Whistler Transit Financial and Facility reviews resulted in a cost reduction to the RMOW for 2011 of $152,200 which translates into approximately 2,500 service hours. Going forward from 2012, the Financial and Facility reviews will result in a cost reduction to the RMOW of $229,900 which will translate into approximately 3,750 annual hours of transit service which will enable us to provide $529,000 worth of Transit services, without added cost.

7. Outstanding Items Moving Forward

The items listed below continue to be reviewed, and may result in greater savings to the Whistler Transit System.

7.1 HST reverting back to GST/PST model in 2013

The result of the HST referendum earlier this fall was in favour of reverting back to the GST/PST system. The Provincial government has committed to revert back to the GST/PST by July 2013. Transit has been exempt from GST since 2004 and therefore we expect that by reverting to the GST/PST model, transit will once again be exempt from GST which may result in an annual saving of $50,000 going forward.

7.2 Interest Rate BC Transit charges to Local Partners

Currently BC Transit is mandated to finance all Provincially owned assets (such as buses and the Whistler Transit Maintence Facility) through the Provincial Debt Management Branch. The blended interest rate that BC Transit is charging to the RMOW on all assets related to the Whistler Transit System is 5%. The RMOW believes this rate is too high especially in current

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 14 November 1, 2011

economy. Staff will continue to work with BC Transit to understand what steps are needed to allow more flexible borrowing for BC Transit.

7.3 Costs Associated with Early Retirement of the Dart Buses

In Section 4.2.1.2, staff outlined the details of the early retirement costs of the Orion and Dart buses. The costs associated with the early retirement of the Orion buses ($554,424) were fully covered by the Province. The RMOW believes the Province should absorb the $894,660 refurbishment cost for the Dennis Darts, as was done with the Orion buses, which would reduce the RMOW’s share of costs by $178,900 annually from 2011 through 2015. Staff will continue to work to this end.

7.4 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration Project Operating Legacy

As discussed in the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Project section above, staff are not satisfied with the responses related the operating cost of the facility due to the size of the site and maintenance of specialized equipment related to the Hydrogen systems. Currently, BC Transit has identified an $1,800 annual Hydrogen monitoring equipment inspection fee and BC Transit has offered 2.4% of snow clearing cost which is equivalent to $1,000 municipal share for 2010/2011.

This is a good first step and staff will continue discussions with BC Transit for a complete operating legacy contribution for items such as increased snow clearing costs, snow storage requirements, future asphalt replacement related to the larger development footprint and maintenance of garage gas detection and ventilation systems.

7.5 Pursuing Other Business Opportunities and Other Potential Revenue Sources

As outlined in Section 5 above, BC Transit is pursuing Ministerial approval to rent out the Whistler Transit Facility using a fee-for-service model.

Staff have also received many creative suggestions outlined in Section 5.1.1 from the public regarding how to increase revenues for the Whistler Transit System. Staff will review these suggestions as part of the 2012 Municipal budget process.

WHISTLER 2020 ANALYSIS

W2020 TOWARD Descriptions of success that Comments Strategy resolution moves us toward The process for performing the Whistler Transit Service Review, the Facility Review and the Partners work toward aligned budgeting processes that leverage limited resources Financial Review has gone a long way in Partnership repairing the relationship between BC Transit for increased effectiveness and efficiency. and the RMOW. It has been a model of a working partnership. Communication, travel and services are Staff and TAG are recommending an increased accessible, seamless and convenient at contribution from the 2% AHRT to fully fund the all phases of visitor’s trips, from prior to Visitor free Village Shuttles services as recommended departure until after returning home. in the RMOW MA service. This will allow the Experience Visitors perceive Whistler products, Village Shuttle services to continue as a free services and activities to be excellent service as it has been since it was introduced in value. 1991. Resident Residents have access to affordable The RMOW MA transit system is designed to Affordability goods and services that meet their needs. meet the needs of the majority of Whistler

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 15 November 1, 2011

residents and employees at a reasonable cost. Staff are not recommending any changes to fare structure. Staff will continue to work with Physical and social infrastructure attract businesses to facilitate the business benefit Economic and support work and investment. programs related to the purchase of 6-month and 12-month transit passes for their employees. The long-term consequences of decisions The transit service, facility and financial are carefully considered. reviews, had a goal to define and implement a Finance transit system that the community can afford for Whistler lives within its financial means Winter 2011/2012 and beyond. W2020 AWAY FROM Mitigation Strategies Descriptions of success that Strategy and Comments resolution moves away from Increasingly, RMOW staff are challenged to maintain existing service levels in an environment of greater budget constraints. The cost of operating the local transit system continues to increase due to factors outside the Finance Whistler lives within its financial means. municipality’s controls such as the cost of fuel, insurance and labour. The transit service, facility and financial reviews, had a goal to define and implement a transit system that the community can afford for Winter 2011/2012.

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The Whistler Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 has integrated the principles and Policies from the Whistler Long-Term Financial Plan received by Council March 3, 2009. Both plans discuss the importance of fiscal restraint while maintaining a reasonable level of service for Whistler visitors and taxpayers. The Whistler Transit Service and Financial Reviews have abided by this general direction. In particular, the following principles and policies found in both plans guided staff in developing the funding recommendations related to funding the full cost to the RMOW of the free Village Shuttle through the Hotel Tax, the increase in transit fares on February 1, 2011 as well as the increase in funding for the RMOW Minimally Acceptable route structure and service level for 2012.

The Whistler Transit system financial and service reviews are a direct action in accordance with the plans’ principle of “Efficient and Effective Government”. In the plan, this principle is defined as, “The RMOW is committed to cost-effective and efficient service delivery, and to providing services that are valued by stakeholders.”

The financing model for the transit system does abide by the “Fairness and Equity” principle which states “Those who benefit from municipal services contribute to the cost of providing such services.” Transit is funded by the users directly through the farebox or the hotel tax (AHRT), and by the main stakeholders (businesses and citizens of Whistler) through taxation.

The Service Review and in particular the Financial Review has focused on the several policies under the heading of “Cost-Revenue Gap”. The RMOW in partnership with BC Transit has abided by these following policies: o RMOW will continue to strive for efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of services

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 16 November 1, 2011

o RMOW will examine (transit) service levels in an effort to close the forecasted gap between costs and revenues o RMOW will regularly review current and potential fees and charges in an effort to raise additional monies, and to minimize the need for property tax increases

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS On September 6, 2011, Council approved moving forward with the 60,500 service hour minimally acceptable system. It is projected to cost $11.65 million down from $13.4 million 75,000 hour business-as-usual budgeted system. With the successes outlined above from the Financial Review, the 2012 Whistler Transit system is projected to cost $11.12 million for a total system savings of $2.28M or $1.22M to the RMOW. The revenue estimate for 2012 ($2.8M) includes the recent February 1, 2011 fare increase and the revenues from the interior advertising program. Staff do not propose any changes to existing fare structure. However, as discussed in Section 5 Whistler Transit System Fare Structure, staff request that the 2% ARHT be increased by $111,176 from $854,824 for a total of $966,000, so that the cost to the RMOW of providing the free Village Shuttles is fully covered. Even with this additional funding allocation from the 2% AHRT and the service reductions, the transit system still requires $840,000 in funding. The retroactive credits listed in Section 6 Financial Review Successes, may be used to offset some of the 2012 transit funding gap. Staff will continue to work with BC Transit on items listed Section 7 Outstanding Items Moving Forward and the staff are working with BC Transit on pursuing other revenue sources such as renting out existing transit assets. Progress will be brought to Council as part of the 2012 Municipal budget process. The table below illustrates the savings that have been achieved through the service review and financial reviews. Projected % Costs Change

Business-As-Usual Total System Costs $13.4M Savings from Service Review -$1.75 -13% RMOW Minimally Acceptable (MA)Total System Costs $11.65M Savings from Financial and Facility Review -$0.53M -4% 2012 RMOW MA Total System Costs $11.12M BC Transit Share -$5.19M RMOW Share $5.93M Less Revenue -$2.8M Net Municipal Share $3.13M RMOW Transit Funding is Five- Year Financial Plan $2.175M (includes $0.854M Hotel Tax) Unfunded RMOW Costs $.95M Proposed increase in Hotel Tax -$.11M Net Municipal Share Increase $.84M

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 17 November 1, 2011

Staff are requesting that Council authorize the Annual Operating Agreement (I) (AOA) Amendment 1 costs from April 1 – September 30, 2011 which are summarized in Appendix “E”. The purpose of this Amendment is to formalize the cost saving that have been realized as a result of implementing early results of the Whistler Transit Service Review with the April 24th and July 1st schedule changes. The bulk of the savings are related to the reduction in fleet from 30 to 25 vehicles as of July 1, 2011. Staff are also requesting that Council authorize the Annual Operating Agreement (II) (AOA) costs from October 1, 2011 – March 31, 2011 which are summarized in Appendix “F”. This 6-month agreement incorporates the new RMOW Minimally Acceptable route structure and service levels as of November 24, 2011 with the start of the Early Winter schedule. The vehicle lease fees for this period are based on a fleet of 23 buses. All Hydrogen capital costs and associated Pemberton Commuter credits have been removed from the garage lease fees. The RMOW has been assured that all credits owed to the RMOW as a result of the findings of the Financial Review will be processed through regular monthly invoicing by the BC Transit year end , March 31, 2012, so that going forward, there are no outstanding credits.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION Whistler Transit financials have been part of the 2011 municipal budget and Whistler Transit Service Review community engagement and consultation processes in 2010 and 2011. Staff have also received unsolicited comments about costs and potential revenue sources for the transit system.

Financial and facility reviews have been shared with Steve Bayly, Scott Pass and Bill Murray for their comment in response to their offer to Council early in 2011. We will continue to work with Mr. Bayly, Mr. Pass and Mr. Murray on the ongoing review of this project.

SUMMARY The Whistler transit system has been subject to a comprehensive service review, a financial review and a maintenance facility review by BC Transit and RMOW.

On September 6, 2011, Council approved the reconfiguration of the Whistler Transit System transit route structure and service level which is operationally referred to as the RMOW recommended minimally acceptable (RMOW MA) transit route structure (See Appendix “A” for a map). This structure includes a service level of 60,500 annual operating hours and an estimated $1.75 million savings to the system compared to the 2011business-as-usual transit system budget estimates. The Financial and Facility review resulted in an additional annual $530,000 saving to the system resulting in a total savings of $2.28 million to the system and $1.22 million to the RMOW annually. BC Transit will also credit the RMOW $78,600 for saving associated with 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 saving not reflect in the annual operating agreements. If the RMOW moves forward with recommendation to change the amortization period for the Whistler Transit Maintenance Facility from 30 to 40 year, the RMOW will received an additional retroactive credit of $73,400 in addition to the annual saving of $73,400.

The revenue estimate for 2012 ($2.8M) incorporates the recent February 1, 2011 fare increase and the revenues from the interior advertising program. Staff do not propose any changes to existing fare structure. Staff request that the 2% ARHT be increased by $111,176 from $854,824 for a total of $966,000, so that the cost to the RMOW of providing the free Village Shuttles is fully covered. Staff also intend to reconcile the actual costs of the free Village shuttles at the end of 2012 so that

Whistler Transit System Financial and Facility Review Findings Page 18 November 1, 2011

if any other cost saving are realized in 2012, only the actual cost to the RMOW of the free Village shuttles be recovered from the 2% ARHT. However, even with this additional funding allocation from the 2% AHRT and the service reductions, the transit system still requires $840,000 in funding. The retroactive credits may be used to offset some of the 2012 transit funding gap.

Staff are also requesting that Council authorize the execution of the 2011/2012 Annual Operating Agreement (AOA) (I) – Amendment 1 effective July 1, 2011 and the 2011/2012 AOA (II) effective October 1, 2011. Amendment 1 formalizes the lower costs achieved through the early implementation of the Service Review Findings. AOA (II) reflects the new service levels and costs as a result of the full implementation of the Service Review for winter 2011/2012. The 2012 budget year will represent the first full year of the 60,500 hour RMOW MA transit service as well as the accumulated saving from the Financial and Facility Reviews.

Finally, staff will continue to work with BC Transit on the list of Outstanding Items Moving Forward (HST, Interest rate charged to local partners, costs associated with the early retirement of the Dart buses, and the Hydrogen fuel cell demonstration project operating legacy) as well as pursuing other revenue sources such as renting out existing transit assets. Progress will be brought to Council as part of the 2012 Municipal budget process.

Respectfully submitted,

Emma DalSanto Transit Demand Managment Coordinator for Joe Paul, AScT Acting General Manager Environmental Services

APPENDIX A

RAINBOW Whistler Transit Hwy. 99 EMERALD To ESTATES Pemberton 1 Valley Connector 99 via 99 Mountainview Dr.

ld 2 Creekside/Cheakamus a r e ALPINE Valley m MEADOWS E 3 Rainbow/Emerald A u t u 1 m n 4 Marketplace Shuttle (Nov 24-Apr 22) Drifter Way 3 5 Upper Village/Benchlands Shuttle Alpine Way Green Lake Matterhorn 6 Tapleys Connector Meadow Park Sports Centre 7 Staff Housing Plan your trip in Whistler 8 Lost Lake Shuttle (June 30-Sept 3) Nicklaus North Club House with Google Transit

. d R e ak L ta FUNCTION Al JUNCTION 1 TAPLEYS Alpha Lake Rd. Whistler FARM Transit Centre SPRUCE Hwy. 99 GROVE Myrtle Philip Community Spruce Grove Park Rainbow 6 School 2 Spring Creek Park Community School WHITE Sp HI Whistler rin Cheakamus Lake Rd. g C Fitzsimmons GOLD Lost reek Dr. Crabapple 3 Nancy Lake Nesters Greene ESTATES Alta Mall SPRING y Lake a W

CREEK b m WHISTLER o Lost Lake Lost Lake Park c CHEAKAMUS k c Cross Country a CAY l CROSSING B Ski Area HEIGHTS 8 Main Lorimer BENCHLANDS Gondola Transit Exchange BLUEBERRY Bus Stop Locations HILL Northlands STONEBRIDGE Village ay Alta Lake b W Lakeside Gate om ad PEMBERTON COMMUTER 99 Park 4 kc rhe 1 Park lac ea liff B Sp C ed nt ai P CREEKSIDE/CHEAKAMUS 2 B Gondola 2 l ALTA Alpine a c Wayside Park VISTA Transit k c . d r 5 o R Exchange e i RAINBOW/EMERALD m To Function Junction, e c 3 3 k la a b L BRIO G Cheakamus Crossing lta W and Spring Creek A MARKETPLACE SHUTTLE Nita 2 ic a . rd 4 Lake d o 4 8 y R N 7 LOST LAKE SHUTTLE TAMARISK ke La NORDIC ESTATES Tamarisk a Alpha Lake Ev UPPER UPPER VILLAGE/ Turnaround 1 5 5 Park VILLAGE BENCHLANDS SHUTTLE Alta Lake Rd Valley Trail . n Alpha L

n Lake o d 7 n Hwy. 99 o TAPLEY’S L 6 6 CONNECTOR 7 MILLAR’S The Hub POND STAFF HOUSING WHISTLER CREEK Transit Info 604·932·4020 t www.bctransit.com APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

August 5, 2011

Mr. Joe Paul Manager Development Services / Approving Officer The Resort Municipality of Whistler 4325 Blackcomb Way Whistler, BC, V0N 1B4

Dear Mr. Paul,

RE: Whistler Transit System – Financial Review – Terms of Reference

Thank you for your letter dated June 8, 2011 in response to BC Transit’s April 13, 2011 draft Financial Review report. Thank you also for taking the time to visit BC Transit in Victoria on August 2, 2011 in order to assist with finalizing this report. BC Transit understands that you will be circulating this Financial Review report with council and certain members of the public. BC Transit has arranged for KPMG to review this report during the week of August 8, 2011 in order to update and finalize the following special procedures reports:

 Reviewing our responses to your questions to ensure they are consistent with KPMG’s knowledge and understanding of our business as external auditors;  Testing a sample of costs charged to the Resort Municipality of Whistler; and  Testing a sample of costs charged to the Fuel Cell Bus Program.

These reports are targeted to be provided to you in advance of August 23, 2011.

With respect to fleet, the Financial Review report confirms that the Resort Municipality of Whistler (“RMOW”) is paying no more for using Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses than it would be paying if diesel buses were used. Furthermore, it should be noted that the maintenance the RMOW is being charged in relation to these Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses is fixed at rates typical of diesel buses, providing certainty and removing risk with respect to this service component. The report also identifies that BC Transit has absorbed over $1M of costs associated with the write-off of Orion buses that used to be part of the RMOW’s fleet.

The report also identifies that on March 17, 2009, BC Transit staff clearly informed the RMOW during a presentation on the Whistler Transit Facility that the budget for construction, excluding gaseous standards costs, was going to be $25.2M. The projected cost to complete at the time of this report is $22.2M. Over $1M of facility capital costs directly related to gaseous standards required to enable the servicing and maintenance of the Hydrogen buses are or will be absorbed by BC Transit. Accordingly, the RMOW’s annual payments related to the facility will be reduced retroactively by an additional $23,030 in gaseous costs. This ensures that the commitment made on March 17, 2009 to do so is kept.

This facility was designed and built to handle expansion in the RMOW for the next 20 to 30 years. Given that the fleet size in March 2009 was approximately 30 buses, building a facility that could handle 50 buses was deemed reasonable. The facility was in no way built with excess capacity specifically for the Olympics. In fact, the only way bus service was possible during the Olympics was because, at any one time, two thirds of the buses in the RMOW were on the road.

It should also be noted that in April 2012, the RMOW will have completed paying for the lease exit fees for Function Junction resulting in a $111,960 reduction in annual local costs.

To assist the RMOW in mitigating costs, BC Transit is pursuing commercial opportunities to lease out excess space in the facility. Please be assured that there is an ongoing commitment from BC Transit to continue to work with both staff and the local operating company to ensure that taxpayers are receiving value for their community through effective and efficient transit service.

Please let me know should you have any questions with respect to this Financial Review report or if you require any further information from BC Transit.

Sincerely,

Peter Rantucci Director Regional Transit Systems

cc. Mr. Bill Barratt, CAO Resort Municipality of Whistler Mr. Harry Kim, GM Environmental Services, Resort Municipality of Whistler Ms. Emma Dal Santo, TDM Planner

WHISTLER TRANSIT FACILITY

Presentation to RMOW

March 17, 2009 Agenda

1. Whistler Facility

2. Operating Cost Scenario (2010/11)

3. 2010 Olympic Service

2 1. Whistler Facility Agenda

1. Project History/Rationale

2. Fleet Deployment Update

3. Communications/Consultation • Activities to Date • Public Open Houses

4. Scope • Overview • Key Design Elements • Facility Layout • Renderings

5. Schedule

6. Budget • History • Capital Costs

7. Next Steps 3 Project History/Rational Whistler Service

• Existing fleet is aging and requires replacement

• Existing buses are 30-35’ where new buses are minimum 40’

• Future service requires additional buses

4 Project History/Rational Existing Transit Facility

• Current depot and garage leased at Function Junction • Built to support up to 35’ buses and cannot be reconfigured to support the new 40’ buses • Does not support the long term growth of the community • Future capacity requires 50 buses

5 Fleet Deployment Update

• 21 new Nova buses delivered in December 2008 • All high floor buses have been removed from Whistler Fleet • 20 Fuel Cell buses have been ordered and delivery scheduled to begin in Fall 2009 • GFI fare boxes to be installed on all buses

6 Communications/Consultation Activities to Date

• Aug 18, 2008 – Presentation to RMOW

• Sept 17,2008 – 1st Community Open House

• Mar 05, 2009 – 2nd Community Open House

7 Communications/Consultation Open Houses

1st Open House (Sept 17, 08) • Information provided on site selection process and preliminary design • 32 community members attended • Feedback included: • Provide environmentally sound solutions • Minimize environmental footprint (Areas) • Maintain cycle trails • Continue valley trail system • Come back to residents with the design details

2nd Open House (Mar 05, 09) • Information provided on detailed design and updates since 1st Open House • 21 community members attended • Feedback was positive, with discussion focused on environmental mitigation

8 Scope Overview

• Administration/Maintenance Building • 6 service bays with portable hoists • Administration area • Operations area

• Wash/cleaning bay

• Covered diesel fuelling station

• Covered bus shelters (36 buses, with provision to expand to 50 in the future)

• Hydrogen fuelling station (funded separately)

• Employee parking (45 stalls)

• Visitor parking (6 stalls) 9 Scope Key Design Elements Presented at 2nd Open House

• The area or footprint has been reduced from 6.5 acres to 5.6 acres • Run-off from facility and hillside treated in new bio-filtration ponds • Facility drainage installed with oil/water separators • A series of marsh ponds will be constructed to increase the effective size of open water areas • Culverts designed to provide for future fish and wildlife passage • Significant riparian planting program • Buildings designed for LEED compliance • Facility designed to accommodate future growth • Maintained existing cycle trails • Maintained Valley Trail system • Environmental proposals have been approved by the Ministry of

Environment (MOE) 10 Plan of New Facility

11 Bus Storage Bays

12 Maintenance Building Back of Building (West)

13 Maintenance Building Front of Building (East)

• Percon Images

14 Schedule

• April 09: Project Implementation

• July 09: Complete Bus storage shelters

• Aug 09: Complete diesel fuelling station

• Sep 09: Complete access road

• Oct 09: Complete paving

• Nov 09: Complete hydrogen fuelling station

• Dec 09: Complete maintenance facility

• Jan 10: Grand Opening

15 Budget History

• 2006: Placeholder for new transit facility identified in capital plan for $15M (excluding land, FFE, overhead and IDC)

• August 08 – Preliminary engineering work identified original placeholder inadequate and forecast was updated to $27M (excluding land, FFE, overhead and IDC)

• September 08 – Pacific Liaicon and Associates (PLA) and McElhanney Engineering were retained to provide Project Management services

• January 09: Site layout and design complete. Final budget forecast of $25.2M (includes $3M property acquisition)

• Hydrogen fuelling facility and buses are not included

16 Budget Capital Budget Details

Total Project Budget Bus Shelter 23,544 sq ft Site Works $6.95M Total cost per sq. ft. $82 Environmental Improvements $0.38M Cost of Shell per sq. ft $57 Fuelling Station $0.97M Balance – Electrical/Mechanical/Footings per sq ft $25 Bus Storage $2.27M Maintenance Facility $7.00M Maintenance Building 24,857 sq ft PM, Design, Overhead, FFE $3.54M Total cost per sq. ft. $239 Property Acquisition $3.00M Cost of Shell per sq. ft $64 Contingency $0.75M Cost of Electrical/Mechanical per sq ft $96 IDC $0.35M Balance – Footing/Foundation/Finishes per sq ft $80 Total Budget $25.2M Bus Wash Shell & Equipment Cost of Shell/Equipment per sq ft $29

17 Next Steps

• Finalize property acquisition with BC Hydro

• Work with RMOW to examine lease exit options for the Function Junction Site

• Removal of preload

• Buildings being fabricated off-site

18 Operating Cost Scenario (2010/11)

19 Current (2008/09)

Provincial 2008/09 Local Share Share Total Property Tax Revenue Province $7.5M $1.0M $3.0M $3.5M

Major cost drivers: • Aging fleet • Inadequate maintenance facilities • Prior Transit Management contract

20 2010/11 Cost Scenario Incremental Costs

Item Annual Cost Local Share Provincial Share Depot $1,066,000 $568,000 $498,000 Operating Contract $1,275,000 $680,000 $595,000 25 Hybrid Buses $375,000 $200,000 $175,000 Darts Refurbished $221,000 $118,000 $103,000 PTA/PTIP ($100,000) ($100,000) $0 Total $2,837,000 $1,466,000 $1,371,000

• New Fleet: 20 years • New Facility: 40 years • New Contract: 7 years

21 Cost Mitigation

Costs absorbed by BC Transit Item Annual Cost Local Share Term Total Debt (Annual) Service Avoided

Orion Debt Service $350,000 $187,000 3 years + $600,000 Write Off ($1M) Gaseous Standards $64,000 $34,000 30 years $1,020,000 ($1M)

Total $414,000 $221,000 $1,620,000

22 2010 Olympic Service

23 3. 2010 Olympic Service

• Cost – Revenue = VANOC

Incumbent Olympic Total Service Service Service 8,400 42,900 51,300

Service Hours Service X YZ

Formula: X = Incumbent service revenue required to ensure local funding is unaffected Y = VANOC revenue (Z-X) Z = 100% of revenue

BC Transit inducement = $100,000 (20% of $500,000)

24 APPENDIX D

ANTHONY STEADMAN AND ASSOCIATES INC

WHISTLER TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY AUDIT REPORT

Prepared by Anthony Steadman 4/15/2011

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

WHISTLER TRANSIT OPERATIONS

AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY

AUDIT REPORT

15th April 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The audit examines the final project costs, the business case to proceed with the new facility, the circumstances under which the project proceeded, and accounts for the operations of the new fleet. The one matter that could not be seen from a direct perspective was the operating conditions at Function Junction, as this no longer exists, so reliance had to be made on information from those involved with operations. The audit can find no evidence of any mis- management, costs that would be considered unreasonably high, or costs attributed to the project that do not belong. In addition the costs have been compared with other projects and compare favourably. The timing of the project did not assist to reduce costs, and could have increased costs considerably, but the review does not find any costs that may be considered much higher than would normally be expected. With respect to timing the premium cost time window related to Winter Olympic construction extended over a period of around 2007 to 2009, meaning an earlier start would have reduced schedule pressure but not cost pressure, and starting after the Olympics would have required alternative bus operations over this period.

