Director of Operations & Development Services From: Deputy

CITY OF PITT MEADOWS

To: Chief Administrative Officer File No: 521001/2012

From: Deputy CAO & Bylaw No.:Director of Operations &Development Services

Date: November jSt 2012

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS:

THAT Council:

A. Receive the report dated November 1st, 2012 from the Deputy CAO &Director of Operations and Development Services for information.

PURPOSE

To provide Council with a briefing on the first three (3) years of operation of theCity’s Storm Drainage Utility highlighting some issues and challenges faced bythe utility.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Pitt Meadows is surrounded by a series of dikes that protects themajority of the Cities’ land base from freshet flooding of the Fraser, Pitt andAlouette River systems. While the dike system offers protection from riverflooding, it also holds in rainwater and snow melt and as such a large percentageof the run-off generated and/or collected in Pitt Meadows requires pumping overthe dike system.

The drainage system consists of four (4) separate, independent drainage areas,as shown on Attachment A. Only one drainage area is impacted by urban stormwater run-off — Area No. 3. In addition, a portion of the District of Maple Ridge(Attachment B) drains through Area No. 3 to pump stations located within PittMeadows.

COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE REPORT

Subject: Drainage Utility Briefing

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S

#101835v1

Drainage Utility Briefin 2

Area No. 1 and Area No. 4 were amalgamated with Pitt Meadows from theDewdney Alouette Regional District (DARD) in 1995. The dikes, pump stations,and flood boxes in these two areas were constructed circa 1930s to 1950s. Atthe time of the transfer from DARD little, if any, funds were allocated to reservesfor the life cycle needs of these assets and staff does not believe anyimprovements to this infrastructure was completed by DARD prior toamalgamation.

The last significant capital investment in drainage infrastructure prior to theadoption of the drainage utility took place in the early 1980’s in Drainage AreaNo. 2 and 3 with the construction of the Fenton, Kennedy, Baynes andMcKechnie pump stations and flood boxes using funding from the Agriculturaland Rural Development Subsidiary Agreement (ARDSA) program.

The ARDSA program set the standard for rural/agricultural drainage in PittMeadows and across the province and is the standard still used today by theMinistry of Agriculture and other municipalities. This standard or level of serviceallows for a certain level of flooding to occur; as a result the drainage systemswere designed to remove flood waters from