An underlying and accepted premise to the audit is that, based on information from those managing and experienced in operations, was that at some time in the future a new facility was inevitable. Noting from above the operations in the previous facility could not be observed, but parking buses on a street, having reduced maintenance areas, a location close to an environmentally sensitive water course, and no room for expansion would support this premise.

In summary the audit has not found any untoward costs, procedures, or decisions that would suggest there was a fundamental flaw in the delivery of the new bus maintenance facility.

The detailed audit is set out below.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 1

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

INTRODUCTION

An audit has been carried out of the costs related to the new Bus Facility at the B.C. Hydro Site in Whistler. The overall purpose of this report is to review whether the cost of the project represented value for money, the costs were reasonable, and to examine if there were opportunities for savings that could have reduced the overall cost of the facility. In order to achieve this purpose the report will examine the following topics:

 The procurement strategy based on the schedule and risk at the time of project delivery

 Whether an alternative to the use of prefabricated structures could have been used, and the consequence of using an alternative construction process

 Examination of whether a design could be selected that would be more economical, and the consequences of using such a design

 Carry out a review of the existing facility, to examine the consequences of up-grading this facility in place of construction of a new facility. This will take into account construction cost, expansion potential, provision of a temporary facility, the benefit of the completed facility, and whether this could be achieved within the prescribed schedule. It is understood the Owner of the existing facility was proposing such an expansion.

 A commentary on the effect to operations on retaining the existing facility or providing a new facility with a lesser scope

 A value for money and cost benefit of the project

 An analysis and review of whether the price paid for the new facility was reasonable

 Visit other sites that would have been available to construct the facility and comment on the consequences of using these sites.

 Examine the consequences of the schedule and its related time constraints with respect to the timing of the Olympics

 The new bus storage facility is covered, a feature created by climatic conditions. The costs of covering will be extracted from the construction costs, and a cost benefit analysis carried out to understand the cost consequences of covering or leaving the facility open.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 2

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

 A review of the overall approach to the project

 A review of the project and construction management costs with a commentary on their reasonableness

 Comment on the contract documents and risk allocation to examine whether they were reasonable around the circumstances related to project delivery, and whether there was an over conservative approach to risk

 A review of the contract administration process and the changes introduced during construction.

WORK CARRIED OUT TO FACILITATE THE AUDIT

The work carried out included a review of the business case together with the schedule, budget and final costs of the project. Contract documents related to the contract management were read to insure that fair and normal contract practices were carried out. Both the current facility and the previous facility at Function Junction were visited. Independent cost checks were carried out, and comparisons made with other facilities. The following personnel were interviewed to both obtain a greater understanding of the project:

Mr. David Leather – Project Manager Mr. Bob Hall – Fleet Manager Mr. Graeme Masterton – Planning Manager

In addition at the commencement of the work Mr. Peter Randucci, Director Regional Transit Systems provided back-ground and explained the project.

BASIC ASSUMPTION

The new bus facility was to be completed prior to the Winter Olympics, and was to be able accommodate the existing fleet with room for expansion to a fleet of 50 buses. The need for expansion will be addressed in this report in a separate section. The approval to proceed with the project was made on or around October 2008. This audit does not attempt to address the rationale behind this date, and assumes that various issues, such as site selection did not allow final decisions to be made earlier.

The project is being audited on the basis of needs and projections made at the time the project was implemented, the audit does not address whether these projections and needs have come to, or are projected to come to fruition.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 3

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

The current fleet size is included as 34 buses which are used for current fleet size calculations; although currently the facility is housing 45 buses on a temporary basis.

All costs in this report are derived from the budget, unless otherwise stated. Any costs expressed over the life of the project are expressed in current day costs and not as NPV costs, as current financial projections are not able to be forecast over 40 years.

APPROACH TO THE PROJECT

The project was constructed as a construction management contract with competitive sub- contract tenders for each element of the work, based upon a fixed fee, cost reimbursable site management and a Guaranteed Maximum Price for the total project. The construction manager was responsible at his own risk and cost for any cost over-runs above the Guaranteed Maximum Price. The construction management group was also awarded as part of a total competitive proposal submission, the preliminary functional design to develop sufficient detail to obtain competitive tenders, the final detail design being carried out by each sub-contractor.

The project management on behalf of the Owner was carried by an independent consulting group, taking responsibility for overall cost control and schedule compliance, change control sub-contract award approval, contract administration, and overall management of the project. This approach to project delivery is used as the Owner does not employ an engineering division.

The sub-contract construction packages were tendered on functional design, architectural design, and sub-structure design for the maintenance building, to provide a sub-contract price. In addition the buildings are partially pre-fabricated to reduce construction periods on site.

The approach is often used when there is limited time, and although at the commencement of the project there is uncertainty around the final price, the Guaranteed Maximum Price provides assurance of a maximum price based on the original scope.

PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

The schedule for the project was extremely short, and very often such a challenge creates a higher than normal cost. A typical schedule for a project such as this in Whistler, or other similar location would be expected to be between eighteen months to two years from commencement of design to completion of construction.

The strategy was to employ a construction manager as noted above who would competitively tender the work as each sub-contract element was designed and able to be prepared in sufficient detail for pricing. This meant that work was tendered as soon as an element of the complete building was ready and in advance of the complete facility design being completed, saving time.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 4

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

Based on the information provided the project management group carried out a detailed review of all sub-contract prices obtained for the work, negotiating and finding ways of reducing, where possible, the costs of each sub-contract price, thereby providing a second check on the tendered prices and insuring costs are kept to the minimum. If there were any cost premiums due to this strategy, which are not apparent from the contract prices, these would be off-set by the saving in time affecting the costs of interest during construction and management costs.

As the maximum price of the project was protected with a Guaranteed Maximum Price the risk of uncertainty in pricing was almost totally reduced.

ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

Within the constraints of the schedule it would not have been possible to have constructed the project as a conventional design, tender, build project, using traditional construction techniques due to the periods required to complete the design, allowing for a reasonable tender period, and thereafter awarding and constructing the project with all work being carried out on site. As was noted above this process would have taken between eighteen months to two years.

The construction management process, together with the use of prefabrication reduces time, and also reduces risk of construction being delayed due to inclement weather. It is often considered that there is a cost premium related to this process; however by comparison with other projects none was immediately evident, although it is generally considered that prefabrication carries a premium.

THE DESIGN

The design is based upon a facility able to service 50 buses of a standard length of 40 feet, through a wide variance of climatic conditions. The facility includes a covered bus storage area, protecting the buses from excessive snow accumulations, which are a safety hazard during operations, and in keeping with other facilities in similar climates in Canada. The cover consists of a roof deck on a frame, which would be difficult to minimise further. The maintenance and office area is a simple building with external walls and roof of insulated self finished wall cladding and roofing, with minimal windows. The office and personnel areas are minimal, except for an area on the second floor which was used as temporary space during the Olympics. This space is currently under utilised but can be used with minimal alterations for additional work areas, which are understood to be required. In summary there is no excess in the design.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 5

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

The buildings are prefabricated, which can add a small premium to the costs, but was necessary to achieve completion within the schedule. Any premiums are almost off-set by reduced labour requirements and the saving on schedule.

Based on a review of the drawings, meeting with operations staff and a visit to the premises the design is functional and meets current needs with sufficient space to expand to a fleet of 50 buses. No excesses in details, features, or quality can be noted.

THE EXISTING PREMISES THAT WERE USED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL BUS FACILITY

The previous facility at Function Junction was originally selected in 1990 / 1991 to maintain and store 5 buses of 30 and 35 feet in length. At this time only the southern half of the facility was selected, that is south of the passageway. Later in 2002 the facility was expanded taking over the area now used by the brewing company to allow for maintenance of a fleet of 31 buses 35 feet long. The complete facility was not large enough to store such a fleet, and over-night storage was by parking 19 buses on Millar Creek Road. The current bus fleet now uses standard length buses that are 40 feet long, which are preferred due to lower operating costs per passenger. The longer buses put further pressures on available areas for maintenance and storage.

The facility was not designed as a bus maintenance and storage facility, being a series of mixed use industrial and commercial buildings, and beside an environmentally sensitive creek. At the meeting with the fleet manager it was noted this situation was not sustainable. The reasons being that due to constraints of size and maintenance facility full operational service maintenance could not be provided, shortening the life of the buses. In addition parking on municipal streets was creating issues with neighbours and could not be considered secure, good practice, or sustainable for an indefinite period of time.

The back-ground of the auditor is not in bus operational management, but based on visiting the facility and listening to those involved it can be seen there are limitations on bus movement, storage and maintenance. In addition there was no room for an expanding fleet. It cannot be commented on whether the facility could be used further, but it would be considered normal and good practice that a bus storage facility should be able to store all vehicles in a secure environment, and the maintenance facilities should be such that full maintenance can be carried out without restriction. The previous facility did not provide such amenities.

Although not a primary factor, the existing facility had no capacity for storage of the additional buses required for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

It is understood that the Owner of the existing facility was planning to expand the transit facility; the plans have not been reviewed. However there would be a number of questions related to any expansion which would include whether this included sufficient secure, off- street, storage space for up to 50 buses 40 feet long; and how there would sufficient

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 6

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential environmental protection to the creek adjacent to such a facility. In addition a temporary facility would probably have had to have been put in place during the expansion.

EFFECT TO OPERATIONS ON RETAINING THE EXISTING FACILITY OR PROVIDING A NEW FACILITY WITH A LESSER SCOPE

Based on interviews the effect on operations of retaining the existing Function Junction would be a shorter operational life, and perhaps in the future issues related to on street bus storage. There is no evidence that would suggest this assumption is incorrect.

If the new facility reduced its scope to reduce cost, there would be lesser maintenance facilities. At the time of the site visit all maintenance bays were in use, and it is understood this is normal practice. The site area could have been reduced to only serve the existing fleet, which would have saved money, but would not be in line with the agreement to construct a facility to serve 50 buses. In addition the storage of excess buses during the Olympics would have to have been elsewhere, at a probable additional cost. The other option would have been to have removed the covered facility, which would create problems with snow issues.

The new facility could have been to a smaller area, but would not have met the objectives of the project, and it can be questioned when a new facility is built whether it would be prudent not to allow for future expansion. Based on the auditor’s experience in transit it has never been known to construct a facility that does not allow for expansion.

VALUE FOR MONEY AND COST BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT

The value of the project is based upon the previous facility not being functional to provide a comprehensive maintenance service and lack of storage space, and savings of rental costs. Based on information provided and noted at meetings, a new facility had to be constructed to be able to service and store the current and future bus fleet. The lease was due to expire within 40 months and the facility was inadequate.

The cost benefit of proceeding earlier was two-fold, one being to provide a facility in time for the Olympics, saving the cost of setting up a temporary facility for the storage of additional buses, and providing maintenance for both the current fleet and the temporary Olympic fleet. The second reason was that although the business case anticipated a lease buy out of $1,360,000; the actual figure paid was $577,000, which was off-set by the saving on rent of $281,577 per annum, or $938,590 over the forty month period.

With respect to rental costs and the comparison with the cost of a new facility it is noted the original rent included the facilities, and the new rent of the BC Hydro site is for land only. The saving in rental costs are to be set against the additional cost of a new facility to create to create a consistent comparison which is the cost benefit of the new facility constructed on land

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 7

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential leased for a forty year period at a lump sum cost of $919,000, or $22,975 per annum. This reduction in rent leads to a saving of $258,602 per annum or $10,344,080 over 40 years in present day dollars, which would be offset against the cost of the new facility, resulting in a net additional cost of $12,564,383 to provide a new facility. The cost benefit was to extend the life of the buses and optimise operating costs, it being noted that the previous arrangement to maintain buses in an inadequate facility could not continue and a new facility was inevitable. Based on a 50 bus fleet the new facility calculates at a net cost of $6,282 per bus per year, or $9,239 per bus year based on the existing fleet, which would be expected to be saved on operating and maintenance costs due to improved storage and maintenance.

WHETHER THE PRICE PAID WAS REASONABLE

The original budget for the project was $25.2 million, and the project was completed for a sum of $22.8 million.

The maintenance building cost calculates at $2,526 per square metre for construction and management, other smaller facilities in British Columbia are costing between $3,000 and $3,300 per square metre for a maintenance facility. Construction in Whistler is higher than the Lower Mainland, and the work was constructed immediately prior to the 2010 Winter Olympics, a period that was known for high construction costs. The costs were reviewed against the design, and there was no element that could be considered to be high.

There is no comparator for the covered storage facility and on the same basis as above the facility calculates at $878 per square metre. The foundations are $205 per square metre, which are in an expected range. The structure calculates at $551 per square metre, which would compare favourably with any estimates prepared separately. The remaining costs are electrical and site management and overheads

A large element of the estimate is the Site Preparation and Off-Site services totalling $5,764,727 for the construction and management costs. This is a high cost due to the large quantity of excavation required to excavate the site out of the sloping terrain, followed by the need to preload the site. This work calculates at approximately $122 per site square metre, which is not unreasonable for the expected quantities of excavation required.

The paving and landscaping calculates at approximately $58 per square metre, which would not be considered excessive for heavy duty paving, a figure of 50% in excess of this figure would not be unusual. It is difficult to review every detail of this cost, without detailed knowledge of the contractor’s calculations, which cannot be made available. Taking into account the size of the site and quantum of work, there is no element that can be identified as having excessive costs.

General conditions or construction management covering management, supervision, testing, construction services, temporary facilities, travel, living out allowances, and cleaning etc is a

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 8

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential cost of $1,586,449. The construction manager set out the scope of the work included as general conditions and an independent check estimate was carried out as part of the audit arriving at a figure of $1,635,000, which verifies the cost included is reasonable. As a percentage the general conditions calculate at 11.45% of all construction costs excluding the cost changes; which is below the generally expected range of 15%, dependent upon location, the work required and the schedule. The general conditions would be expected to be a lower as under the terms of the contract this element does not attract a profit margin, this being covered in the overall management fee. It has been stated that no profit allowances have been included.

Contingencies were included at a percentage of 3.8% of all construction and design costs. This would be typical of a figure to be included to cover contingencies during construction, once design and tendering was complete, this figure was included as a budget before either process was completed. If this figure was reviewed at the time the budget was prepared, a comment would be made that this figure was too low, especially with the short schedule. On completion 4% of the total contingency remained unused.

In summary of the above it is concluded the costs paid for the construction of project are reasonable there are no costs that have been found that suggest otherwise.

VISITS TO OTHER SITES

Visits were made to the Mons and Sabre sites. Based on area the Sabre site was too small; leaving the Mons site as an alternative. The high voltage lines cross this site, which will render part of the site unusable. The major points related to these sites was the development permits were not in place, and therefore unable to provide a site that would allow the project to be completed to schedule.

No site was seen, or mentioned that may have been more suitable. The selected site required a higher level of site preparation than would have been preferred; the Mons site would have had high cost access issues as well as many of the issues associated with the chosen site.

To conclude there was nothing wrong with the site chosen, and the choice allowed the project to be completed to the selected schedule.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE SCHEDULE AND ITS RELATED TIME CONSTRAINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING OF THE OLYMPICS

The schedule as noted earlier was very short and constrained by the requirement to be completed to be ready for the 2010 Winter Olympic, 16 months following the decision to proceed. Such a constraint carries a very high risk of cost over-runs due to the need to complete, and often uncontrolled expenditure to insure completion on time. This situation did

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 9

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential occur on some projects, not directly under the control of VANOC, adding additional costs to meet schedule.

This project did not get into this situation, and also did not recognise the possibility of the situation occurring with a higher than normal contingency allowance.

During the period the project was constructed Whistler and the Lower Mainland were passing through the end of a period of very intense construction activity due to the Winter Olympics, the Canada Line, and other major construction projects within the area. This put pressure on resources such as labour, equipment supply, transport, and some materials. This often resulted in projects incurring higher than expected costs. The construction management process could have left the project vulnerable to such pressures, especially with labour due to its lack of local supply. The costs and the completion schedule suggest that regardless of these pressures being felt on other projects, this project was not affected.

Apart from the use of prefabricated buildings there were no consequential costs or issues related to the schedule.

THE USE OF A COVERED STORAGE FACILITY

As noted previously in this report it is understood that covered facilities in areas subject to heavy snowfall is normal. The bus bodies are protected, requiring less maintenance, and start up is easier. A further factor is that due to the heavy snow accumulations in an unprotected storage situation in heavy snow areas, snow collects on the roof of the buses, and then discharging the snow whilst in operation creating a traffic and safety hazard.

This facility cost approximately $2 million, which if equated to the current size fleet of 34 buses, calculates at $2,270 per bus year or $11.60 per bus day over winter based on a four month winter season. This represents the cost of less than 6 minutes operating time per day. The fact that the bus is not hampered by snow at the commencement of service, and can be parked in a clear area it can be assumed that more than this time is saved in the winter months.

The use of a covered facility should not be open to criticism, and apart from the above information it is likely that the there will be less bus body maintenance due to it being protected in storage, adding further savings to maintenance costs.

REVIEW OF THE APPROACH TO THE PROJECT

The schedule precluded a standard approach to the project as noted earlier in this report. The approach carries a risk of cost uncertainty, however on this project this risk was passed to the Construction Manager by the contract providing a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 10

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

The work of the Construction Manager, who was also paid a separate fee for the design of the project, was controlled by the Project Manager representing BC Transit the project Owner. Their role was to monitor the design and construction, together with the schedule, and participate in the selection of sub-contract tenders obtained by the Construction Manager. This role provided management and due diligence on behalf of the Owner. This work would include insuring the design was in accordance with the necessary operating requirements and the Owner’s parameters. As the project was being constructed to a Guaranteed Maximum Price assurance had to be given all scope and functional requirements were met, and no cost cutting was carried out to remain below the Guaranteed Maximum Price.

The approach was successful with sub-contractor’s being encouraged to offer alternative to lower cost, and often negotiations entered into to reduce sub-contract prices to insure budget compliance.

The roles carried out were normal for the construction of a project such as this, in which the Owner, not having a large construction department, employs a project manager and designers. The contractor’s role was, instead of being one large contract at the commencement of the work consisted of the management company providing staff to manage and administer the project, together with a fixed fee to cover profit and the costs of administering the tendering process.

There could be criticism against the use of the same organisation to provide the Owner’s design and thereafter to construct the project, with the detailed design being carried out by the various sub-contractors as required. The advantage was that there could be no matters or costs related to design understanding, nor could there be any claims for delay in design reviews or design production. In addition the work was administered under separate contracts, providing control on behalf of the Owner.

As noted earlier in this report there was little room for other options, and the Owner was at no additional risk than using other project delivery methods.

A REVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT COSTS WITH A COMMENTARY ON THEIR REASONABLENESS

There are four cost elements that could be considered to be related to the management and design of the project, and two of which in a construction management delivery are sometimes confused with the Owner’s project management. As this project was delivered under a construction management delivery model, the construction manager is the contractor, which is responsible to manage, supervise and administer the construction work, in this project take the risk of cost over-runs, and make a profit for carrying out of this work and taking risk. Under a conventional contract the costs of management, supervision, and administration are not always shown separately, and the profit or fee is never disclosed. Therefore the first two elements related to management and design is the general conditions covering management,

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 11

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential supervision, and administration of the project, and the fee covering profit and risk. These are normal and expected construction costs. The third and fourth elements of design and management are the costs of design and the project management on behalf of the Owner.

With respect to the contractor’s fees, the general conditions have been addressed previously in this report, and compare favourably with expected costs. The management fee is fixed but based on 5% of the construction price. The fee was not adjusted and finally expressed as a percentage was 4.81% of the final construction price with changes. The last project the auditor was involved with included a construction management fee of 7%, regardless of the final price with no guaranteed fixed price. It is pointed out this project was extremely complex. It is not unusual to observe fees of 10% and higher.

The total management and design of the project on behalf of the Owner amounted to 14.5% of construction cost, 9.5% attributable to design, and 5% to management. The design fee was competitively tendered as part of the overall design and management contract, and the project awarded to Omicron as designers. The design fee, in the auditor’s opinion is considered to be on the higher side of expected costs, especially as the design is based on pre-fabricated structures; however it is not at a level that would be considered unreasonable. Part of the reason may have been due to the timing and location. The project management fees of 5% are reasonable, and in budget preparation figures of between 7% and 8% are commonly used, and often higher percentages are incurred.

In summary the fees are in line with normal practice and in general found to be reasonable.

COMMENT ON THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND RISK ALLOCATION

There were three contracts related to the design and construction of the project. The first contract being for preliminary design with a phase two agreement to carry out detailed design and manage the construction of the project. This contract was awarded on a competitive basis. The phase two parts of the contract had their own agreement set in place for carrying out the work. The first contract was a standard BC Transit contract, the detailed design contract was an AIBC standard form of contract 6C, and the construction management contract CCDC 3, with a Guaranteed Maximum Price. None of the contracts included any onerous clauses that would attract additional costs, and are all standard contracts commonly used in the construction industry.

A REVIEW OF THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION PROCESS AND THE CHANGES INTRODUCED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

The construction administration process carried out by the Construction Manager and managed by the Project Manager comprised firstly of obtaining competitive sub-contract tenders for all elements of the work. The tender (bid) analysis tabulations have been provided for the major

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 12

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential elements of the project. As many as seven sub-contractors were requested to provide tenders in some of the elements of the work, and the lowest number requested being three sub- contractors. Not all those approached responded, but always a minimum of two tenders were received, and as many as five tenders. It can be confirmed that the process was thorough in obtaining the lowest price available for the work to be carried out. Very often lower cost alternatives were sought, and accepted to carry out the work. The total cost of the contract construction work was below budget by 10.5%

The other major aspect was to administer changes, of which there were 33. A review of the change titles and the drawings provided show that none of the described work was set out on the drawings, and would be additional work. As there was a professional project management group managing such work it would not be likely that any of this work would be included in the original contract. The cost of the changes exceeded the contingency allowance; however the value of the savings to the construction budget covered the amount exceeding contingencies

The contract administration process can be deemed to be effective on the basis costs were managed and the project completed within the schedule and budget.

HYDROGEN BUS COSTS

Any costs that were directly attributable to the hydrogen bus programme were not to be part of the cost of this work and paid by others. The budget removed the costs of the work associated with the hydrogen bus programme that were constructed as part of the project, which included:

 Additional electrical work  The fuelling station  Additional monitoring equipment

There is a cost of $573,901 to cover a hydrogen premium within the budget which has not been allocated to the hydrogen bus costs. This is the cost of a gas removal system that may be used for either hydrogen fuel cell power, or natural gas power. It was explained that in the original considerations for a future bus fleet there was an intention to use natural gas power buses as part of the fleet, which would have required this facility; and therefore this system would have been installed if a facility had been constructed regardless of whether hydrogen buses were used. Based on this assumption the costs would not be attributed to the hydrogen fuel cell programme.

The fuelling equipment was not part of the contract, and paid for by others. There was no evidence that any other work that could be solely attributable to the hydrogen fuel project was included as part of the budget.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 13

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

OTHER MATTERS

A business case was produced that set out the rationale to support the project, and as part of the audit the document was reviewed. There were no errors, and the basis to proceed was generally sound. However there was one issue that deserves comment, and that is that the original budget, prior to the business case and preliminary design, was $15 million. There are no details available of this figure or even a scope, except that there is a Funding Charter of 20th April 2008 stating the budget comprises of $11.5 million for the facility and $3.5 million for land. The subsequent business case of January 2009 refers to this budget and states the amount was a place holder and does not include land. There is some confusion related to the scope of this figure, and no reconciliation as to why it was increased to $25.2 million. It is agreed that the figure is too low to provide the facility, however it would normally be good practice to reconcile the differences to explain the increase, regardless of it being named “rough order of magnitude.” It is a matter that should have been addressed at the time of the business case, as it does leave the project open to criticism and an inferred cost over-run. As the final decision was made on the $25.2 million and not the lower figure, it cannot be criticised that the final decisions related to the project were made on false information.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that the project costs were excessive for the scope constructed. The project was also managed in a manner the kept control of the costs through the design and construction work. It is noted that in the business case it is stated that there is little risk in the schedule, which could be disagreed with taking timing and location into account; however the project was completed on schedule.

The audit is not to question the decision to proceed with the project, however when the situation related to operating the fleet from Function Junction is examined, and that there would be further constraints as the fleet was expanded, the decision to create a purpose built facility of sufficient size to accommodate the existing fleet and allow for expansion would be seen to have merit.

The audit cannot address the timing of the project but the project was not assisted by proceeding as late as it did, and could have been put at cost and schedule risk, however there were no adverse effects from the timing. The fact that the project was to be completed for the Winter Olympics cannot be commented on, as at the time Whistler was to be show cased to the world, and a well run bus service would be considered a critical part of such a show case.

Audited by

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 14

WHISTLER BUS FACILITY Confidential

Anthony Steadman PQS, FRICS.

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED AS PART OF THE AUDIT

Omicron Budget of January 2011

Budget Board presentation January 27 2009

Detailed Business Case January 19 2009

Draft Project Business Analysis

Community Open House presentation September 2008

Facility Presentation to RMOW March 17 2009

Contract Documents as referred to in this report

Function Junction layout drawings

Budgets for other BC Transit bus maintenance facilities

Project schedule January 9 2009

Site Plans

Mons Lease Value Analysis

Mons Power Point December 2007

Whistler site selection July 24 2008

Whistler Transit Facility Presentation August 18 2008

Whistler funding charter April 20th 2008

Issued for construction drawings covering architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical disciplines

Bid summaries for the operations and maintenance building, ceramics, concrete masonry units, interior doors, fencing, fireproofing, and flooring, fire protection, glazing, mechanical, millwork, reinforcement, roof cladding, steel studs, and elevator.

Anthony Steadman And Associates Inc Page 15

APPENDIX E

TERM SHEET

TERM SHEET: APRIL 1, 2011 to SEPTEMBER 31, 2011 WHISTLER ANNUAL OPERATING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT 1 – EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011

Parties: Whistler Transit Ltd., BC Transit, and Resort Municipality of Whistler

Term: April 1, 2011 to September 31, 2011 for the Whistler Conventional transit system.

Description: This agreement establishes the level of transit service, costs and maintenance of the Whistler conventional transit system. In particular, costs such as the variable hourly rate and the cost per kilometre are specified by the agreement.

Special Conditions: The orignal 6-month agreement was brought to Council on April 19, 2011 for approval. The Amendment 1 formalizes the reduction in costs to the Whistler transit system as of the implementation of the summer schedule on July 1, 2011 resulting in the moving 5 vehicles out of Whistler and reassigning these vehicles to another BC Transit system.

It is important to note that the findings of the Financial and Facility Reviews have not been incorporated into the costs outlined below. The savings from these reviews will be processed as credits to the RMOW via the monthly BC Transit invoice process.

Costs: The total maximum cost of Whistler Transit Service from April 1 – September 2011 is $4,998,661. BC Transit contribution is $1,890,665.

RMOW Obligations: The municipal share of costs is $3,107,997.

APPENDIX F

TERM SHEET

TERM SHEET: OCTOBER 1, 2011 to MARCH 31, 2012 WHISTLER ANNUAL OPERATING AGREEMENT (II)

Parties: Whistler Transit Ltd., BC Transit, and Resort Municipality of Whistler

Term: October 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 for the Whistler Conventional transit system.

This second 6-months of the 2011/2012 Annual Operating Agreement has incorporated the RMOW Minimally Acceptable route structure and Service levels as of the November 24, 2011 Early Winter service change. It also reduces the base fleet from 25 (as of July 2011) to 23 (as of October 1, 2011).

This agreement also includes the formal receipt of the $235,000 Public Transit Infrastructure Program (PTIP/PTA) funds by the BC Transit and the RMOW to be applied against the RMOW’s share of the Whistler Transit Maintenance Facility lease costs as approved by Council on July 6, 2010.

Costs: The total maximum cost of Whistler Transit Service from October 1, 2011 –March 2012 is $5,379,476. BC Transit contribution is $2,116,943.

RMOW Obligations: The maximum municipal share of costs with the PTIP/PTA funds applied is $3,027,534.

REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE REPOR T TO COUNCIL

PRESENTED: November 1, 2011 REPORT: 11-115 FROM: Economic Viability FILE: 4530 SUBJECT: FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011-2015 AMENDMENT

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER That the recommendation of the General Manager of Economic Viability be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council considers giving first, second and third readings to the Five-Year Financial Plan 2011- 2015 Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011.

ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1 – Schedule A of Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw 1987, 2011 Appendix 2 – Schedule B of Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw 1987, 2011

PURPOSE OF REPORT The Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Bylaw No. 1963, 2011, adopted April 2011, sets out the proposed revenue sources and expenditures for the municipality for the period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015 and, was amended by Five-Year Financial Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1979, 2011. This bylaw, the Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011 repeals the amendment bylaw and amends the original budget bylaw. DISCUSSION Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011, incorporates the following changes, as directed by Council, for the 2011 fiscal year.

Waste Heat Recovery System As directed by Council and discussed in report No. 11-114 at the October 18, 2011 regular meeting, a project in 2011 is added for a Waste Heat Recovery System (WHRS) project at the Whistler Compost Facility. The total project cost is $131,000. Funding is by a $10,000 CAIF grant and the balance by reallocating current year budget for composter operating costs.

Crabapple Creek Bridge Replacement As directed by Council and discussed in report No. 11-091 at the August 23, 2011 regular meeting, the Crabapple Creek Bridge Replacement is moved from 2012 to 2011 and the total cost reduced from $100,000 to $50,000. Budgeted costs associated with the Lost Lake North Bridge have been deferred to a future year in order to accommodate timing of the Crabapple Creek Bridge replacement in 2011.

Transfer of Budget Between Fitz Creek Gravel Removal and Bayly Park Projects Consistent with the resolution passed by Council and discussed in report No. 11-106 at the September 20, 2011 regular meeting, the 2011 budget is amended to transfer $90,000 from the Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Page 2 November 1, 2011

Fitz Creek Gravel Removal project to the Bayly Park project. The change considers a more economical source of materials that would have been provided by the gravel removal project and transfers savings to the Bayly Park project for acquisition of those materials. This change also decreases funding required from the General Operating Reserve and increases funding required from the Recreation Reserve by equal amounts.

Festivals, Events and Animation As directed by Council and discussed in report No. 11-065 at the June 21, 2011 regular meeting, the 2011 budget for Festivals, Events and Animation (FE&A) is increased by $820,000. This increase is entirely funded by the Resort Municipality Initiative Grant (RMI). Total RMI from the Province was higher than anticipated for 2011 and this allocation to FE&A is in accordance with the approval from the Province.

WHISTLER 2020 ANALYSIS

W2020 TOWARD Descriptions of success that Comments Strategy resolution moves us toward Whistler lives within its financial means. The budget amendments do not impact the net cost to Whistler taxpayers. Additional project Economic The resort community effectively and efficiently balances its costs and costs are funded by savings in other areas or expenditures. additional grant revenue. The Whistler economy provides Operating costs savings of the WHRS will Economic opportunities for achieving competitive continue well after the initial investment has return on invested capital. been paid off. Whistler proactively seizes economic Managers of independent projects consider opportunities that are compatible with Economic alternative sources of materials and utilize tourism, and effectively adapts to savings to benefit one another. changing external conditions. Whistler holds competitive advantage in the destination resort marketplace as a result of its vibrancy and unique character, products and services. Investment of Provincial grants brings visitors Effective partnerships with government Economic and locals into the Village and increases room and tourism organizations support nights and overall economic activity. economic health. Senior levels of government recognize the value of the resort community and support its success.

W2020 AWAY FROM Mitigation Strategies Descriptions of success that Strategy and Comments resolution moves away from Municipal sponsored events and entertainment Locally owned and operated businesses on a low or no cost basis may negatively impact thrive and are encouraged as an demand for services of business operators. The Economic essential component of a healthy municipality seeks information and input from business mix. the community in order to select the most appropriate events and entertainment.

Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Page 3 November 1, 2011

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Section 165 of the Community Charter requires municipalities to prepare a five-year financial plan to be adopted annually by bylaw. Once adopted, the plan is in effect until it is amended, and may be amended by bylaw at any time.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

The five-year financial plan sets the budget for the next five years, and is reformulated annually. It can be revised at any time by bylaw, and is being revised to reflect changes made to date. Additional project costs are funded by savings in other areas or additional grant revenue and do not impact the net cost to Whistler taxpayers.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION

The five-year financial plan amendment bylaw is being presented at a regular Council meeting and is consistent with Council direction.

SUMMARY This bylaw, the Five-Year Financial Plan 201-2015 Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011, amends the original budget bylaw and, is an administrative amendment to the budget bylaw for resolutions already passed by Council during the year.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken Roggeman MANAGER, FISCAL PLANNING for Lisa Landry GENERAL MANAGER, ECONOMIC VIABILITY

APPENDIX 1

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER BYLAW 1987 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011 - 2015 SCHEDULE A

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 REVENUE General Fund Property Taxes 33,625,344 33,793,471 33,962,438 34,132,250 34,302,911 Other Property Tax 1,072,047 1,072,047 1,072,047 1,072,047 1,072,047 Government Grants 1,204,545 984,053 984,053 984,053 984,053 Fees and Charges 9,756,469 9,778,410 9,778,410 9,778,410 9,778,410 Investment Income 1,940,690 2,146,684 2,373,359 2,526,458 2,928,324 RMI Grant 7,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 2% AHRT 3,266,334 3,331,661 3,398,294 3,466,260 3,535,585 Works and Service Charges 353,011 89,125 89,125 89,125 89,125 Deferred Contributions 700,000 - - - - Water Fund Parcel Taxes 3,644,974 3,658,245 3,672,844 3,687,315 3,690,033 Fees and Charges 2,631,809 2,640,550 2,650,241 2,659,836 2,660,979 Works and Service Charges 32,230 8,012 8,012 8,012 8,012 Sewer Fund Parcel Taxes 3,779,133 3,793,939 3,809,885 3,825,900 3,828,903 Fees and Charges 3,378,805 3,391,736 3,405,715 3,419,752 3,421,769 Works and Service Charges 142,471 32,863 32,863 32,863 32,863 Solid Waste Fund Parcel Taxes - - - - - Fees and Charges 4,247,439 4,250,398 4,253,358 4,256,318 4,259,278 77,275,300 75,471,194 75,990,645 76,438,599 77,092,292 EXPENDITURE General Fund Payroll and Goods & Services 44,362,049 43,369,640 43,426,111 43,483,488 43,497,774 Debt Interest & Principal 665,087 665,087 665,087 665,087 665,087 Residents & Partners 3,059,412 2,814,421 2,814,421 2,814,421 2,814,421 Water Fund Payroll and Goods & Services 2,304,059 2,326,109 2,350,073 2,374,464 2,378,600 Debt Interest & Principal - - - - - Sewer Fund Payroll and Goods & Services 2,922,857 2,950,297 2,980,119 3,010,472 3,015,619 Debt Interest & Principal 1,459,226 1,459,226 1,459,226 1,459,226 1,459,226 Solid Waste Fund Payroll and Goods & Services 4,186,093 4,307,093 4,307,093 4,307,093 4,307,093 Debt Interest & Principal 979,481 979,481 979,481 979,481 979,481 59,938,264 58,871,354 58,981,611 59,093,732 59,117,301 RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER BYLAW 1987 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011 - 2015 SCHEDULE A Cont'd

2011 2012 2013 2014 2014

TRANSFERS TO (FROM ) OTHER FUNDS / RESERVES Interest Paid to Reserves 1,700,306 1,929,178 2,221,020 2,483,501 2,843,699 Recreation Works Charges Reserve 202,041 53,088 53,088 53,088 53,088 Transportation Works Charges Reserve 150,970 36,037 36,037 36,037 36,037 RMI Reserve 3,340,055 2,410,162 2,410,162 2,410,162 2,410,162 2% AHRT Reserve 349,507 414,833 481,467 549,433 618,758 General Capital Reserve 4,668,824 4,966,642 5,135,609 5,305,421 5,476,083 Parking Reserve - - - - - Parkland and ESA Reserve - - - - - Vehicle Replacement Reserve - - - - - Library - - - - - General Operating Surplus (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 General Operating Reserve 1,301,793 1,420,925 1,302,247 1,138,449 1,168,791 Water Works Charges Reserve 32,230 8,012 8,012 8,012 8,012 Water Capital Reserve 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Water Operating Reserve 730,661 730,623 730,949 730,624 730,349 Water Operating Surplus (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 Sewer Works Charges Reserve 142,471 32,863 32,863 32,863 32,863 Sewer Capital Reserve 1,870,000 1,870,000 1,870,000 1,870,000 1,870,000 Sewer Operating Reserve 227,178 227,475 227,579 227,277 227,149 Sewer Operating Surplus (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 Solid Waste Capital Reserve 121,000 - - - - Solid Waste Operating Reserve - - - - - Solid Waste Surplus (Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 17,337,036 16,599,839 17,009,033 17,344,867 17,974,990

REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURE AND TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX 2

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER BYLAW 1987 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011 - 2015 SCHEDULE B

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 REVENUE General Fund Government Grants 9,000 - - 6,250 185,000 Contribution from Developers - - - - - Works and Service Charges 1,259,748 100,000 - - - Debt Proceeds - - - - - Whistler 2020 Development Corp 3,775,000 - - - - Other Contributions 2,190,500 545,500 541,250 527,000 527,000 Water Fund Government Grants - - - - - Works and Service Charges - - - - - Sewer Fund Government Grants - 200,000 2,333,333 - - Works and Service Charges - - - - - Solid Waste Fund Government Grants 10,000 - - - - 7,244,248 845,500 2,874,583 533,250 712,000 EXPENDITURE General Fund Non-capital Expenditure 2,135,505 1,210,000 812,000 872,000 785,000 Infrastructure Maintenance 749,120 560,200 606,300 562,500 558,600 Capital Expenditure 14,561,005 6,498,687 6,981,115 5,993,133 5,140,946 Whistler 2020 Development Corp - - - - - Debt Interest & Principal 3,775,000 - - - - Water Fund Non-capital Expenditure 130,000 255,000 60,000 330,000 30,000 Infrastructure Maintenance 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Capital Expenditure 2,235,000 1,242,699 1,505,000 5,900,000 400,000 Sewer Fund Non-capital Expenditure 20,000 590,000 - - - Infrastructure Maintenance - - - - - Capital Expenditure 815,000 1,005,000 4,325,000 525,000 525,000 Solid Waste Fund Non-capital Expenditure - - - - - Capital Expenditure 331,000 200,000 - - - All Funds Depreciation 9,180,169 9,542,989 9,731,917 9,979,139 10,227,502 34,131,799 21,304,575 24,221,332 24,361,772 17,867,048 RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER BYLAW 1987 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011 - 2015 SCHEDULE B Cont'd

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 TRANSFERS (TO) FROM OTHER FUNDS (RESERVES) RMI Reserve 5,594,298 1,511,200 3,791,200 3,017,450 2,676,200 2% AHRT Reserve 1,239,608 1,333,600 1,089,400 642,800 686,400 General Capital Reserve 2,239,374 1,349,400 1,759,100 1,181,700 1,278,100 General Capital Surplus 3,538,999 - - - - Recreation Works Charges (1,202,561) - - - - Parking Reserve (346,151) - - - - Parkland and ESA Reserve - - - - - Vehicle Replacement Reserve 808,395 1,966,487 419,415 1,242,933 389,246 Library Reserve 58,000 50,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 General Operating Reserve 1,976,420 988,700 759,050 769,500 702,600 WVLC Surplus 80,000 424,000 - - - Water Capital Reserve 2,235,000 1,242,699 1,505,000 5,900,000 400,000 Water Operating Reserve 330,000 455,000 260,000 530,000 230,000 Sewer Capital Reserve 815,000 805,000 1,991,667 525,000 525,000 Sewer Operating Reserve 20,000 590,000 - - - Solid Waste Capital Reserve 321,000 200,000 - - - Solid Waste Operating Reserve - - - - - 17,707,382 10,916,086 11,614,832 13,849,383 6,927,546

ADD BACK NON CASH ITEMS Depreciation 9,180,169 9,542,989 9,731,917 9,979,139 10,227,502

REVENUE AND TRANSFERS LESS EXPENDITURE 0 0 0 0 0

REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE REPOR T TO COUNCIL

PRESENTED: November 1, 2011 REPORT: 11-120 FROM: Policy and Program Development FILE: VAULT SUBJECT: EMERALD DREAMS CONSERVATION CO. LTD – ANNUAL REPORT

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER That the recommendation of the General Manager of Policy and Program Development be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION That the Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler in open meeting assembled, hereby resolves that the Municipality, as sole shareholder of Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd; pass the consent resolutions of the sole shareholder of Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd; a copy of which is attached to this resolution, and that the Mayor and Corporate Officer execute and deliver the resolutions on behalf of the Municipality.

REFERENCE Appendix A – Shareholder’s Resolution-Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd. Appendix B - Financial Statements for Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd. ending December 31, 2010

PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the Mayor and Corporate Officer to sign the annual Shareholder’s Resolutions of the Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd.

DISCUSSION The filing of the 2011 Annual Report of the Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd. is now due for filing with the Registrar of Companies.

The Shareholder’s resolutions for the 2011 Annual Report include:

1. The resignation of Directors, namely, Bill Barratt and Shannon Story.

2. Consent of Mike Furey and Lonny Miller to act as Directors.

3. The waiver of the appointment of the Auditor:

The company is not a reporting company and therefore may consent in writing to waive the appointment of an auditor. Although the Company does not appoint an Auditor, the Financial Statements have been prepared for the fiscal year.

4. Waive the holding of the 2010 Annual General Meeting.

Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd – Annual Report Page 2 November 1, 2011

5. The financial statements of the Company for the last financial year are accepted.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Pursuant to Section 182 of the Business Corporations Act, the company may consent in writing to all of the business required at the annual meeting of the company.

Pursuant to Section 203 of the Business Corporation Act, the company may consent in writing to waive the appointment of an auditor.

SUMMARY The 2011 Annual Report of the Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd. is now due to be filed with the Registrar of Companies. This report seeks the approval of the Shareholder’s Resolutions of the Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd.

Respectfully submitted,

Lonny Miller Corporate Officer for Mike Vance General Manager of Policy and Program Development

APPENDIX A

EMERALD DREAMS CONSERVATION CO. LTD. ("Company")

SHAREHOLDER’S RESOLUTIONS

The undersigned, being the sole shareholder of the Company, hereby consents in writing to the following resolutions to have the same force and effect as if passed at a general meeting of the Company. BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. that the written resignations of each of Bill Barratt and Shannon Story (which have been received at the Company’s registered office) as directors of the Company be accepted;

2. that Mike Furey and Lonny Miller, having consented in writing to act as directors of the Company, be appointed as directors of the Company, to hold office until the next annual general meeting of the Company or until sooner ceasing to hold office;

3. the Board of Directors is therefore now composed of the following three (3) persons: Lisa Landry Mike Furey Lonny Miller

DATED this _____ day of November, 2011.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER by its authorized signatories:

______Mayor: Ken Melamed

______Corporate Officer: Lonny Miller

APPENDIX B

Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd. Financial Statements For the period ended December 31, 2010 (Unaudited - see Notice to Reader)

Notice to Reader 2

Financial Statements

Balance Sheet 3

BDO Canada LLP 600 – 925 West Georgia St. Chartered Accountants Vancouver, BC, V6C 3L2 (604)688-5421 F(604)688-5132

202 – 1200 Alpha Lake Road Whistler, BC, V0N 1B1 (604)932-3799 F(604)932-3764

Notice to Reader

On the basis of information provided by management, we have compiled the Balance Sheet of Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd. as at December 31, 2010.

We have not performed an audit or review engagement in respect of this financial statement and, accordingly, we express no assurance thereon.

Readers are cautioned that this statement may not be appropriate for their purposes.

Chartered Accountants

Whistler, British Columbia January 12, 2011

Emerald Dreams Conservation Co. Ltd. Balance Sheet (Unaudited - see Notice to Reader)

December 31 2010

Assets

Current Cash $ 1

Shareholder's Equity Share capital Authorized 10,000 Common shares of no par value

Issued 1 Common share $ 1

REPORT POL ICY REPORT TO COUNCI L PRESENTED: November 1, 2011 REPORT: 11-121 FROM: Policy and Program Development FILE: 3024 SUBJECT: OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN FIRST NATIONS REFERRAL POLICY

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER That the recommendation of the General Manager of Policy and Program Development be endorsed.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council pass a resolution to adopt the policy for the consultation with First Nations attached as Appendix A to Policy Report No. 11-121.

REFERENCES Appendix A – proposed resolution

PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval on a policy for consultation with First Nations on the Official Community Plan update.

DISCUSSION The municipal solicitor has recommended that Council adopt a specific policy for consultation with the First Nations for the Official Community plan update. As the earlier policy to consult with the Lil’wat and Squamish Nations adopted by Council September 20, 2011 has expired, a new resolution for further consultation is required. This report recommends that Council pass a resolution to adopt the policy for the consultation for the period from November 1, 2011 to December 2, 2011 as attached as Appendix A.

WHISTLER 2020 ANALYSIS

W2020 TOWARD Descriptions of success that resolution Comments Strategy moves us toward Whistler’s people and history, the natural Arts Culture & environment and First Nations culture are The OCP establishes policy on how this DOS is Heritage retained, celebrated and reflected through implemented authentic and diverse offerings Residents and visitors have many opportunities to actively learn about the The OCP establishes policy on how this DOS is Learning resort community, the natural environment implemented and First Nations culture

Official Community Plan First Nations Referral Policy Page 2 ... November 1, 2011

W2020 AWAY FROM Mitigation Strategies Descriptions of success that Strategy and Comments resolution moves away from

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Section 879 of the Local Government Act requires consultation with First Nations.

The Provincial Government’s Interim Guide to Engagement with First Nations on Local Government Statutory Approvals provides guidance to local governments on engaging with First Nations as part of the process of obtaining provincial approvals.

SUMMARY A Council resolution on a policy for consultation as outlined in Appendix A is required as part of the provincial approval process.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Vance GENERAL MANAGER OF POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX A

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS Council resolved on November 2, 2010, on March 17, 2011 and on September 20, 2011 under s. 879 of the Local Government Act to provide opportunities for early and ongoing consultation on the preparation of the Official Community Plan (“Plan”);

AND WHEREAS Council is seeking further consultation on the draft Plan that is under preparation;

AND WHEREAS the Lil’wat Nation and Squamish Nation have general claims and have indicated they claim aboriginal rights and entitlement in respect of areas within the Resort Municipality and therefore are an affected party within the meaning of section 879 of the Local Government Act, so Council on September 20, 2011 directed staff to invite First Nations to a workshop to be held in Whistler to provide an opportunity for consultation on the plan that is under preparation, and invite them to make their final submissions before October 21, 2011;

AND WHEREAS the previous consultation period established by Council resolution expired October 21, 2011;

NOW THEREFORE Council resolves to direct staff to:

1. Invite the First Nations to a workshop to be held in Whistler to provide an opportunity for consultation on the Plan that is under preparation, and invite them to make their final submissions before December 2, 2011. .

{00183584; 1}

MINUTES

OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOREST & WILDLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 AT 3:00 P.M.

LOCATION: PICCOLO ROOM, WHISTLER MUNICIPAL HALL 4325 BLACKCOMB WAY, WHISTLER, BC V0N 1B4

IN ATTENDANCE Meetings to date 6 Members - Present Gordon McKeever, Chair 5 Bryce Leigh, AWARE 6 John Hammons 6 Paul Rawlinson, WORCA 5 Rob Davis 5 Tom Barratt 4 Eckhard Zeidler, Councilor 5

Members - Absent Peter Ackhurst 3 Bob Brett 3 Betty Rebellato (started in July) 1

Municipal Staff Heather Beresford, Manager Environmental Stewardship Anita Wheatley, Recording Secretary

Recommendations To N / A COUNCIL

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Approval of Agenda Moved Seconded

That the Forest Wildland Advisory Committee approves the meeting agenda for September 14, 2011 with the addition of Rob’s item: CCF Access Plan Components (planning framework). CARRIED. Adoption of Minutes Moved Seconded That the minutes of the Forest Wildland Advisory Committee meeting held on July 13 th 2011 be adopted. CARRIED.

Council Update Mike Furey is the new RMOW CAO and started work on September 12 th , 2011.

1 Sept. 14, 2011 RMOW Forest & Wildland Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

AWARE Update WOP and Callaghan Country are running horseback tours. Some concerns about invasive species seeds being distributed through horse droppings. Bryce to follow up with the S2S Invasive Species Council to find out more.

WORCA Update AGM will be held on September 29 th . No further comments about the logging around Runaway Train trail have been made through WORCA.

RMOW Upda te Harry Kim, Environmental Services General Manager and member of FWAC no longer works for RMOW.

CCF Update First Nations to still develop plans for Cultural Management Areas. Five years was allotted to develop the plans, we are in the 3 rd year. Funding for the municipal wildfire protection program did not come through. Draft old forest plan to be presented at the open house. The tentative date for the open house is the end of November. Draft EBM plan to be presented as well.

WOP – Lindsay Durno, Power point presented by Lindsay Durno on the Madely Highline Keith Bennett, John Howe Trail. Whistler Olympic Park’s (WOP) intent is to protect habitat, environmentally sensitive areas and work towards sustainability. Enkon is a significant partner in the planning of the proposed trail network. Brief review of the services and the access to the backcountry accessible though WOP.

WOP’s operating costs are high. Looking to draw more people to enjoy the cross county trails by growing its regional market. The existing trails are for more experienced XC skiers and WOP is looking to expand their beginner trail system.

WOP proposing to add green/blue trail from the top of the chair lift out to Madely Lake for beginner skiers. The route is not as steep as existing trails, and is at similar elevation as Madely Lake.

The trail hasn’t been “business truthed,” i.e. does it meet WOP’s business needs? Will it work? Final decision on building trail not made yet.

Some of the trail is located in the LRMP Wildland zone and requires a licence of occupation from the province. MOF hasn’t determined yet if this trail meets the Wildland criteria due to its width. For context, Canadian Snowmobiles tenure also extends into the Wildland zone and has trails and a cabin, just above the area that would contain the proposed WOP ski trail. If the WOP trail is approved, concern that this will set precedence for allowable activities in other provincial LRMP Wildland Zones. MOF wants the 3300-3800m 3 of timber that will be harvested if this trail goes ahead.

The trail plan is being developed by JCH Forestry. Some steep sections

2 Sept. 14, 2011 RMOW Forest & Wildland Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

will have to be blasted and drilled to get the grades they need. Basic skiing surface needs to fit a grooming cat and logging truck (15 metre right of way), plus the cut and fill areas. Trail width will vary throughout its length.

Three stream crossings at upper Beverly and Madely creek, WOP looking into fish stewardship. Rainbow trail will be affected-to what extent is unknown at this point. Assuming work will go from both ends of trail and take 3-4 months.

Discussion: Width of existing Legacy trails is more like a road than a trail. Could winter clearing with less ground disturbance be considered? Response is that timber needs to be cut and removed by logging truck so width and summer work are necessary. Also, complete clearing allows better early season snow coverage.

Discussion: Will the trail provide another motorized access point to alpine? Response: The trail would connect to the existing logging road system but not provide any more access to alpine than already exists.

Discussion: Concern that grizzly bear recovery team may not be included in planning and environmental assessment discussions. The EA has been applied for with government, but still in early stages.

The following summary of the discussion was prepared by the committee and Chair:

There is a social and economic benefit to this type of trail. It opens the XC experience to a wider variety of people. It is also positive that the trail will be used for human powered, low impact activity.

But FWAC has concerns over the footprint created by constructing a road width trail in steep terrain, and recommends that WOP seriously consider ways to reduce the environmental impacts. Serious concerns about the precedent created by building such a wide trail within the Wildland Zone, where commercial logging is prohibited but trail building allowed. Concern that much of the trail is outside of WOP’s tenure in the wildland zone. Strongly recommend that wildlife impacts, especially MOE studies on grizzly bears, be included in planning from the start. Some concerns about the trail being accessed for motorized use. Re- growth will soften the visual impacts over time, but the extent is unknown.

APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE Agreed 6 Opposed 0

3 Sept. 14, 2011 RMOW Forest & Wildland Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

Access Manag ement Plan Road Atlas map prepared by CCF and shown to FWAC. It identifies Process roads and who is responsible for them. This is the foundation map for developing the access management plan (AMP). FWAC members can review the map and begin to make comments and suggestions for access as per terms of reference for the AMP process for the October meeting.

ACTION: Gordon and Heather will meet to review and fine-tune next steps with AMP. FWAC will play a large role.

Rob presented his framework for access management planning. Components include inventory, analysis, concept options, and then synthesis of input.

ACTION: Circulate Rob’s framework.

APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE

Agreed Opposed 0

NEW BUSINESS

AD JOURN M E N T 5 : 0 0 p m

Moved Seconded

That the Forest & Wildland Advisory Committee meeting be adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

CARRIED.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

Gordon McKeever Anita Wheatley Chair Recording Secretary

S:\Forestry\FWAC\2011\minutes

4 RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER

“FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011–2015 AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1987, 2011”

A BYLAW TO REPEAL “FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011-2015 AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1979, 2011” AND TO AMEND “FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011 - 2015 BYLAW NO. 1963, 2011”

WHEREAS the Council must have a financial plan pursuant to Section 165 of the Community Charter;

AND WHEREAS the Council deems it necessary and appropriate to amend the five-year financial plan for the years 2011 to 2015;

NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the “Five-Year Financial Plan 2011–2015, Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011”.

2. Five-Year Financial Plan 2011-2015 Amendment Bylaw No. 1979, 2011 is hereby repealed.

3. That Council adopt the Five-Year Financial Plan for the years 2011 – 2015 inclusive, for each year of the plan, as set out in Schedules A and B attached hereto and forming a part of this Bylaw as follows:

Schedule A – Consolidated Operating Summary Schedule B – Consolidated Capital Summary

GIVEN FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD READINGS this ______day of ______, ____.

ADOPTED by Council this ____ day of ______, ____.

Ken Melamed Lonny Miller, Mayor Corporate Officer

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this is a true copy of “Five-Year Financial Plan 2011 – 2015, Amendment Bylaw No. 1987, 2011”.

Lonny Miller, Corporate Officer RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER BYLAW 1987 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011 - 2015 SCHEDULE A

2011 2012 2013 2014 2014

REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURE AND TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0 RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER BYLAW 1987 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN 2011 - 2015 SCHEDULE B

ADD BACK NON CASH ITEMS Depreciation 9,180,169 9,542,989 9,731,917 9,979,139 10,227,502

REVENUE AND TRANSFERS LESS EXPENDITURE 0 0 0 0 0 RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Drive – Social Services Centre) No, 1985, 2011

A Bylaw to amend Zoning and Parking Bylaw No. 303, 1983

______

WHEREAS the Council may in a zoning bylaw pursuant to the Local Government Act, divide all or part of the area of the Municipality into zones, name each zone and establish the boundaries of the zone, regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within the zones and require the provision of parking spaces and loading spaces for uses, buildings and structures;

NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Drive – Social Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011”.

2. Section 2 of Zoning and Parking Bylaw No. 303, 1983 being the “Definitions” section is amended by adding the following definition in alphabetical order:

Social Service Centre means the use of land and buildings for the non- commercial provision of programs and services that are designed and intended to improve the ability of community members and families to meet their physical or social needs or enhance their lives, including any social service administration, individual and family counselling, life skills training, community food bank, community kitchen providing free or low-cost meals, community garden, and other programs or services of a similar nature and not involving overnight accommodation or temporary refuge or shelter of any type.

3. Section 6.9.1, being Table 6-A, is amended by adding the following row in alphabetical order under the columns as indicated:

Column I Column II Column III Column IV

Social Service 2 spaces per 100 None required None required Centre square metres of gross floor area

4. Section 19.3.1 of Zoning and Parking Bylaw No. 303, 1983 being the list of permitted uses in the ID1 (Institutional Daycare One) Zone is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, “Social Services Centre, not including overnight accommodation or temporary refuge or shelter of any type” to the list of “Permitted Uses”.

5. If any section or phrase of this Bylaw is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw.

GIVEN FIRST READING this 20th day of September, 2011.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Drive – Social Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011 2

GIVEN SECOND READING this 20th day of September, 2011.

Pursuant to Section 890 of the Local Government Act, a Public Hearing was held this 18th day of October, 2011.

GIVEN THIRD READING this __ day of _____, ______.

APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this __ day of _____, ______.

ADOPTED by the Council this __ day of _____, ______.

______Ken Melamed, Lonny Miller, Mayor Corporate Officer

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this is a true copy of “ Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1519 Spring Creek Drive – Social Services Centre) No. 1985, 2011”.

Lonny Miller, Corporate Officer

From: Brian and Louise Buchholz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: October 26, 2011 11:47 AM To: Donna Wango Subject: Mayor & Council - Remembrance Day

Whistler Remembers

Dear Mayor Melamed and Council.

Friday, November 11th is set aside for all Canadians to pause, reflect and Remember the more than 116.000 young Canadians who have been lost in the service of Canada in war and peace keeping since 1914. This unfathomable number includes 157 Canadians killed in Afghanistan ‐ the war, which for many younger Canadians has been the first exposure to war for their country during their lifetimes.

I am again honoured to organize Whistler's Remembrance Day Service. I would like to invite Council and their families and all RMOW staff to attend the Whistler Cenotaph and share in our united Remembrance with millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Thank your in advance for your consideration and I hope to see you on the day.

Whistler Remembrance Day Service Whistler Cenotaph ‐ Fire Hall #1 Friday, November 11th. 10:30 AM ‐ 11:30 AM

Rotary will again host a Community Reception following the Service and Village Gate closed to traffic for the duration.

Please contact me if you have any questions with regard to the Service.

Regards,

Brian Buchholz [email protected] 1

WhistlerU A Vision for a Brighter Future

2011

WhistlerU is a proposed educational campus representing economic investment, employment and lifelong learning opportunities for the Resort Municipality of Whistler.

www.whistleru.com “WhistlerU will provide cultural and economic enhancement of the Whistler Resort community, with an exceptional atmosphere for education, executive training and recreation, as well as special programs designed in partnership with First Nations leaders. In addition to being a unique campus serving mid-career executives who are moving up the ladder of qualifications, skills, and success, it will be a magnet for young people from around the world who can combine world-class facilities and resort employment opportunities with a great education for a successful professional life.

A University set against the backdrop of Whistler and Blackcomb mountains, WhistlerU will provide a natural laboratory for Environmental Studies, offering students endless opportunities to address real-life environmental issues.”

– David Strong, Former President of University of Victoria, Proposed President WhistlerU

SITE LOCATION What is WhistlerU? ɶɶIt’s a learning campus, anchored by a university to support our primary industry of tourism while building a more sustainable economy and community.

ɶɶIt will support Whistler’s local economy through the increased use of accommodation, retail and service facilities by students, parents and visiting professionals.

ɶɶIt’s a forum for local, community based learning and will play host to international students.

ɶɶIt is a place for orienting Whistler youth and First Nations youth to university life.

ɶɶIt will preserve and enhance the Alpha Creek wetlands. ɶɶIt provides an opportunity to collaborate with RMOW to provide a permanent home for the Whistler’s Centre for Sustainability.

ɶɶOutstanding world-class professors. ɶɶBrand new state-of-the-art facilities with high-quality accommodation for students and faculty

WhistlerU facts site elements

Site area 78.9 acres

Land eligible for development 33 acres (42% of total land area) (as determined through environmental assessment)

Land to be protected and enhanced 45.9 acres (58% of total land area) students and department elements

Number of students Up to 1500

Percentage of domestic students 30

Percentage of international students 70

Number of departments 5 financial elements

Capital cost to construct WhistlerU $250-300M (initially and phased) Annual operating budget $30M (estimated)

Estimated total annual expenditure of students and visiting Refer to the Thompson Rivers University Case Study (page 4) families that will benefit the Whistler economy

Cost to RMOW and Whistler residents $0 community benefits

Sustainability Centre (proposed)

A community learning centre

Lifelong learning opportunities

Childcare services

Significant economic generator WhistlerU and the Local Community

1 Improve the local community’s access to post-secondary and lifelong opportunities

2 Enhance the local economy

ɶɶSupport Whistler’s tourism industry ɶɶWill be privately financed, at no cost to RMOW or its residents 3 Contribute to Whistler’s success through sustainability

ɶɶAddress 90 of the 158 Whistler 2020 sustainability objectives 4 Preserve and enhance the wetlands and creek systems, as well as provide walking and biking trails

1 Improving Access to Post-Secondary and Lifelong Learning Opportunities WhistlerU will offer a suite of programs that complements the Whistler experience. In recognition of Whistler’s unique and pristine environment, a core component of each program will be the teaching of environmental management / stewardship.

WhistlerU Programs

ɶɶTourism (incl. but not limited to sports administration; hotel management; resort management; and event management) ɶɶCulinary arts ɶɶLeadership ɶɶSustainability ɶɶMBA – Business ɶɶFirst nations university / college transfer program WhistlerU will provide local residents with the opportunity for lifelong learning opportunities through the provision of educational programs that will directly reflect the needs of the working population of Whistler. These programs will utilize WhistlerU’s facilities resulting in a combination of classroom style and experiential learning opportunities. 2 Enhancing the Local Economy The local economy will positively benefit from WhistlerU through:

Increasing the municipal tax base

ɶɶWhistlerU will expand the municipal tax base through the remittance of property taxes by WhistlerU.

Increasing direct expenditure in Whistler by adding another user group

ɶɶInternational students at Thompson Rivers University produced a net economic impact of $87.8 million during the 2010-2011 year. ɶɶStudents will spend an average of $20,000 over and above tuition. ɶɶVisiting parents, friends, alumni and leadership participants will spend on hotel rooms, including augmenting off-season hotel rooms by a minimum of 10,000 nights, as well as other goods and services.

Increasing local employment

ɶɶShort-term employment: WhistlerU will create local, well paying construction jobs that will build local expertise. ɶɶLong-term employment: WhistlerU will create local jobs in the areas of teaching, administration, food services and maintenance.

Supporting year-round tourism

ɶɶStudents will be studying at WhistlerU throughout the year, including the shoulder and off seasons. These students and visiting families and friends will make use of the accommodation facilities and continue to engage in tourism activities during these times.

WhistlerU will enhance the international reputation of Whistler

ɶɶThe addition of WhistlerU will increase Whistler’s profile internationally, making it not only a world-class ski resort community, but also a centre for educational excellence.

Creating a new market

ɶɶWhistlerU will create a new market for Whistler in educational tourism, which will allow Whistler to compete and hold a competitive advantage.

Private financing

ɶɶWhistlerU will be privately financed. There will also be no risk to the RMOW or its residents. W

The Economic Impact of TRU’s International Students on the Kamloops Economy proof#3

Economic Impact of Thompson Rivers University’s International Students on the Kamloops Economy

2010–2011 Update

Thompson River University Case Study

A report was recently published that reviewed the local economic benefits derived Dr. Zéna A. Seldon Associate Professor of Economics School of Business and Economics Thompson Rivers University from international students that attended Thompson Rivers University. Kamloops has [email protected] 1 This report is an update of the work of Dr. James R. Seldon, for the 2005–2006 Economic academic year, which was submitted on October 26, 2005 Impact experienced a direct economic benefit from the influx of international students, with $87.8 million injected into the economy in 2010, seven times more than the university’s opening year in 1996.

Thompson Rivers University: Growth in Economic Impact of International Students on the Local Economy 1996 – 2011

100 Total Direct Expenditures Generated in Kamloops and Total Annual Expenditure Per Student 90 o ns 80 International students Number of international students (2010-2011) 1,460 and visiting parents have 70 continued to inject funds Total annual expenditure of international students $87.8M 90 into the local economy. The annual contribution 50 for the 2010-2011 year is Total direct expenditures generated in Kamloops $49.6M 40 notable, with $49.6 million Basic living and capital purchases $20.5M in total direct expenditures

mic impact in milli in impact o mic 30 generated in Kamloops. Tuition payments $21.5M

o n 20 International student visitor expenses $6.7M ec 10 Short-term programming fees $834K 1996 2005 2010 Total annual expenditure per student $28K Tuition $14.7K Basic living costs $11.7K Capital purchases $2.3K

Whistler is well positioned to attract international students that will seek out WhistlerU as a place of higher learning, relaxation, and recreation. As the Thompson Rivers University case study demonstrates, international students and visiting families will directly inject funds into the local economy. WhistlerU will diversify the local economy, while supporting its main tourism industry. 3 Contributing to Whistler’s Success through Sustainability Whistler 2020 sets out 16 strategy areas. WhistlerU positively contributes to all 16 strategy areas, by achieving or positively contributing to 74% of the strategy area objectives. WhistlerU will assist the Whistler community in moving towards its desired future.

How WhistlerU Achieves or Positively Contributes to Whistler 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Arts, Culture & Heritage Strategy

Built environmental strategy

economic strategy

energy strategy

finance strategy

health & social strategy

learning strategy

materials & solid waste strategy

natural areas strategy

partnership strategy

recreation & leisure strategy

resident affordability strategy

resident strategy

transportation strategy

visitor experience strategy

water strategy

Achieves Positively contributes Not applicable Highlights of WhistlerU’s Contribution to the Whistler 2020 Sustainability Objectives

Quality of Life WhistlerU offers the potential to:

ɶɶImprove access to post-secondary educational opportunities that enhances the resort community; ɶɶProvide a range of learning opportunities geared at community members, professionals, and international students; and ɶɶIncrease the provision of child care facilities and services for the resort community. ɶɶCollaborate with the arts community to enhance programs.

Economic Vitality WhistlerU offers the potential to:

ɶɶAttract new investment to Whistler, provide more jobs from development and construction through to operation ɶɶIncrease the municipal tax base; ɶɶStimulate the local economy by the spending of students, parents, and visiting professionals; ɶɶMake use of existing accommodation facilities and conference facilities; ɶɶImprove economic sustainability while increasing tourism; and ɶɶMake use of a strategic, easily accessible site close to existing transit routes and municipal infrastructure.

Natural Environment WhistlerU offers the potential to:

ɶɶProtect, maintain and enhance natural areas; ɶɶPrioritize the maintenance of healthy ecosystems and a close connection between developed and natural areas into the land use planning process; ɶɶMaintain and enhance natural biodiversity; ɶɶMaintain existing overland and instream hydrologic flows during development and beyond; and ɶɶIntegrate natural areas and proposed developed areas into the land use planning process. Climate Action and Energy WhistlerU offers the potential to:

ɶɶSupport alternative modes of transportation for intra- community travel, reducing GHG emissions; ɶɶProvide programs which create awareness of the environment and demonstrate alternatives; and ɶɶBe a model of sustainable educational development, built to high environmental standards, explore alternative energy sources and be energy and water efficient.

Growth Management WhistlerU offers the potential to:

ɶɶBe located within the Growth Management Boundary Area; and ɶɶReinforce and enhance Whistler’s mountain resort character, compact development pattern, social fabric, vitality and diversity.

Transportation WhistlerU offers the potential to:

ɶɶSupport alternative transportation modes as it is located on existing bus routes and near municipal services and employment centers. 4 Alpha Creek Lands – Wetlands and Sensitive Areas Environmental considerations have been the guiding force in the determination of development potential of the Alpha Creek Lands.

Operating from a framework where environmental analysis precedes planning, WhistlerU will preserve and enhance the wetlands and sensitive areas on the Alpha Creek Lands. These areas will be protected for future generations, provide opportunities for environmental stewardship for WhistlerU students, as well as educational opportunities for residents and visitors. WhistlerU will also reduce the impact of development on the Alpha Creek lands by locating the buildings close together. Clustering buildings will maximize the developable lands, while minimizing the amount of land that is developed. Therefore, more land will be kept in its natural state.

A Timeline of the Environmental Review March 2000 Talisman Environmental Report: RMOW commissioned report from Talisman Land Resource Consultants Inc. that identified the potential for development on bench platforms.

March 2004 Comparative Evaluation of Potential Residential Housing Sites: Undertaken by Whistler Housing Authority and RMOW. The evaluation identified the Alpha lands as one of the best remaining buildable sites in Whistler.

Environmental Consultant Cascade Environmental Resource Group: Review based on the established ecological, social and economic criteria, each site was evaluated within the four system conditions of the Natural Step Framework. This study gave the Alpha Creek Lands site their highest rating: “Good” as defined “sites for which appropriate development could occur.”

March 2005 Environmental Review by Cascade Environmental Resource Group (CERG): Determines 33 acres of land potentially developable. This study formed the basis for site master planning and eventually rezoning application. 2005 Ministry of Environment confirmed that the CERG report was completed to appropriate standards.

July 2010 Dearden Report: The environmental analysis was vetted by third party environmental experts in protected areas and was found to be compliant and fully compatible with the proposed educational use.

2011 – Future: Environmental consultants will continue to monitor and review all master planning work for WhistlerU to ensure continued compliance.

Walking and Biking Trails Existing walking and biking trails will be maintained, where practical. Additional walking and biking trails will be developed throughout the WhistlerU campus that will be available for public use. Site Wetlands Location and

497500 498000 498500 499000

Subject Property Wetland Wetland - Within Property Boundary 5549000 5549000

190m2 Millar Creek 237m2 Wetland 87m2 48m2 Function 2 Junction 71447m Lot 2

438m2 548m2 Lot 1

2 5548500 5548500 Lot C 6568m Bayshores

Wetland 2

2 2 Wetland928m 1

4607m Lot 4

Hwy 99

Spring Creek 5548000 5548000 497500 498000 498500 499000

GIS Cartographer: Todd Hellinga Date: August 18, 2011 Alpha Creek Lands - Wetland Locations CERG File#: 149-04-02 Projection: UTM 10N, NAD83 Whistler, British Columbia Orthophoto: Bing Maps 0 100 200 300 400 500

Meters WhistlerU’s Strengths ɶɶOutstanding world-class professors ɶɶA significant, internationally-celebrated location ɶɶBrand new state-of-the-art facilities with high-quality accommodation for students and faculty ɶɶExcellent student services support ɶɶAcademic structures based on contemporary educational research ɶɶPractical programs with clear career-oriented outcomes ɶɶOutstanding recreational possibilities ɶɶCreative delivery options for programs that allow students to complete their degrees faster than the norm, thereby providing students with significant savings in accommodation, travel, and other expenses, combined with early entry into their careers ɶɶInternational tuition fees that are similar to domestic fees (not three-times as much as they are in other Canadian universities) and most importantly it will be market-driven, not relying on government funding, allowing it to be agile and responsive community and market needs

How can you help WhistlerU? The WhistlerU proposal for the Alpha Creek Lands is both sustainable and in harmony with all of the primary objectives of Whistler 2020, offering a comprehensive and balanced program of environmental, social and economic benefits at no cost to the Municipality.

WhistlerU urges you to get informed about this issue and vote in the upcoming municipal election on Saturday November 19, 2011. If you are in favour of diversification, sustainability, economic development, and lifelong learning while protecting the natural environment, then we urge you to connect with and support candidates that are committed to this vision for the future of the Whistler community. Create momentum by reaching out to candidates and the current RMOW council through:

Email: [email protected] (include your full name, mailing address, email address and telephone number)

Phone: 604-935-8103 Letter: Resort Municipality of Whistler, 4325 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, BC, VON 1B4

You are invited to tour the Alpha Creek lands and future site of WhistlerU with the WhistlerU Project Leader, Dr. Doug Player. To set up your visit contact Doug at:

Dr. Doug Player, project Leader, WhistlerU Box 166 Whistler, BC V0N 1B0

Cell 604-329-5605 Email [email protected]

www.whistleru.com

I|B I / HB Architects 700 – 1285 West Pender Street Vancouver BC V6E 4B1 Canada tel 604 683 8797 fax 604 733 9076

May 5, 2011

Kevin Damaskie Whistler 2020 Coordinator Resort Municipality of Whistler 4325 Blackcomb Way, Whistler, BC, VON 1B4

Sent by email & mail

Dear Mr. Damaskie:

DRAFT OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN POLICIES Re: Alpha Creek Lands Lot C (except portions in Plan 18236), DL’s 1754 & 3361, Plan 17731 Lot 1 plus an undivided ½ share in Lot 4 of Block C, DL’s 1754 & 3361, Plan 18236 Lot 2 plus an undivided ½ share in Lot 4 of Block C, DL’s 1754 &3361, Plan 18236

IBI/HB Architects has been working on behalf of OKA Holdings, the owners of the above noted properties in the Resort Municipality of Whistler, since 2005 on an active rezoning application to find appropriate uses for these key lands that balance the need for environmental preservation with development potential appropriate to the needs of Whistler. The current proposal is for Whistler U, an educational campus representing economic investment, employment and life-long educational opportunities for the Resort Municipality of Whistler. The Municipality has released draft Official Community Plan (OCP) policies that affect the subject property and our client is rightfully concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed OCP on their preservation and development plans for the Alpha Creek Lands. The purpose of this letter is to outline some areas of concern that our client has with the draft Official Community Plan policies and to request meetings as required with the appropriate Municipal representatives, before the revised OCP goes to Council, to express our concerns and get clarification on issues of concern. Below we have provided a brief outline of some of the areas of concern for your reference. This does not however represent a comprehensive list. Growth and Management 1.1.3. Policy: Restrict Whistler’s accommodation capacity to a maximum of 61,750 Bed Units. Our client expresses concern with respect to this draft policy as it dramatically restricts future development within the Whistler community. The supporting documentation in the draft OCP policies notes that as of 2009 there were approximately 477 bed units, of which only 146 units available for development for residential and visitor use with the others already committed.

IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services Lawrence Doyle / Young + Wright Architects is a division of IBI / HB Architects Partners in IBI / HB Architects are: Phillip H. Beinhaker, MAIBC, Martin G. B. Brückner, MAIBC, Ronald J. Eagleston, MAIBC, Tony S. Gill, MAIBC, James M. Hancock, MAIBC, David M. Thom, MAIBC IBI / HB Architects 2

Kevin Damaskie: Draft OCP – May 5, 2011

Although Whistler U has no intention of developing tourist accommodation or market residential development on site, an educational campus such as Whistler U does requires both employee housing and student accommodations. It is our contention that Bed Units should not be applied to the development of Whistler U as the housing opportunities proposed on site will be restricted to employees and students, It is our understanding that employee housing has not been subject to Bed Unit policies in the past and we believe student housing should be treated in an equivalent manner. We seek clarification with respect to the application of the Bed Unit policy to the university uses proposed for the Alpha Creek Lands. We also seek clarification of the number of bed units available at the time of the draft OCP policy issuance (April 2011). Should there be less than 146 units available for development we urge the municipality to reconsider the upper “hard limit” on bed unit development. We further seek clarification on the evaluative criteria applied to applications for bed units and the further description contained within the policy rationale that states “special circumstances or achieve clear public benefit and are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of this plan.” 3.3.1. Policy: Conduct a formalized annual process to review planned land use and development, establish priorities and determine any new resort community needs/amenities or development opportunities that may be considered appropriate or necessary for further consideration. This policy may place limitations on the development potential of lands through the prioritization by the municipality of “any new resort community needs/amenities or development opportunities”. Consequently, our client is concerned with the draft policy as it is currently written. 3.3.3. Policy: Any land use or development proposal that does not conform to the Whistler Urban Development Containment Area Map, the Bed Unit Limit or the current Whistler Land Use Map should not be considered unless it is determined to be a strategic opportunity that demonstrates extraordinary benefits to the resort community and will substantially alter Whistler’s course towards achieving its vision. We request that the evaluative criteria/objectives that fulfill the statement “extraordinary benefits to the resort community and will substantially alter Whistler’s course towards achieving its vision” are included in the final OCP. Natural Environment 1.1.5. Policy: The Precautionary Principle will be applied when considering new development and significant redevelopment. Our concern with the invocation of the Precautionary Principle relates to the text contained in the rationale that states, “This principle allows the RMOW to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when adequate scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.” This is of concern as it implies that the RMOW can override the public process and discount environmental studies if they are not deemed to be of “adequate scientific knowledge”. 1.2.6. Implement the Protected Areas Network policy in conjunction with other tools for the protection of the natural environment. Our client expresses serious concern over embedding PAN policies into the proposed OCP on many levels. First, there are existing adequate provincial controls to ensure environmental

From: Chris Joy [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:25 AM To: Dennis Bontron ; Greg Gardner ; Jordan Sturdy ; info Subject: BC Hydro Community Relations 2011 Annual Report - Squamish-Lillooet

Dear Mayor & Council:

Please find attached the BC Hydro Community Relations 2011 Annual Report for the Squamish-Lillooet Region.

We would be pleased to receive your feedback or answer any questions on the information within.

Thank-you.

Arlene Shwetz Community Relations Manager Lower Mainland-South Coast Region 604-623-4468 [email protected]

1 Cheakamus Dam on Daisy Lake

LOWER MAINLAND—SOUTH COASTAST Cheakamus penstock, 1957 SQUAMISH-LILLOOET Photograph by Williams Brothers COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUALANNUAL RREPORTEPORT

MESSAGE FROM DAVID COBB REVIEW OF BC HYDRO HIGHLIGHTS For 50 years, BC Hydro has provided reliable, clean electricity to power our economy and create In August, 2011 the BC Government announced the jobs throughout British Columbia. While we outcome of its review of BC Hydro which provided have a proud history of building this impressive a fresh and independent look at our expenditures electrical system, we must also continue planning and the way we conduct our business. The goal for its future. was to reduce the impact of rate increases on our customers while continuing to invest in our Demand for electricity is growing, by as much as province’s electricity infrastructure. 40 per cent over the next 20 years—the equivalent of adding ﬁve cites the size of Vancouver to our ã 7KHSURSRVHGUDWHLQFUHDVHZLOOEHUHGXFHG grid. BC Hydro will meet two-thirds of future from 32 per cent over three years to about electricity needs through conservation by 2020. For the remaining increased 16 per cent over three years: demand, BC Hydro will invest more than $6 billion to renew and replace > 8 per cent (2011/12) aging generating, transmission and distribution equipment. > 3.9 per cent (2012/13) We have taken big steps on important projects such as the Smart Metering & > 3.9 per cent (2013/14). Infrastructure Program that is part of the new global standard for electricity For the average residential customer, this means service, giving our customers more choices, faster restoration of outages, a bill increase of approximately $4.00 per month. and reduced costs. Other examples include the Ruskin Dam upgrade, the Vancouver City Central Transmission project, the Northwest Transmission ã BC Hydro will decrease expenditures by more Line, additional generating capacity at our Mica Dam, and many more. than $800 million over three years in the areas of operating costs including a downsized BC Hydro is also working with the Province to become one of the most workforce, deferred capital expenditures, efﬁcient utilities in Canada or the United States. We are committed to updated trade income forecasts and keeping rates among the lowest in North America as we balance the need to changing the amortization period for energy invest in our infrastructure. We will help deliver on this promise by following conservation programs. through on the results of our own internal review and that of the Provincial Government. This will lead to a new Integrated Resource Plan in 2012 and a ã %&+\GURÜVFDSLWDOLQYHVWPHQWSODQWR three-year Revenue Requirements Application later this year. improve and replace aging facilities that were built primarily between 1950 and 1980 Part of moving forward is making sure that we hear from our communities. On was endorsed, including our ongoing focus behalf of all of us at BC Hydro, I would like to thank you and your constituents on conservation through Power Smart and for taking the time to provide us with your feedback on topics such as the implementation of new, updated meters Vancouver City Central Transmission upgrade, integrated resource planning throughout the province. and the Ruskin Dam and Powerhouse project. Your insights and perspectives are invaluable.

David Cobb, President and CEO SMART METER IMPLEMENTATION

Like many other utilities around the world, BC Hydro is modernizing the electrical grid and metering systems.

Smart meters will ensure a more sustainable energy future for BC by: ã helping keep power rates among the lowest in North America;

ã giving customers more choices to conserve and reduce electricity use; and Artist rendering of the upgraded design for the proposed Site C Clean Energy Project. ã instantly telling BC Hydro when there’s a power outage, so that power can be restored as quickly as possible. SITE C ENVIRONMENTAL Starting in July 2011, BC Hydro began upgrading homes and ASSESSMENT businesses with new smart meters. Customers will receive advance notiﬁcation that smart meters are coming to their BC Hydro initiated the environmental assessment process for Site C community. In most cases smart meter exchanges will take in May 2011 with the ﬁling of a project description report (PDR) less than ten minutes. Customers will to federal and provincial environmental assessment agencies. not need to be home so long as The PDR described key upgrades to the historic project design, BC Hydro has safe, clear including improved foundation stability, greater seismic protection, access to their meter. enhanced spillway safety, and additional generating capacity.

For more information In August 2011, the PDR was accepted by the agencies, which on smart meter exchanges formally starts the environmental assessment process. The in your community speciﬁc process will be deﬁned by the agencies this fall. The please visit bchydro.com/ environmental assessment will be rigorous and independent, smartmeterinstall or contact and will involve detailed effects assessments, including dozens your local Community of studies regarding land, water, wildlife and agriculture. There Relations Manager. will be multiple opportunities for consultation and input by the public, First Nations, communities and stakeholders.

PLANNING FOR FUTURE For more information about the Site C project go to ELECTRICITY NEEDS bchydro.com/sitec.

BC Hydro is consulting First Nations, the public and stakeholders CAPITAL PROJECTS as we establish our plan for meeting future growth in demand for electricity. BC Hydro recently completed its first phase of The following are some of the regional projects that BC Hydro is consultation gathering input into the development of its draft currently working on in the Lower Mainland-South Coast region Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). of British Columbia. From March to April 2011, BC Hydro asked British Columbians Ruskin Dam and Powerhouse to consider topics related to conservation, electricity generation BC Hydro is planning a major investment to the Ruskin Dam and and transmission , as well as the potential for electrification Powerhouse, which is more than 80 years old. Pending approval (switching from other fuel sources to electricity), and market by the British Columbia Utilities Commission, construction is opportunities to export power. You can read about these expected to start in 2012 and take approximately six years. Once consultation topics and the input we received on BC Hydro’s completed, the upgraded facility will be reliable and safe with an website at bchydro.com/irp. improved environmental performance. It will produce enough Input received through consultation is being considered along with electricity to serve more than 33,000 homes, while providing technical, financial, environmental and economic development environmental benefits like better flow continuity to protect input as BC Hydro evaluates options and drafts the IRP. In a second downstream fish and wildlife habitat. The dam will be able to round of consultation, BC Hydro will seek feedback on the draft survive a severe earthquake without major damage. plan. If you would like to participate in consultation on the IRP and be notified when dates and locations have been set, please visit our website to sign up for our mailing list bchydro.com/irp. 2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT—SQUAMISH-LILLOOET Buntzen Lake Reservoir Powerhouse Burnaby to New Westminster Transmission Project A new turbine was installed in the Buntzen Lake Reservoir Like most municipalities in the Lower Mainland, New Powerhouse and has been in operation since early June 2011. Westminster’s population—and demand for electricity— This $18 million project was completed within budget and is growing. BC Hydro is undertaking the Burnaby to New replaced a 1951 turbine that was no longer reliable or cost- Westminster Transmission Project on behalf of its customer, effective to operate. the City of New Westminster, to continue to reliably meet the electricity needs of the city. North Vancouver Substation Upgrade Project The project includes installation of new equipment at New The North Vancouver Substation Upgrade Project will replace Westminster Substation and a new 60 kilovolt, 2.8 km, aging equipment and increase capacity to meet the growing underground transmission circuit to connect New Westminster demand for electricity in the City of North Vancouver. The project Substation to an existing BC Hydro transmission line located is on schedule for completion in Spring 2012. near Robert Burnaby Park. This project is expected to meet New Westminster’s electricity needs for at least 20 years. The Vancouver City Central Transmission (VCCT) Project project is scheduled for completion in January 2013. For more This project is the most significant investment in central information, please see: bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/projects/ Vancouver’s electrical system in almost 30 years. It will increase new_westminster.html. reliability of the electrical supply throughout Vancouver and meet the growing demand for power in the Mount Pleasant and South Interior to Lower Mainland Transmission (ILM) Project False Creek neighbourhoods. Construction began in November The transmission circuits that bring power from generation 2010 and a project in-service date is anticipated for Spring 2013. resources in the north and southern Interior of the province to For more information, please see: bchydro.com/vcct. the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island are some of the most critical paths in the transmission grid. Built in the early 1970s, the circuits are reaching the limits of their capacity during periods of peak demand. The ILM Project will expand the capacity of these essential transmission circuits so that they can continue to reliably deliver clean and renewable energy to the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island.

The ILM Project is a new 500 kV transmission line that will run mostly along an existing right-of-way between the Nicola Substation near Merritt and the Meridian Substation in Coquitlam. The new line will be approximately 255 kilometres (km) in length and will parallel an existing 500 kV transmission line for the majority of the distance. For more information see transmission.bchydro.com/projects/ilm.

BC Hydro is continuing to work towards the 2014 in-service date for the ILM Project. There are contingency plans in place to meet system requirements in the event the ILM Project is not in-service by 2014.

Pole Replacement BC Hydro cedar poles have a life span of 40 to 50 years. Earlier this year, Hydro changed out over 1,000 poles in Burnaby and Vancouver. Hydro has never replaced so many poles at one time in one area. The old poles will be recycled.

Pipe bundle being installed at Laurel Street and West 7th Avenue in Vancouver (location of the entrance to the False Creek crossing).

3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT—SQUAMISH-LILLOOET RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE

BC Hydro recognizes how important the reliable supply of electricity is to our customers. By continuing to invest in our electrical system, we expect to see enhanced levels of reliability for our customers.

In 2010, the BC Hydro average interruption duration per customer was 2.78 hours compared to 2009, which was 2.5 hours. The average number of interruptions per customer in 2010 was 1.89 compared to 2009, which was 1.77. In the Lower Mainland-South Coast region in 2010 the BC Hydro average interruption duration per customer was 2.5 hours the same as 2009. The average number of interruptions per customer in 2010 was 2.1, slightly higher than 2009 which was 2.0.

With the signiﬁcant improvements and capital projects work currently underway, the following statistics may appear greater in comparison to previous years where fewer planned outages occurred. As we continue to improve, reinforce and maintain the electrical system over the next several years, planned outages will continue to be scheduled when needed and the statistics will reﬂect this activity. Planned outages can dramatically affect the duration of power interruptions experienced by customers. Weather events can also affect reliability performance.

The information below provides some comparisons for the Lower Mainland-South Coast region for 2009 and 2010. 2009 2010

AVERAGE AVERAGE CUSTOMER AVERAGE CUSTOMER AVERAGE INTERRUPTION NUMBER OF INTERRUPTION NUMBER OF BC HYDRO DURATIONS INTERRUPTIONS BC HYDRO DURATIONS INTERRUPTIONS DISTRICT (HOURS) PER CUSTOMER DISTRICT (HOURS) PER CUSTOMER Abbotsford 1.99 2.69 Abbotsford 3.29 1.96 Chilliwack/Hope 2.78 1.58 Chilliwack/Hope 2.30 2.64 Coquitlam 3.02 1.44 Coquitlam 2.30 1.42 Fraser Valley West 2.57 1.08 Fraser Valley West 2.39 0.96 Lillooet 3.32 4.97 Lillooet 2.34 3.80 North Shore 1.36 1.09 North Shore 2.29 1.16 Powell River 4.27 2.85 Powell River 3.58 2.52 Sechelt 2.33 2.48 Sechelt 3.36 2.94 Squamish 2.01 1.40 Squamish 2.08 2.95 Vancouver/Burnaby 1.83 0.72 Vancouver/Burnaby 1.63 0.86

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT BC Hydro is now in the process of removing vegetation around all padmounted transformers to clearance standards in the area BC Hydro Vegetation Maintenance around Padmounted from North Vancouver to Pemberton and on the Sunshine Coast. Transformers This work will continue until March 31, 2012. Padmounted transformers perform a necessary and valuable function as they bring power to a home or business. Their function is to change high-voltage electricity to the lower voltage needed for lights and appliances. Buried beneath and connected to the transformer are live electric cables. When there is a power outage or emergency or regular maintenance is required, BC Hydro crews need fast and easy access to the transformer. Often, vegetation has been planted around them during landscaping by homeowners. To work safely, however, BC Hydro requires clearances around transformers to be 2.5 m from any and all doors and 0.9 m from all other sides. A good example of how vegetation should be planted around a padmounted transformer. 4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT—SQUAMISH-LILLOOET Planting Trees to Build Communities BC Hydro Vegetation Management sets aside money each year in a Regreening Fund to help communities across the province plant trees. This Fund helps to build cooperative and meaningful relationships with the communities that we work in.

Vegetation Management is responsible for pruning and removing trees and vegetation in areas where the power lines are or may be impacted. Vegetation Management provides services that contribute to a safe and reliable Distribution system, respect the environment, and optimize program values. City crews work to plant the trees BC Hydro provided.

To apply for funding, a municipality must provide BC Hydro Since 2006, BC Hydro has assisted 99 per cent of the with a proposal how the trees will be used and show there will communities in the Lower Mainland-South Coast area with be community involvement to look after the trees.Once the Regreening. Started in 1999, the community Regreening application is approved, BC Hydro will work with the communities program has served between 140 and 160 communities across to develop a plan to maintain the trees. the province. Grants can range from $2,000 to $20,000.

LOWER MAINLAND—SOUTH COAST Great Horned Owl Saved From Power Line REGIONAL STORIES In early spring 2011 two BC Hydro employees from the Abbotsford line room responded to a call from the BC Hydro Market Makeover For Energy Savings Vancouver Restoration Centre about a live owl hanging from a power line. John Mellis, BC Hydro Field Manager located in A small independent grocery store on Commercial Drive, Donald’s Abbotsford also received the call and helped direct the crew to underwent a series of energy efficient upgrades with the help the appropriate site. of BC Hydro. Inefficient products were replaced in its lighting and refrigeration systems with energy efficient technologies, The wing of a Great Horned Owl was entangled in fishing line that illustrating what retrofits involved in programs such as the Product had caught onto a branch that then became wrapped around an Incentive Program (PIP) can achieve. It’s estimated that the energy energized power line. The BC Hydro line crew de-energized the savings for this project will be178,898 kWh from refrigeration for line and recovered the distressed owl. The owl appeared to be in a total annual energy savings of $6,197.47, and 58,242 kWh from good shape and was given to a representative from the Orphaned lighting for a total annual energy savings or $3,447.93. Wildlife Rehabilitation Society.

BC Hydro is hopeful that the makeover results will inspire other Later the same week, O.W.L. contacted BC Hydro to confirm that small and medium sized businesses to undertake similar energy the Great Horned Owl was in good shape with no broken bones. efficient retrofits in their own facilities. The owl would be released once it gained its strength back and had preened its feathers back into flying condition.

Donald’s Market in East Vancouver has a reputation for fresh produce. BC Hydro crew member with saved owl. Now, with the help of BC Hydro, the popular family-owned business will also be known for its energy efﬁciency. 5 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT—SQUAMISH-LILLOOET GRANTS-IN-LIEU

BC Hydro pays net property tax and grant payments to local government. The grant program is a Provincial Government initiative and the amounts paid are dictated under the current legislation. Listed below are the grants paid to each community in the Squamish-Lillooet region as at June 30, 2011.

MUNICIPALITY/DISTRICT SCHOOL TAXES GRANTS OTHER TAXES TOTAL PAYMENTS

Lillooet, District of 429,884.35 148,722.06 0.00 578,606.41

Pemberton Valley Dyking District 0.00 3,978.48 0.00 3,978.48

Pemberton, Village of 71,310.75 64,222.41 0.00 135,533.16

Squamish, District of 928,557.52 358,986.19 17,725.61 1,305.269.32

Squamish-Lillooet, Regional District of 0.00 982,713.00 0.00 982,713.00

Whistler, Resort Municipality of 442,714.71 333,264.13 1,628.95 777,607.79

COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AND OUTREACH

BC Hydro is committed to sustainability for generations, and to support and strengthen the communities we serve. Through our donations and sponsorships we commit to organizations that are active in our key funding areas: Environmental Sustainability, Youth and Lifestyle and Community Leadership. Applications meeting our criteria are accepted online and the application and criteria can be found at bchydro.com/community/community_investment.html. Organizations are also welcome to contact Chris Joy for more information at 604 623 4232 or [email protected].

The Lower Mainland—South Coast region was supported with a donations and sponsorship budget of $72,000 for ﬁscal year 2010/2011. Listed below are some organizations within the Squamish-Lillooet area that BC Hydro supported this year.

DONATION/ APPLICANT COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIP Gold Bridge Community Club Gold Bridge $1,000

Bridge River Friends of the Library Bridge River $1,000

Bridge River Youth Community Leadership Award Bridge River $1,000

Changemakers Toolbox – sustainability program Squamish $500

Spirit Committee, Pemberton – Winterfest Pemberton $2,000

St’at’imc New Years Powwow Committee Lillooet $1,000

Seton Lake Indian Band – Christmas Celebration Seton Lake $1,000

Skate Lillooet – Club Jackets Lillooet $3,100

6 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT—SQUAMISH-LILLOOET Donations Community Champions BC Hydro is also proud to support local regional government BC Hydro challenged B.C. students in Grades 4 to 12 to nominate conferences and programs. In 2010, we sponsored the Lower the environmental non-proﬁt organizations that are making a Mainland Local Government Association, held last year in difference in their communities. Fifteen organizations received Harrison Hot Springs, and we are a major sponsor of the Union the BC Hydro Community Champion ﬁnancial awards of up to of British Columbia Municipalities conference. We were also a $1,500. Below are some Community Champions. sponsor of the Local Government Leadership Academy.

Skate Lillooet Club wearing new jackets donated by BC Hydro Community Champions from Dr. Charles Best Secondary School Green Team, Coquitlam

BC Hydro Outreach Team at City of Surrey’s Winterfest event Irwin Park School—Clean Air Champions, West Vancouver

BC Hydro Outreach Team discuss energy conservation with Magee Secondary School Environment Club in front of school garden Hope District Arts Council boxes built by students, Vancouver

BC HYDRO COMMUNITY RELATIONS

If you have questions or concerns, please contact:

Arlene Shwetz Steve Higginbottom Chris Joy Manager, Community Relations Community Relations Coordinator Public Affairs Research Assistant 604 623 4468 604 623 3593 604 623 4232 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

7 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT—SQUAMISH-LILLOOET To report a power outage call: 1 888 POWERON (1 888 769 3768) or *HYDRO (*49376) from your cell.

For 50 years, BC Hydro has been providing clean, reliable electricity to our customers. B.C. continues to grow and so has our need for power. Today, we are planning for the next 50 years by investing in new projects, upgrading existing facilities and working with customers to conserve energy through Power Smart.

Learn more at bchydro.com/regeneration

8 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT—SQUAMISH-LILLOOET

GDS11-229

Catch $25 How mandatory carbon offsets are undermining real emissions reductions in BC school districts

by Charley Beresford, Robert Duffy and Randy Galawan September 2011

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 1 Catch $25: How mandatory carbon offsets are undermining real emissions reductions in BC school districts by Charley Beresford, Robert Duffy and Randy Galawa

No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission of the authors.

Copyedit and design: Nadene Rehnby and Pete Tuepah, www.handsonpublications.com

1200 — 1166 Alberni Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3Z3 604.408.2500 www.civicgovernance.ca Contents

FOREWORD ...... 4 PART 3: SOLUTIONS ...... 14 STRATEGIES FOR A LOW CARBON AND FINANCIALLY SUSTAINABLE K–12 SECTOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1. Provide adequate, stable funding for school districts ...... 14 PART 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 7 2. Shift offsets to real reductions in BC public sector emissions ...... 15 PART 2: THE PROBLEM ...... 8 3. Establish a climate action fund to pool CARBON NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENTS COLLIDE WITH money currently paid out as carbon THE LONG-TERM UNDERFUNDING OF BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS offsets into a fund for real reductions Education funding context: School districts have in school district GHG emissions ...... 15 limited resources for GHG emission reductions ...... 9 CASE STUDIES: UK, NEW SOUTH WALES, and ALBERTA ...... 16

Cuts to the Annual Facilities Grant ...... 9 4. Allow BC school districts to develop and sell carbon offsets ...... 17 Giving with one hand: the Public Sector Energy Conservation Agreement ...... 10 5. Expand the scope of the Carbon Neutral Public Sector mandate to incorporate ‘Scope 3’ ...and taking away with the other: emissions, and allow reductions in Scope 3 Carbon offsets and the Paciﬁc Carbon Trust ...... 10 emissions to offset emissions in Scopes 1 and 2 ...17

Carbon offset purchases diverted $4.4 million 6. Allow municipalities to use investments from BC school district operations in 2010 ...... 11 in schools as offset equivalents ...... 18

Public funding funneled to private corporations ...... 12 7. Give school districts alternative offsetting options, as proposed for BC municipalities ...... 18 School districts not permitted to sell offsets to fund their own emissions reductions projects ...... 12 APPENDIX 1: Where the money went: carbon offsets included in PCT’s 2010 Paciﬁc Carbon Trust offsets: Good value for money? ...... 12 “Carbon Neutral Public Sector” portfolio ...... 19

What could $4.4 million mean if used to APPENDIX 2: BC public sector greenhouse support emissions reductions and energy gas emissions and offset investment, by school district ...... 20 cost savings in schools? ...... 13

Opportunity cost ...... 13 ENDNOTES ...... 22 Foreword A Catch 22 at $25 per tonne

School districts in BC are caught in a Catch 22. Provincial This Catch 22 is costing BC school districts $25 per carbon neutral measures are forcing districts to pay for tonne of carbon offsets — it’s a ‘Catch $25.’ carbon offsets that don’t actually reduce the districts’ own Catch $25 drained $4.4 million from BC school emissions AND drain funds from education operating district operating budgets for 2010, money that could budgets. have funded real reductions in district GHG emissions A ‘Catch 22’ is a type of paradox, defined as “a prob- and energy efficiency improvements that would save lematic situation for which the only solution is denied by districts hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy a circumstance inherent in the problem.”1 A commonly costs. In effect, classroom dollars, which are already cited Catch 22, for example, is that to get a particular job, scarce, are migrating from public classrooms to private you need experience, but to get experience, you need to boardrooms. get that job. The following report looks into the problem in detail The ‘logic’ of the Catch 22 facing British Columbia and provides new policy ideas to help schools make real school districts reads something like this: progress in emissions reductions. t School districts are legislated to reach carbon neutral- — Charley Beresford ity, but the province hasn’t given sufficient funds to Executive Director make the necessary infrastructure changes. Columbia Institute t Districts are then forced to buy large numbers of carbon offsets from a government supplier at inflated prices, further reducing their capacity. t The bigger the emissions gap, the more offsets districts have to buy; the more offsets they have to buy, the less they can shrink emissions.

4 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS Executive summary

Most people have accepted that strong action on than the 25 to 40 per cent below 1996 levels called for climate change is needed. BC took steps in the right by international scientists. direction when the province passed legislation calling Unfortunately, some provincial policies are working for a signiﬁcant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions against this important goal. There is growing aware- by 2020 and established a goal for carbon neutrality. ness that the BC government’s carbon neutral strategy However, it must be noted that while ambitious, the goal is overly reliant on the purchase of carbon offsets, and falls short of the United Nations targets for developed may be getting in the way of the real emission reduc- nations, amounting to a 10 per cent reduction rather tions necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.

> HIGHLIGHTS: The impact of mandatory carbon offset purchases on BC school districts

t BIG MARKUP. At $25 per tonne, the Paciﬁc Carbon t DISTRICT PROJECTS SHELVED. The province pro- Trust charges school districts a signiﬁcant margin vided a specially designated fund of $6 million above retail prices. BC-based Offsetters charges for emission reduction projects in schools, but only $20 per tonne for equivalent offsets. Whole- provincially legislated mandatory carbon offset sale prices paid by PCT are estimated to range purchases clawed back more than 70 per cent from $5.70 to $20 per tonne. of that amount. At the same time, the $110 million fund that districts would normally use t FROM CLASSROOM TO BOARDROOM. About half of the $4.4 million of public funds that school for infrastructure improvements was cut. Only districts paid PCT in 2010 was used to purchase half of the fund was reinstated for 2010. Many carbon offsets from private sector corporations, projects were shelved, forcing districts to spend including Encana, CNRL and Apache. These three operational funds buying more offsets at a time oil and gas companies have combined assets of when school district budgets are already tight.

over $120 billion. t DISTRICTS COULD HAVE SAVED $740,000. If school districts had been able to apply money spent t IT COULD GET WORSE. PCT offset prices for the public sector are slated to rise to $30 per tonne on 2010 offsets to energy efﬁciency in their own in 2012. Under this scenario, BC school district operations, they would have saved $740,000 in offset expenses will rise to more than $5 million energy costs and reduced their actual annual annually. Meanwhile, offset prices are falling GHG emissions by 2,100 tonnes. around the world.

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 5 As numerous commentators noted over the summer of t Alberta allows its school districts to borrow against 2011, Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT), the crown corporation contractor-guaranteed energy savings for up to 20 established for supplying carbon offsets to the public years. This provides a source of financing districts sector, is collecting millions of dollars from schools and can access to implement retrofits and other capital other public services, and spending those dollars buy- projects that save energy and reduce emissions. ing carbon credits from private corporations. In effect, A ministry debt cap currently prevents BC school classroom dollars, which are already scarce, are migrating districts from borrowing against future energy cost from public classrooms to private boardrooms. savings. Allowing BC school districts this borrowing BC needs to look for approaches to reduce GHG emis- power could open the door to major emissions reduc- sions that are both effective and support public services. tions and big savings in energy costs. A range of alternative policies are already in use in other jurisdictions that can help reduce BC public sector emis- Alternative approaches to carbon offsetting sions and even save public money through increased energy efficiency. For example, the United Kingdom and t Establish a climate action fund, in which schools pay the Australian state of New South Wales are pursuing amounts equivalent to their current carbon offsets paths to public sector carbon neutrality that prioritize into a pooled fund for emissions reductions projects real reductions in emissions from government oper- in the BC public school sector. ations rather than purchases of carbon offsets. Closer to home, Alberta provides a model of school district energy t Allow school districts to develop and sell carbon efficiency financing that could help BC school districts offsets. Offset revenue could help school districts cut GHG emissions and reduce energy bills. carry out retrofits and other emissions reductions projects that would otherwise not go ahead.

t Allow school districts to use their ‘Scope 3’ emission > Highlights: Alternatives reductions as offsets against their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Most Scope 3 emissions, such as commuting, Alternative policies for reducing staff and faculty travel and embodied impacts of public sector GHG emissions buildings and infrastructure, are not covered under the province’s carbon neutral government require- A range of alternative policies in other jurisdictions are ments, but likely account for 40 to 50 per cent of pub- already in use to prioritize real reductions before carbon lic sector emissions. Under the current framework, offsets (as recommended by the United Nations Environ- public sector organizations have no incentive to make ment Program). For example: real reductions in Scope 3 emissions. In some cases, t The Australian state government of New South Wales reducing Scope 3 emissions may be more affordable has set a target of public sector carbon neutrality by or more achievable than reductions in the Scope 1 2020, giving public sector bodies significantly more and 2 emissions (which are largely from energy use time to implement real emissions reductions in their in buildings). If school districts were able to use own operations. Under the NSW framework, offset reductions in Scope 3 emissions as offsets, they purchases will not even be considered until 2014 would have a major incentive to find ways to reduce (year six of the plan), and only after “all other means these significant sources of emissions. of reducing emissions have been put in place.” If t Allow school districts to purchase offsets from pro- offsets do become part of the NSW plan, they would viders other than Pacific Carbon Trust and give dis- not be required until 2020, year 12 of the program. tricts opportunities to invest in emissions reductions t The UK government has established a special ‘pay as in their own communities (as has been proposed in you save’ financing system to help local authorities the regulations for municipal government carbon and other public sector bodies carry out retrofits and neutrality) or in high quality ‘gold standard’ certified other projects to reduce their emissions, with repay- carbon credits that combine emissions reductions ment tied to energy expense savings. with international development.

6 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS PART 1

Introduction

In June 2011, the BC Environment Ministry announced Unfortunately, it is not clear that the provincial gov- that the provincial public sector, including the public ernment’s current carbon neutral strategy is effective at school system, had become “ofﬁcially carbon neutral, a dropping real emissions or supports the citizens who ﬁrst for any province or state in North America and an use and fund them. In particular, an over-emphasis achievement that places British Columbia on the leading on the purchase of carbon offsets, compounded by a edge of climate action.”2 problematic system for purchasing these offsets, may Reducing carbon emissions in the public sector is actually be undermining real GHG emissions reduc- undoubtedly an important goal. While the public sector tions in BC public sector operations. This compounds itself accounts for less than 2 per cent of direct GHG problems caused by underfunding and has the effect emissions in the province, there is value in government of draining millions of dollars from provincial public showing leadership in climate change mitigation efforts. services into private sector subsidies.

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 7 PART 2

The problem

Carbon neutrality requirements collide with the long-term underfunding of BC school districts

Early in 2007, the BC government announced plans Two pieces of provincial legislation, the Greenhouse to make all provincial public sector entities, including Gas Reduction Targets Act, and the Local Government schools, post-secondary institutions, government offices, (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act lay out crown corporations and hospitals, carbon neutral by the framework for carbon neutrality. Under the legisla- 2010. tion, school districts, hospitals, government ministries The province’s carbon neutrality framework for public and other public sector entities were expected to make sector bodies is based on a four-step process: significant reductions in their GHG emissions in the relatively short time period before 2010, and purchase 1. MEASURE GHG emissions from operations. For carbon offsets to cover all remaining emissions. school districts, this means the mandatory use Municipalities are not covered under the province’s of special software to calculate emissions. mandatory requirements for carbon neutrality, but were 2. REDUCE actual emissions from operations offered the ‘incentive’ of partial carbon tax rebates to through energy efficiency, fuel switching and other commit to carbon neutrality under the provincial Climate measures. Action Charter. Municipalities have also been given more 3. OFFSET by purchasing carbon offsets for all GHG flexibility in terms of timing (2012, as opposed to 2010 emissions not addressed through reduced emis- for school districts) and more options in terms of how sions in operations. they reach neutrality targets. In the case of school districts, emissions from build- 4. REPORT to the province on emissions totals ings, vehicle fleets, energy and paper are included in the and reductions efforts. For schools, this means emissions calculations, while a wide range of emissions the annual submission of Carbon Neutral from transportation, commuting, building lifecycle and Action Reports detailing emissions reductions waste are not. Carbon offsets must be purchased from measures over the year and plans for future Pacific Carbon Trust, a Crown Corporation established reductions. by the government. Emissions must be calculated using SMARTTool, a carbon calculation software package

8 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS developed by the provincial government and provided to when it is possible to amalgamate classrooms through school districts (and other public sector bodies) for a fee. the introduction of split classes, administrative and School facilities make up the largest component of maintenance salaries still need to be paid and the school public building stock and thus represent one of the single still needs to be heated and lit. BC Association of School largest opportunities for reducing real GHG emissions Business Officials figures show that every lost student from provincial public sector operations.3 However, the means $6,740 in reduced revenue from the province, short initial timeframe to reach carbon neutrality and the but only about $3,000 in actual cost reductions for the scarcity of available funding mean that school districts district. So, in practice, every lost student means a net will for the foreseeable future be required to purchase loss of more than $3,700 for the school district, over and significant numbers of carbon offsets in order to be above any savings.5 certified as carbon neutral. For 2010, the first year of Further, while the province has provided grants to off- carbon neutrality, BC school districts were required to set the cost of labour settlements that the province itself purchase 176,672 tonnes of carbon offsets at a fixed price negotiates, these grants do not actually cover the full of $25 per tonne, for a total of $4.416 million. Money for cost increase to the districts of these settlements. There these purchases comes from the same pool of operating are also unfunded cost pressures such as the increased funds school districts use to fund core services, such as cost of utilities, transportation, benefits, and inflationary instruction and regular building maintenance. cost increases on goods and services.6 In addition, new responsibilities such as early learning and community literacy programs have been downloaded onto school districts without full funding. In May 2011, the province > EDUCATION FUNDING CONTEXT: announced that it would no longer cover insurance pre- School districts have limited miums, adding a further $3 million in annual expenses to already stretched BC school district budgets.7 resources for GHG emission reductions Cumulatively, the failure to fully fund rising education and operations costs amounts to a structural funding These additional expenses related to carbon neutrality shortfall — consistently below the amount needed to come at a time when schools are already facing significant maintain services at previous levels. By 2010/11, the BC funding shortfalls and budget challenges. Association of School and Business Officials estimated There are a number of reasons for this. In 2002, the that BC school districts faced a funding shortfall of provincial government changed the way it funds educa- $300 million, which was only partially mitigated by tion in BC, moving from a program-and-cost based funding increases that year.8 While 2011/12 saw a slight funding formula to a capped, student-based formula for increase in operating grants, this funding was allocated the operating grants that make up the vast majority of the for the implementation of full-day kindergarten, and did education budget in the province.4 While on the surface not address the ongoing structural deficit.9 this seems to be an equitable way to allocate funding across the numerous districts in BC, in reality it has resulted in education funding lagging behind increased costs. As noted in the Centre for Civic Governance report > Cuts to the Annual Facilities Grant When More is Less, a majority of districts faced budget- ary challenges in the 2008/2009 year; funding has not During the implementation period for carbon neutrality, increased sufficiently to remedy the problem since that the ongoing structural shortfall was compounded by survey was carried out. cuts to the Annual Facilities Grant (AFG). The AFG is A key problem is that the province’s per student given to school districts by the provincial government funding formula does not recognize the fixed costs that and “intended for annual facility projects required to do not fluctuate with enrollment numbers. If there are maintain facility assets through their anticipated eco- 22 students rather than 25 in the only Grade 4 class, the nomic life and prevent any premature deterioration of teacher’s salary for that class does not change. Even these assets.”10 AFG grants are used for a wide range of

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 9 projects repairs and improvements to school facilities, the case, school districts could be locked in a vicious many of which result in significant energy savings and circle of capital underfunding that prevents them from GHG reductions, including lighting, boiler replacements, undertaking key emissions reducing improvements. In and other upgrades to the heating, ventilation, and air this scenario, school district emissions could remain conditioning (HVAC) systems in schools. stuck at current levels or even increase as boilers and In August 2009, the BC government announced it other infrastructure deteriorate, leading to further losses would not be paying out the $110 million Annual Facili- in operational funding as schools pay out increased ties Grant to school districts, triggering cutbacks in work carbon offsets to meet provincially mandated carbon usually funded with AFG money in districts across the neutral requirements. province. As a sustainability report in one district noted in January 2010, “until such time as Annual Facility Grant funding is reinstated, the school district has no funding > Giving with one hand: source available to improve its facilities in order to reduce its carbon footprint.”11 the Public Sector Energy While the government subsequently announced a Conservation Agreement... ‘restoration’ of AFG funding in 2010, the amount of the ‘restored’ grant was spread over two years, effectively To help the BC public sector move towards carbon cutting AFG funding in half during the crucial period neutral operations, in 2007 the province launched the when school districts were expected to implement carbon Public Sector Energy Conservation Agreement (PSECA), reduction measures in school facilities. The AFG was a “three-year, $75 million investment to upgrade, retrofit fully restored for the 2011/12 year, but the unexpected or transform BC’s public sector buildings.” With over $55 million gap in already stretched AFG funding during 6,500 schools, hospitals, government offices and other 2009/10 to 2010/11 likely undermined the capacity of provincial public buildings in BC, PSECA money was school districts to reduce their own emissions in time spread relatively thinly across the province. Between for the 2010 deadline. 2008/09 and 2010/11, school districts received only While a province-wide picture is not available, about $6 million annually for HVAC upgrades, energy examples suggest significant impacts from the cuts to retrofits and other GHG reduction projects. BC school school districts’ energy efficiency and carbon neutrality districts were required to offset 176,000 tonnes of car- efforts. A February 2010 maintenance report to the Rich- bon in 2010, and more than 729,000 tonnes of carbon mond School District reported that at least one major offsets were purchased by the public sector as whole. The HVAC repair that would have reduced energy consump- journal of the School Plant Officials of BC estimated in tion was deferred because of shortfalls caused by AFG 2011 that there are “very likely at least $300 million worth cuts and that replacement of aging boilers with high of investments in comprehensive emissions reductions efficiency condensing boilers faced problems because measures in BC’s K–12 facilities” that would be a better of “lack of or limited AFG funding.”12 The Prince George investment than ongoing spending on carbon offsets.16 School District deferred at least one ground source heat pump installation that would have cut annual emissions by 108 tonnes of CO2e and saved the district close to $20,000 in annual energy costs.13 A number of school > ...and taking away with the boards “lost grants awarded through Solar BC for solar other: Carbon offsets and water heating systems because they no longer had matching funds.”14 the Pacific Carbon Trust Concerns have been raised that the restoration of the AFG in 2011/12 may be a one-time only grant, as the PSECA was a modest, if under-resourced, step in the province set a precedent by funding the AFG through a right direction within the “reduce” component of the capital contingency fund, rather than as a component provincial carbon neutrality framework. While PSECA of regular public schools funding.15 If this proves to be provided $25 million for building retrofits and other

10 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS emissions reductions projects in 2010, mandatory carbon 55 per cent of provincial funding allocated for climate offset purchases for the same year funneled more than change mitigation by school districts actually addressed $18.2 million out of the public sector, channeling most school district climate change drivers or reduced their of that money into private sector projects funded by real carbon footprint. Pacific Carbon Trust. Viewed from this angle, the province’s mandatory offset requirements clawed back 70 per cent of the funding provided through PSECA, leaving a net inflow of funds > Carbon offset purchases diverted available for actual emissions reductions in the public $4.4 million from BC school sector of less than $7 million. If the public sector had been allowed to apply the funds used for carbon offsets to district operations in 2010 actual emissions reductions in their own operations, they would have increased the environmental and economic From the perspective of school districts, money paid benefits of PSECA by more than 70 per cent. for offsets is a reduction in funding available for regular This impact was even more pronounced in the educa- operating expenses, including both education delivery tion sector, where the $4.4 million paid out by districts as and measures that could reduce the carbon footprint carbon offsets was almost 75 per cent of the amount that of public education. In total, mandatory carbon offsets came into the sector through PSECA. In addition, school purchased through Pacific Carbon Trust siphoned districts were forced to pay for SMARTtool, the provincial $4.4 million out of school district operating budgets government’s carbon accounting software at a cost of for 2010. Surrey School District had the highest offset $0.82 per student, for an estimated total of $456,000 expenses for the year, paying out almost $500,000; (based on 2010 enrolment numbers). Administrative Vancouver was not far behind, at $406,000. Twelve BC costs and labour related to carbon neutral requirements school districts paid out more than $100,000 in offsets added a further burden to school district budgets. in 2010, many in Metro Vancouver, but also districts in If money paid out for offsets and SMARTtool was Greater Victoria, Prince George, Kamloops/Thompson kept within the public school system and combined and the Central Okanagan. Many of these districts were with the $6 million in PSECA funding for 2010/11, BC at the same time already struggling to keep schools open school districts would have had $10.8 million to improve or carry out badly needed upgrades of facilities. Currently, the emissions profile of their own operations. Instead, the Pacific Carbon trust plans to raise offset prices to $30 clawbacks through offsets and SMARTtool meant that per tonne by 2012. This will only exacerbate the drain of even after PSECA funding, BC school districts were only public dollars from schools without reducing the amount $1.1 million better off in 2010/2011. Put another way, only of carbon they generate.

TABLE 1: GIVING WITH ONE HAND, TAKING WITH THE OTHER: IMPACT OF PSECA SPENDING ON SCHOOL DISTRICT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDERMINED BY CARBON OFFSET AND SMARTTOOL REQUIREMENTS

Total PSECA funding for BC school districts in 2010 $6,000,000

Mandatory carbon offset purchases by BC school districts for 2010 ($4,416,798)

SMARTtool costs for BC school districts (estimated total) ($456,485)

Net provincial funding inﬂow for carbon emissions reductions projects $1,126,717 in all BC school districts for 2010

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 11 > Public funding funneled offset sales via the BC-based Offsetters brokerage to help fund the installation of a ground source heat pump to private corporations that reduces carbon emissions by about 100 tonnes per year over 15 to 20 years and reduces heating and Compounding the problem from a public policy perspec- cooling costs by 75 per cent.17 At Offsetters’ retail price tive, mandatory offset payments made by school districts of $20 per tonne, this represents $30,000 to $40,000 and other taxpayer-funded public service providers worth of carbon offsets generated by a single project at went to subsidize projects in profitable private sector a small elementary school over the 15 to 20 year life of corporations (see Table 2). Offset purchases listed in the system. Applied on a grander scale, offset sales by Pacific Carbon Trust’s “2010 Carbon Neutral Government BC school districts could raise millions of dollars to fund Portfolio” included $2.1 million worth of offsets to help GHG reduction improvements that would otherwise not Alberta-based natural gas giant Encana improve its drill- be possible. ing operations, $575,000 worth of offsets to subsidize fuel switching at a cement plant owned by the French multinational Lafarge, and more than $1 million worth > Pacific Carbon Trust offsets: of offsets to subsidize energy efficiency and fuel switching in the operations of the multi-billion dollar Canfor Good value for money? corporation. See Appendix 1 (p. 19) for a list of companies As noted, school districts are forced to purchase all that sold offsets included in PCT’s “2010 Carbon Neutral carbon offsets from Pacific Carbon Trust — but it’s not Government Portfolio.” clear that Pacific Carbon Trust offers good value for money. PCT charges a fixed rate of $25 per tonne, which > School districts not permitted includes a markup to cover its own operating expenses. While the PCT does not publicly disclose the price it pays to sell offsets to fund their own for specific offsets, PCT documents state that crown emissions reductions projects corporation purchases offsets wholesale in the band of $10 to $20 per tonne; it then resells to the public sector at At the same time, school districts are not permitted to a fixed price of $25 per tonne.18 This means that between develop and sell offsets to help finance their own carbon $5 and $15 of the $25 paid for every tonne of offsets reduction projects. While no estimates are available purchased by school districts actually goes to PCT itself. on the potential for revenue generation through offset If this is the case, then at least $880,000 and possibly projects in the BC education sector, an example from over $2 million of the $4.4 million in offsets paid by BC a BC First Nations school operating outside the public school districts went to PCT as ‘markup.’19 system points to ways offsets could help schools raise And it’s possible the markup may in some cases be capital for emissions reductions projects that would not even higher than indicated by PCT. An investigation of otherwise go ahead. a major forestry offset project that made up 55 per cent The Sk’elep School of Excellence, a K–7 school for of PCT’s “2010 Carbon Neutral Government Portfolio” First Nations students in Kamloops, BC, used carbon calculated that PCT may have paid only $5.70 per tonne

TABLE 2: POTENTIAL SAVINGS FROM PURCHASING CARBON OFFSETS FROM SUPPLIER OTHER THAN PACIFIC CARBON TRUST

Total cost of offsets purchased by BC school districts from PCT at $25/tonne $4,416,798

Total retail price of equivalent offsets $3,533,440 if purchased from another provider at $20/tonne

Potential savings for BC school districts by using an offset provider other than PCT $883,358

12 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS for these offsets, which were resold to the BC public sec- energy systems in 19 schools, installing geothermal tor at $25 tonne.20 If these calculations are correct, PCT’s exchange systems, solar thermal hot water projects, markup from schools is close to $2.6 million, or higher.21 high efficiency condensing boilers at eight sites, and Why PCT’s markup is this high is not entirely clear. replacing mechanical infrastructure at 11 sites to Equivalent quality offsets — and in some cases the very accept the geothermal technology. The improvements same offsets — are often less expensive through other are expected to save the district $500,000 in energy suppliers. BC-based brokerage Offsetters, for example, costs each year, and reduce district emissions by 37 charges $20 per tonne retail for general portfolio offsets per cent compared to 2007.24 to individual consumers, and is in fact the ‘wholesale’ t For $465,000 (half from the district, half from the broker for many of the offsets that are resold by PCT. province), School District 54 installed high efficiency Also unclear is the province’s rationale for forcing boiler systems in two secondary schools, and reduced school districts and public sectors to purchase from a energy use to 50 per cent.25 $4.4 million could fund single offset provider that sells above standard market at least nine similar scale projects at full cost, or 18 if rates. A logical reason to establish a crown corporation costs were shared between the district and province. to sell offsets to the public sector could be to pool public Extrapolating from the SD54 experience, this could resources and realize economies of scale in order to mean significant improvements in 18 to 36 schools. reduce the price of offsets purchased with public funds. t For $100,000 per school, Surrey School District is Instead, public funds are pooled to purchase offsets at outfitting a number of schools with “solar walls” that 22 a price above the going market rate. heat outdoor air as the air enters the gym ventilation This problem is likely to get worse. PCT plans to raise system. This technology will lead to about $9,000 in prices for offsets sold to the public sector to $30 per energy savings annually for each installation, and pay tonne in 2012. If school districts are not provided with for itself within 11 years.26 $4.4 million would pay for resources to make significant emissions reductions, their 44 of these installations and save about $400,000 total annual offset bill at these prices will rise to $5 mil- annually at current energy prices. lion or more. This rate hike is particularly problematic given that global carbon offset prices dropped steeply during 2011. Prices on benchmark “certified emissions > Opportunity cost reductions” carbon offsets fell as low as 7.40 Euros (CAD$10.28) in August 2011.23 Carbon neutral requirements as currently structured undermine efforts to achieve real reductions from school district operations by draining funds that could be applied > What could $4.4 million mean if used to install better technology. It’s a Catch 22 — or in this to support emissions reductions and case, Catch $25. Money needed to install equipment is instead used to pay for offsets, which are larger in number energy cost savings in schools? than they would be if the equipment was installed. The provincial government estimates that the $75 million in To put this loss into perspective, it’s worth looking at upgrades funded through PSECA have lead to annual what kinds of things $4.4 million could do to improve savings of $12.6 million.27 Assuming a similar spending energy efficiency and reduce emissions in BC school dis- to savings ratio, the $4.4 million school districts spent tricts. Publicly available data on school energy efficiency on offsets, spent on energy efficiency projects instead, upgrades — in some cases data used to promote the would mean school districts could expect $740,000 in projects funded by the provincial government through annual savings on energy expenses — money that could PSECA — allow us to calculate some illustrative examples. in turn be channeled back into further improvements in t With $4.9 million funding via PSECA and Fortis energy efficiency and carbon reductions. A $4.4 million BC (that’s about the same amount as BC schools investment would also lead to an annual reduction of districts paid in offsets and SMARTtool expenses 2,100 tonnes, or just over 1 per cent of total BC school for 2010), the Delta School District is transforming district emissions in 2010.

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 13 PART 3

Solutions

Strategies for a low carbon and ﬁnancially sustainable K–12 sector

BC needs to look for emission reduction approaches that schools are to take on the additional challenge of carbon are both environmentally effective and efficient uses of neutral operations. public resources. In the case of school districts, restor- While the broader issue of school district funding ing operations and capital funding to adequate levels requires a more detailed analysis that is beyond the scope will be crucial. In addition, there are a range of policy of this report, we can suggest some key starting points. options that could help reduce public sector emissions and even save public money through increased energy Guarantee a full, permanent restoration efficiency. Some of these policies are already in place in of the Annual Facilities Grant other jurisdictions. As shown in the case studies (pages Cancellation of the Annual Facilities Grant in 2009 16 and 17), both the United Kingdom and the Australian pushed many BC school districts into budget shortfalls state of New South Wales are pursuing paths to public and created uncertainty for future maintenance projects. sector carbon neutrality that prioritize actual reductions And as noted, the ‘restoration’ of the AFG in 2010 in emissions from operations rather than carbon offsets, amounted to cutting the grant in half for two years, and, closer to home, the province of Alberta provides a draining more than $50 million from budgets schools model for school districts energy efficiency financing that used to maintain and upgrade facilities. While the could help BC school districts cut GHG emissions and AFG has been restored to pre-2009 levels for the most reduce energy bills. recent year, concerns have been raised that AFG is not being treated as a regular budget item and could be cut again.29 A guaranteed AFG would be a good first step in 1. Provide adequate, stable providing schools with the resources they need to plan funding for school districts maintenance projects, retrofits and other measures that improve the emissions profile and energy efficiency of district buildings and facilities. BC school districts face ongoing education funding shortfalls. In this context, school districts have faced Revise the funding model and challenges delivering core services and essential formula for BC school districts maintenance of buildings and facilities. At least 176 public schools in BC have closed since 2001.28 Ensur- The current provincial funding model does not provide ing adequate, stable funding for schools is essential if districts with enough resources to keep up with rising

14 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS costs of education delivery. Funding needs to be allocated reductions, and not offsets, should be the prime focus with future needs in mind, so that districts aren’t faced of local governments in their climate or carbon neutral with a shortage of classroom space and facilities when approach.”30 The ICLEI framework recommends that enrolment rises again, as forecast in ministry documents. offsets “should only be used to offset residual emissions, rather than being used as the primary approach to climate Fully fund the cost of provincial requirements or carbon neutrality.” Instead, “ICLEI recommends that local governments defer the purchase of offsets until The province needs to fully fund new requirements major emissions reduction investment opportunities imposed on school districts. Recent imposed require- have been implemented.” The United Nations Environ- ments, such as the SMARTtool software used for calcu- mental Program (UNEP) handbook on carbon neutrality lating carbon emissions, drain education dollars from similarly states that real emissions reductions should be district operating budgets. prioritized over offset purchases.31 See case studies on page 16 for examples of policies that have supported this Provide a stable, multi-year funding envelope approach in other jurisdictions. to finance public sector carbon neutrality To the extent that offsets are used, ICLEI suggests that “priority offsets should be those under municipal- Projects funded through PSECA provide examples of ity control or ownership,” and governments may want the kinds of emissions reductions, cost savings through to purchase “offsets from projects that bring financial energy efficiency and improvements in school district or social benefits to their own local community.” ICLEI facilities possible when funding is provided. Unfortu- also points out political problems associated with public nately, PSECA involved too little money over too short a sector offset purchases that don’t benefit the community, time period for these benefits to be realized on a major and warns that these problems could undermine the scale across the province. long-term sustainability of emissions strategies overly A scaled-up program involving more funding and a reliant upon offsets. As ICLEI’s framework notes, “the longer timeframe could significantly reduce emissions, on-going purchase of offsets relies on continuing political cut public sector energy costs and improve the comfort support and this can be hard to justify for an expense of our schools and public buildings. Ongoing investment that may not be perceived to provide a financial return in public sector energy efficiency and renewable energy to the municipality.” retrofits would not only save public dollars on utility costs (in some cases enough to pay for the initial costs of construction), but could also act as a significant economic stimulus, creating employment opportunities in trades, 3. Establish a climate action fund construction and manufacturing across the province. to pool money currently paid out as carbon offsets into a 2. Shift offsets to real reductions fund for real reductions in in BC public sector emissions school district GHG emissions

BC’s carbon neutral public sector initiative is out of step Another policy option is a ‘climate action fund’ for the with policy recommendations from leading international public education sector, in which school districts pay organizations, which emphasize actual reduction of amounts equivalent to offsets, but the funds are kept public sector emissions until those opportunities are for investment in projects that reduce GHG emissions.37 largely exhausted. This type of fund would need clear guidelines, regu- ICLEI-local Governments for Sustainability, an inter- lations and structures to ensure the quality of projects national association of more than 1,200 local govern- and criteria for prioritizing projects (e.g. what types of ments committed to sustainable development, write in priorities are funded and what percentage goes to each their “Framework for Carbon Neutrality” that “emissions district).

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 15 CASE STUDIES

Real reductions before carbon offsets Alternative approaches for encouraging GHG reductions in the public sector

The British model: the UK Carbon Trust authorities identify at least £40 million (CAD$65.4 mil- and Salix energy efficiency financing lion) in annual costs savings. The Salix financing model: ‘Pay as you save’ The UK Carbon Trust and related Salix financing system Salix provides a mixture of loans and grants coupled provide a good example of a model that prioritizes and with technical, organizational and project management provides support for real reductions in public sector support. Since 2004 Salix has engaged with 500 public carbon emissions. The UK Carbon Trust is a not-for-profit sector bodies and funded over 4,000 projects, with saved company set up by the UK government with a mission energy valued at £85 million (CAD$139 million).32 to accelerate the move to a low carbon economy. It The core program offered through Salix is a type of provides support to help business and the public sector revolving loan fund, where municipalities and other “cut carbon emissions, save energy and commercialize public sector organizations pay back loans for energy low carbon technologies.” Salix is a non-profit social efficiency projects through savings on energy costs. enterprise established through the Carbon Trust for Following the principle of ‘additionality’ in carbon financing energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures offsets, Salix finances public sector capital projects that in UK public sector bodies. couldn’t be completed without an additional infusion of The UK model combines a range of advisory and sup- capital. Public sector bodies must put up at least 50 per port services with an innovative financing model to help cent of project funding themselves, and Salix matches public sector organizations implement energy efficiency with a loan at a favourable rate. The money is kept in a and emissions reductions projects that save money for ‘ring fenced fund,’ and repayments are paid back into the public organizations and UK taxpayers. fund and continuously recycled, creating funds to sustain Collaborative Low Carbon Schools Service a rolling program of projects. The client can continue to recycle energy savings returned to the fund into more The UK Carbon Trust includes a specific program for projects, and money is returned to Salix only when no schools — the Collaborative Low Carbon Schools Ser- more suitable projects can be found. vice — which provides seven key steps to effective school One example of the UK Carbon Trust/Salix approach carbon management, while offering a flexible approach so is Warwickshire County Council. Warwickshire holds a that authorities can set and achieve their own goals for Salix recycling fund of £600,000 (CAD$981,000), and carbon reduction. One of the services offered is a carbon has used this to fund a range of projects across local survey to identify quick and effective ways to reduce services, including schools. Salix financed projects are energy waste schools, which has helped participating expected to save Warwickshire County more than £2 mil- authorities cut school energy costs by an average of 20 lion (CAD$3.27 million) and 11,578 tonnes of CO2 over per cent. For 2011/12, the program aims to help local their lifetime.33

16 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS New South Wales, Australia 4. Allow BC school districts to develop and sell carbon offsets The state government of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia is another example of public sector carbon neutrality that prioritizes School districts in Ontario can develop and sell offsets. In real reductions in emissions. 2010, the Toronto District School Board signed an offset deal Rather than setting a short timeline that with the Greening Canada Fund, which provides carbon cred- would almost inevitably lead to high offset its to large corporate clients such as BMO Financial Group. purchases, the NSW government in 2008 It will earn the district $1.7 million over the ﬁve year contract. set a target of public sector carbon neutrality by 2020, giving public sector bodies time to implement real emissions reductions in their own operations. Under the NSW framework, 5. Expand the scope of the Carbon offset purchases will not even be considered Neutral Public Sector mandate to until 2014 (year six of the plan), and only then incorporate ‘Scope 3’ emissions, and after “all other means of reducing emissions have been put in place.” If offsets do become allow reductions in Scope 3 emissions part of the NSW plan, they would not be to offset emissions in Scopes 1 and 2 required until 2020, year 12 of the program.34

BC’s “carbon neutral government” mandate currently covers Alberta: Allowing school mainly Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect, from purchased energy) emissions. The only Scope 3 (other indirect) emis- districts to borrow against sions covered are those from business travel (for the core future utility savings to government only) and use of paper. finance energy efficiency/ In a case study of the UBC Vancouver campus, research- emissions reductions retrofits ers from the UBC Sauder School of Business and Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) found that Scope 3 emissions not covered under carbon neutral government Closer to home, Alberta provides a perhaps requirements — such as commuting, staff and faculty unexpected example of a more effective travel and embodied impacts of buildings and infrastruc- approach to emissions reductions in schools. ture — accounted for about 47 per cent of total campus GHG While a ministry debt cap prevents BC emissions. Extending the carbon neutral mandate to include school districts from borrowing against reporting of more Scope 3 emissions would achieve a wider avoided utility costs, Alberta allows its reach (including even parts of the public sector supply chain) school districts to borrow against contractor- and open up more opportunities for emission reductions. guaranteed energy savings for up to 20 The Australian state of New South Wales already includes a 35 years. This provides a source of financing range of Scope 3 emissions in its carbon neutral government districts can access to implement capital mandate, including business travel emissions for all govern- projects that save energy (and also reduce ment agencies, waste and outsourced activities.38 emissions). As noted in a BC School Plant Based on this analysis, the PICS study recommends that Officials newsletter, this means that even though the Alberta government puts less the BC government: emphasis on climate change mitigation, it t Make it mandatory for public sector organizations (PSOs) has given its school districts a better tool for to assess and report all relevant and significant Scope reducing emissions from district operations 3 emissions, including emissions from employee busi- than has the BC government.36 ness travel, employee commuting, building lifecycle and

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 17 outsourced activity/contracts previously performed local government’s corporate operations, but open up by the organization; possibilities for community investment and choice not currently possible for school districts. As noted in the t Not require these additional Scope 3 emissions to be reduced or offset, unlike Scope 1 and Scope 2 province’s own toolkit for municipalities, these alterna- emissions currently; and tive approaches to offsetting “enable communities to invest in local projects that have broader community t Allow PSOs to use their Scope 3 emission reductions benefits, such as supporting green jobs and technological as offsets, provided these meet the quality standards innovation, conserving energy, reducing operating costs, for offsets. enhancing community sustainability, and raising public awareness regarding climate change.” 6. Allow municipalities to use investments in schools Balancing and offsetting corporate GHG emissions: three options for local governments as offset equivalents (from Becoming Carbon Neutral: A Guidebook for Local Governments in BC, July 2011) Under new guidelines for local government carbon neutrality commitments, BC municipalities have been t Option 1 allows local governments to invest locally given a much more flexible range of options for offsets, in provincially approved emission reduction projects, including approved community GHG reduction projects including energy efficient building retrofits / fuel that are outside the boundary of local government corpor- switching, solar hot water, household organic waste ate operations. While the draft regulations are unclear as composting, and low emission vehicles. to whether municipalities could invest in local schools, we propose that they be explicitly permitted to do so. t Option 2 recognizes that local governments will have additional ideas (beyond Option 1) for measurable emission reduction projects that could be undertaken 7. Give school districts alternative outside their corporate emissions boundary. offsetting options, as proposed t Option 3 allows local governments to purchase for BC municipalities offsets from a credible provider (not limited to PCT).

Under the 2011 Green Communities Carbon Neutral Keep public sector offset purchases Framework, local governments have been provided with focused on socially responsible outcomes multiple options for offsetting missions and are not required to buy through the Pacific Carbon Trust. Local Another option is to ensure that all publicly funded off- governments are also not required to purchase SMART- sets are used to support socially responsible outcomes. tool, and can use an equivalent methodology, including For example, the UK’s Government Carbon Offsetting free and open source software. Facility, the agency responsible for supplying voluntary Extending similar flexibility to school districts could carbon offsets to the UK public sector, purchases only help districts reduce emissions in local communities high quality, certified ‘Gold Standard’ offsets that fund and/or realize costs savings by turning to suppliers sustainable development projects in developing coun- other than PCT.39 tries.40 While this type of option would not provide direct Local governments have negotiated three carbon benefits to BC schools, it would ensure that public money offsetting/balancing options within the framework. All is funding socially responsible projects for offsetting involve purchasing forms of carbon offsets outside the global GHG emissions.

18 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS APPENDIX 1: WHERE THE MONEY WENT: CARBON OFFSETS INCLUDED IN PCT’S 2010 “CARBON NEUTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR” PORTFOLIO

Economic sector and total Amount paid by public retail value of offsets sold Company or organization Company’s total assets in 2010 sector for offsets from to BC public sector company/organization

TimberWest $1.275 billion $790,525

Information on assets not available, but likely in the billions of dollars. Kruger is a major producer of publication Kruger Products papers, tissue, lumber and other wood $398,800 products, corrugated cartons from recycled ﬁbres, green and renewable energy, and wines and spirits. Forestry, pulp and paper: $3,621,250 Neucel Specialty Cellulose (owned by Wellspring Wellspring manages more than Capital Management in $3 billion of private equity capital. $774,650 2010, but purchased by Fulida Group claims assets equivalent Fulida Group Holdings Ltd. to at least CAD$7.7 billion of China in February 2011)

Canfor $ 2.778 billion $1,039,325

Interfor $611.9 million $618,150

Encana Corp. $34 billion $2,106,900 Oil and gas: $3,112,075 Canadian Natural Resource CNRL: $42.669 billion Apache $1,005,175 Ltd. (CNRL) & Apache Canada Corp: $43.425 billion

Financial information on parent company Nippon Cable Co. is not available, but Nippon Cable is a major manufacturer and installer of such products as Tourism and recreation: Sun Peaks Resort Corporation circulating gondola lifts, chair lifts, $71,950 $71,950 (subsidiary of Nippon Cable Co.) funiculars, car parking systems, ramp elevators, and amusement park rides. It also hold investments in a number of major resort properties.

Cement manufacturing: Lafarge $62.49 billion $574,950 $574,950

Agriculture: Sun Select Farms Information not available $786,325 $786,325 and Katatheon Farms

Non-proﬁt (forestry Nature Conservancy of Canada management/conservation): $543.36 million $10,077,800 (non-proﬁt conservation group) $10,077,800

Source: Pacific Carbon Trust, “2010 Carbon Neutral Government Portfolio,” June 2011. Web: http://www.pacificcarbontrust.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qtYRzCFf348=&tabid=164

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 19 APPENDIX 2: BC PUBLIC SECTOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND OFFSET INVESTMENT, BY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Total emissions Total offsets purchased Offset investment School district (tonnes) (tonnes) (dollars)

School District 05 Southeast Kootenay 3,355 2,717 67,914

School District 06 Rocky Mountain 2,220 1,656 41,397

School District 08 Kootenay Lake 2,651 1,903 47,570

School District 10 Arrow Lakes 403 310 7,761

School District 19 Revelstoke 463 367 9,166

School District 20 Kootenay-Columbia 2,367 1,932 48,300

School District 22 Vernon 3,403 2,617 65,431

School District 23 Central Okanagan 6,405 5,119 127,965

School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin 4,688 3,397 84,921

School District 28 Quesnel 2,405 1,657 41,422

School District 33 Chilliwack 2,678 2,255 56,368

School District 34 Abbotsford 4,816 3,829 95,726

School District 35 Langley 6,433 5,845 146,122

School District 36 Surrey 20,102 19,876 496,892

School District 37 Delta 4,061 4,009 100,235

School District 38 Richmond 7,554 7,295 182,387

School District 39 Vancouver 16,258 16,244 406,094

School District 40 New Westminster 2,006 2,005 50,130

School District 41 Burnaby 6,014 6,007 150,175

School District 42 Maple Ridge 3,512 3,506 87,656

School District 43 Coquitlam 9,390 9,342 233,545

School District 44 North Vancouver 4,728 4,579 114,484

School District 45 West Vancouver 1,569 1,568 39,199

School District 46 Sunshine Coast 1,115 1,110 27,744

School District 47 Powell River 1,353 1,144 28,602

School District 48 Sea To Sky/Howe Sound 1,998 1,818 45,461

School District 49 Central Coast 403 344 8,606

School District 50 Haida Gwaii 863 848 21,196

School District 51 Boundary 1,064 828 20,688

School District 52 Prince Rupert 1,010 989 24,730

School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen 1,069 872 21,790

20 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS Total emissions Total offsets purchased Offset investment School district (tonnes) (tonnes) (dollars) School District 54 Bulkley Valley 1,296 918 22,941

School District 57 Prince George 6,585 6,573 164,333

School District 58 Nicola-Similkameen 1,192 974 24,355

School District 59 Peace River South 3,751 2,863 71,578

School District 60 Peace River North 4,145 2,879 71,984

School District 61 Greater Victoria 6,096 6,082 152,040

School District 62 Sooke 2,892 2,306 57,649

School District 63 Saanich 2,181 1,793 44,832

School District 64 Gulf Islands 327 216 5,388

School District 67 Okanagan Skaha 1,933 1,814 45,356

School District 68 Ladysmith 4,456 3,912 97,805

School District 69 Qualicum 2,201 1,707 42,677

School District 70 Alberni 1,646 1,437 35,916

School District 71 Comox Valley 2,499 2,463 61,584

School District 72 Campbell River 2,652 2,279 56,975

School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson 5,846 4,260 106,496

School District 74 Gold Trail 1,183 776 19,400

School District 75 Mission 2,314 1,934 48,338

School District 78 Fraser-Cascade 1,085 871 21,766

School District 79 Cowichan Valley 3,441 2,643 66,068

School District 81 Fort Nelson 699 694 17,356

School District 82 Coast Mountains 2,548 2,533 63,320

School District 83 3,537 2,471 61,784 North Okanagan-Shuswap

School District 84 Vancouver Island West 202 181 4,514

School District 85 Vancouver Island North 788 656 16,392

School District 87 Stikine 485 485 12,129

School District 91 Nechako Lakes 3,641 2,578 64,453

School District 92 Nisga’a 107 88 2,196

School District 93 2,300 2,300 57,504 Conseil Scolaire Francophone

School district total 198,387 176,672 4,416,798

Note: Individual tonnes and dollar values are rounded to the nearest whole number, therefore individual numbers may not equal total values. Source: Carbon Neutral B.C. – Transforming B.C.’s Public Sector LiveSmart BC, http://www.livesmartbc.ca/ attachments/carbon_neutral_action_reports/CarbonNeutralBC-transformingBCpublicsector.pdf

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 21 Notes

1 See definition in Merriam-Webster online 8 BC Association of School Business Officials, dictionary at http://www.merriam-webster.com/ “2010/11 estimated cost and funding pressures,” dictionary/catch%2022 (December 2009) as quoted in Margaret White, “Budget Update: Budget 2011 not enough to 2 BC Ministry of Environment, “Carbon-neutral resolve funding crisis,” BCTF Research Report, B.C.: A first for North America,” Press Release, February 2011. Web: http://www.bctf.ca/ June 30, 2011. Web: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/ publications.aspx?id=5630 news_releases_2009-2013/2011ENV0032-000805. htm 9 Margaret White, “Budget Update: Budget 2011 not enough to resolve funding crisis,” BCTF 3 Doug Wall, “Climate Action: Leading by example,” Research Report, February 2011. Web: http://www. SPOA BC Ops Talk, Spring 2011, pp. 18-19. As a bctf.ca/publications.aspx?id=5630 sector, school districts were just slightly behind health authorities and accounted for 24.4 per cent 10 BC Ministry of Education, “Policy Document: of public sector emissions in 2010. Annual Facility Grant,” Ministry of Education website. Web: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/ 4 Heather Fussell and Charley Beresford, “When policies/annual_fac_grant.htm More is Less,” Centre for Civic Governance, 2009. p. 2. Web: http://www.civicgovernance.ca/ 11 School District No. 57 (Prince George), “District publications/when-more-less Sustainability Committee Report,” January 19, 2010. Web: http://www.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/cao. 5 John Malcolmson (Research Representative, sd57.bc.ca/District_Info/Reports/2010.01.19_ CUPE BC Region), “Highest funding ever? DSC_Report.pdf Why a funding crisis for BC school districts?,” Presentation to SD 41 (Burnaby), February 2, 2011. 12 Joel Canlas (Assistant Manager Maintenance, SD 38), “Re: School District #38 (Richmond) 6 Fussell and Beresford, supra note 4, p. 10. HVAC Report January 2010,” SD 38 Maintenance 7 Janet Steffenhagen, “Some “added pressure” Department, February 3, 2010. Web: for BC school districts,” Report Card (Blog on 13 SD 57, “Proposed upgrade — ground source heat Vancouver Sun website), May 15, 2011. Web: pump, Carney Hill Elementary School,” MSUP http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/ Application, August 26, 2010. blogs/reportcard/archive/2011/05/15/some- quot-added-pressure-quot-for-bc-school-district- 14 Marc Lee, Fair and Effective Carbon Pricing: Lessons budgets.aspx from BC, CCPA–BC and Sierra Club, February 2011, p. 22. Web: http://www.policyalternatives. ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/ BC%20Office/2011/02/CCPA-BC_Fair_Effective_ Carbon_FULL_2.pdf

22 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS 15 Margaret White, “Budget Update: Budget 2011 22 It should be noted that while schools districts not enough to resolve funding crisis,” BCTF are refunded for carbon tax payments, many Research Report, February 2011. Web: http://www. other BC public sector bodies are in effect paying bctf.ca/publications.aspx?id=5630 twice the price of private sector for carbon: $25/ tonne carbon tax plus mandatory carbon offset 16 Doug Wall, “Climate Action: Leading by example,” purchases at $25/tonne means they are paying a SPOA BC Ops Talk, Spring 2011, pp. 18-19. $50/tonne carbon price (see Lee, supra note 14). 17 Offsetters, “Sk’elep School of Excellence,” 23 Gerard Wynn and Nina Chestney, “Carbon offsets Offsetters website, accessed July 16, 2011. near record low, worst performing commodity,” Web: http://www.offsetters.ca/offset-projects/ Reuters, August 5, 2011. Web: http://www.reuters. by-country/school-of-excellence com/article/2011/08/05/us-carbon-low-idUSTRE 18 Pacific Carbon Trust, “Pacific Carbon Trust 77442920110805?feedType=RSS&feedName=env Growing BC’s Green Economy” (presentation ironmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_ slides), January 2010. Web: http://www. medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters pacificcarbontrust.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=P %2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Envi l5rkzkaOiI%3D&tabid=124&mid=573) ronment%29&utm_content=Netvibes 19 Author’s calculations based on wholesale price 24 Delta Board of Education, 2010 Carbon of $10 to $20 per tonne identified in the Pacific Neutral Action Report, Delta School Carbon Trust presentation “Pacific Carbon Trust District website. Web: http://maint.deltasd. Growing BC’s Green Economy” (presentation bc.ca/sustainability/documents/FINAL_ slides), January 2010. Web: http://www. DeltaBoardOfEducation_2010_CNAR.pdf pacificcarbontrust.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=P and Government of BC, Carbon Neutral l5rkzkaOiI%3D&tabid=124&mid=573) B.C. — Transforming B.C.’s Public Sector, 20 Ben Parfitt, “Darkwoods, the murky world Livesmart BC Website, July 2011. Web: http:// of carbon credits and a ‘carbon neutral’ B.C. www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/carbon_ government,” CCPA Policynote, July 15, 2011. neutral_action_reports/CarbonNeutralBC- Web: http://www.policynote.ca/darkwoods- transformingBCpublicsector.pdf the-murky-world-of-carbon-credits-and-a- 25 Rikki Schierer, “Boiler upgrade to help efficiency,” %E2%80%9Ccarbon-neutral%E2%80%9D-b-c- Smithers Interior News, April 5, 2011. Web: http:// government/ www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/interior-news/ 21 Author’s calculation based on Parfitt’s estimated news/119197504.html price of Darkwoods offsets (55 per cent of PCT’s 26 “Surrey high schools go green with solar ‘Carbon Neutral Public Sector Portfolio’ and the panels,” Civic Surrey website, February 11, 2011. middle point of the “$10–20 band” paid by PCT Web: http://www.civicsurrey.com/2011/02/11/ for other offsets, as cited in a PCT presentation surrey-high-schools-go-green-with-solar-panels/ (offsets other than Darkwoods accounted for 27 BC Ministry of Environment, Climate Action 45 per cent of the ‘Carbon Neutral Public Sector Secretariat, “Public Sector Energy Conservation Portfolio’): (55% of 176,672 offsets * @ markup Agreement.” Web: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/ of $19.30 = $1,875,373) + (45% of 176,672 offsets mitigation/pseca.html * @ markup of $10 = $795,024) = total of $2,670,397. 28 BCTF, “School Closures home page,” 2011. Web: http://bctf.ca/SchoolClosures.aspx 29 White, supra note 15.

COLUMBIA INSTITUTE / CENTRE FOR CIVIC GOVERNANCE 23 30 ICLEI European Secretariat, A Framework 36 Wall, supra note 3, pp. 18-19. for Climate or Carbon Neutrality for Local 37 The Vancouver Elementary School Teachers’ Governments, ICLEI-Local Governments for Association (VESTA) and others have proposed Sustainability website, March 2011. Web: http:// precisely this type of option — see Chris Harris toolbox.climate-protection.eu/fileadmin/ (VESTA President), Letter to Vancouver Board of templates/toolbox-climate-protection/scripts/ Education, May 12, 2010. energyformayors_resources/_tools/put_file. php?uid=701af7f9 38 Kim Lau and Hadi Dowlatabadi, “Expanding the scope of British Columbia’s ‘carbon neutral 31 Alex Kirby et al., Kick the Habit — A UN Guide to government’ mandate,” Briefing Note 2011 Climate Neutrality, United Nations Environment – 31, ISIS, Sauder School of Business, UBC and Programme, 2008. Web: http://www.unep.org/ Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), March 17, publications/ebooks/kick-the-habit/ 2011. 32 See Salix Finance Ltd. website, 2011. Web: http:// 39 Government of BC and UBCM, Becoming Carbon www.salixfinance.co.uk/ Neutral: A Guidebook for Local Governments in BC 33 “Local Authorities Case Studies,” Salix Finance (Version 2). July 2011. Web: http://toolkit.bc.ca/ Ltd. website, 2011. Web: http://www.salixfinance. sites/default/files/CNLG%20Final%20July%20 co.uk/local_authorities_case_studies.html 2011_V2.pdf 34 Department of Environment and Climate Change 40 Government of UK Department of Energy and NSW, Australia, NSW Government Sustainability Climate Change, “The Government Carbon Policy, accessed July 8, 2011. Web: http://www. Offsetting Facility” webpage, 2011. Web: http:// environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/government/ www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ 08453SustainabilityPolicy.pdf co2_offsetting/gov_offsetting/using_gcof/using_ gcof.aspx 35 Enid Slack, “Capital Funding for Schools: A Report prepared for the Toronto District School Board,” April 20, 2010. Web: http://www.tdsb. on.ca/wwwdocuments/about_us/budget_ information/docs/November%201%20Enid%20 SlackResearch_Report.pdf

24 CATCH $25: HOW MANDATORY CARBON OFFSETS ARE UNDERMINING REAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN BC SCHOOL DISTRICTS

The Centre for Civic Governance works to support community leadership meeting today’s social and environmental challenges: global warming, Canada’s increasing equity gap, the impact of technology and changing social trends.

At the Centre for Civic Governance, our goal is to strengthen Canadian communities through sharing best practices, providing tools for locally elected leaders, and progressive policy analysis. We strive to provide knowledge and information to make real and positive social change.

The Centre for Civic Governance is an initiative of the Columbia Institute, a charitable organization established to activate and motivate working people to build strong, progressive communities throughout Canada. Building Fast Action for Climate Change and Green Jobs

This Green House Executive Summary Executive Summary

To avoid catastrophic climate change, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change names 2015 as the year green house gas emissions must peak and begin a downhill slide. The IPCC calls on developed countries to lower emissions from 1990 levels by 25% to 40% by the year 2020. Canada, the world’s 9th largest economy, is failing spectacularly at this goal. Canada’s current goal, adjusted to 1990, amounts to a 3% reduction. In fact we’re not meeting that, emissions continue to rise in Canada. Forward thinking municipal leaders are not waiting to take action. All across Canada early adopters are developing climate action plans, looking ahead to manage climate impacts like sea level rise and taking action on clean energy. Energy use in buildings accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada. Energy-efficiency retrofits offer a fast and affordable way to cut GHG emissions,- con serve energy and save consumers money on their utility bills. The bonus for individual homeowners, besides lower energy bills and increased comfort, is that their home increases in value with energy retrofitting.1 There are community bonuses too. Money invested in retrofitting stays in the local and regional economy and retrofit programs result in jobs and training opportunities. In addition to direct cuts in emissions from energy conservation, retrofit jobs are green jobs. They perform well in environmental terms. As an example, construction jobs produce 180 times less in emissions per job than those in oil and gas extraction.2 Unlike some other measures, retrofits can be started right now, using existing skills and technologies Municipalities can take action on climate change, stimulate their local economy and help homeowners save money on energy bills, live in increased comfort and add value to their homes all at the same time. This Green House: Building Fast Action on Climate Change and Green Jobs examines a core idea: Municipalities providing low-cost financing to cover the upfront cost of energy-efficient retrofits and property owners repaying over time on their property taxes with their energy savings. The report identifies two promising models for municipal residential energy-efficiency financing programs in Canada: Local Improvement Charges for Energy Efficiency and on-utility bill financing (sometimes called “Pay as You Save”). Both models are essentially types of low-cost financing to help homeowners overcome barriers to home energy-efficiency retrofits, and both can be run as full cost-recovery programs, at no net cost to the municipality. Drawing on Canadian policy research and case studies and lessons learned from existing US programs, this report provides a general overview and then province-by-province analysis of opportun-

This Green House: Building Fast Action for Climate Change and Green Jobs 1 ities, potential legislative and regulatory barriers (and solutions), useful policy precedents and other resources that can help local leaders get started on the development of municipally led energy-efficiency home-retrofit programs. Report Highlights Environmental Benefits of Energy-Efficiency Retrofitting • A $7,000 retrofit in Canada can reduce the average detached home’s energy use by 23% to 26%,3 and cut the average household’s GHG emissions by approximately 3.1 tonnes per year. • Widespread investment in efficiency retrofits could cut GHG emissions in the buildings sector by 27%.4 • This means GHG reductions in the range of 19 megatonnes (mt) of CO2e per year, slicing off about 2.6% of Canada’s overall national total. Community Benefits of Energy-Efficiency Retrofitting • Retrofitting creates between 13 and 16 direct jobs for every $1 million of increased economic out- put —that’s 50 to 60 times the job creation rate of oil and gas extraction.5 • Dollars invested in retrofitting stimulate the local and regional economy and stay in local and regional circulation several times over. • Financing programs can be run at full cost-recovery for the municipality. • Efficiency retrofits can help communities meet legislated GHG reduction targets and voluntary emissions reduction commitments. Homeowner benefits • Homeowners can save $700 a year on a $2,000 annual heating bill by implementing home retrofit recommendations from the existing federal home energy audit program.6 • Homeowners will increase the value of their homes • Homeowners will live in increased comfort Models for Municipal Financing Programs Local Improvement Charges for energy efficiency and Utility On-Bill financing are promising models for Canadian municipalities. Both models are designed to help homeowners overcome the key financial barriers to energy retrofits: upfront costs, expensive consumer credit and home ownership lengths that are too short to realize cost savings from a retrofit. Two Canadian cities (Halifax and Vancouver) are launching programs using variants of these models in 2011, and case studies of similar programs operating in the USA are analyzed in section 3 of this report.

2 This Green House: Building Fast Action for Climate Change and Green Jobs 1. Local Improvement Charges for Energy Efficiency (or “Property Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits”) • Municipalities provide low-cost financing for homeowners to pay the upfront cost of approved energy-efficiency retrofits, and participating owners repay the city over time as a special assessment on their property taxes. • The special assessment can be attached to the property rather than the owners upon resale of the property, responsibility for any remaining repayments are passed to the new owner. • Repayments can be scheduled to balance out with energy bill savings, so that repayments are cash- flow neutral for participating homeowners during the financing period. • The special assessment can be secured with a lien on the property in the event of default, similar to what happens in the case of failure to pay property taxes. Default rates have been very low in similar programs elsewhere. • Program participation is entirely voluntary and does not affect the property taxes of nonparticipants. 2. On-Utility Bill Financing (or “Pay as You Save”) • Energy consumers borrow money to carry out retrofits and then pay back the loan as a charge on their energy utility bills. • Repayment is usually designed so that monthly payments are approximately equal to (or even less than) the savings in energy costs resulting from energy-efficiency measures. • At the municipal level, on-bill financing programs are most viable for municipalities that own their local energy utilities. Other municipalities could play a role through partnerships with provincial public utilities or even private energy companies. What do Canadian municipalities need to move forward? Legislative and regulatory changes • Municipalities need clarification from provincial governments about the use of Local Improvement Charges (LICs) to finance energy-efficiency measures on private property. In some provinces, this may require changes to existing municipal legislation and regulations. ❍ In provinces with ambiguous legislation or regulations governing the use and scope of LICs, clarification or official authorization from provincial municipal affairs ministries would open the door to municipal retrofit programs. ❍ In provinces with explicitly restrictive legislation governing the use of LICs, legislative amendments will likely be necessary. Legislation enabling the use of LICs to finance residential renewable energy and efficiency retrofits was passed by the province of Nova Scotia in December 2010 and provides a precedent for similar changes in other provinces.

This Green House: Building Fast Action for Climate Change and Green Jobs 3 Potential capital sources While the financing programs can be designed to be full cost-recovery and thus revenue-neutral, municipalities will nonetheless need sources of capital to back retrofit financing programs. Possibilities identified in this report include: • Low-interest borrowing via provincial municipal finance pools (such as the Municipal Financing Authority in BC or Infrastructure Ontario’s Loan Program). • The establishment of a federal or provincial energy-efficiency loan fund. • Municipal/community bonds. • Credit-enhanced capital pools. • Partnerships with credit unions or other financial institutions. • Energy utilities as “banks “for municipally administered retrofit financing. • Pilot-project funding from the FCM’s Green Municipal Fund.

4 This Green House: Building Fast Action for Climate Change and Green Jobs

From: Lyall Fetherstonhaugh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: October 18, 2011 9:58 AM To: Mayor's Office Subject: Good Work

Gentlemen

I would like to thank the RMOW for the significant habitat improvements made this year on the Cheakamus Lake Road wildlife corridor. In no particular order thank you Mayor and Council for directing staff to act, Andrew Tucker at the WWTP and James Hallisay,Engineering, for greatly reducing outdoor lighting at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, Tim Brooksbank and his Roads crew for restoring the riparian berm and removing part of the road divider making it more deer friendly, Dave Patterson and his Parks crew for creating a window of darkness for wildlife crossing the valley trail and tree planting, as well as Heather Beresford for coordinating the efforts. After all the talking and plans on how Whistler values the environment it’s great to see such positive action.

Lyall Fetherstonhaugh c:c Pique Newsmagazine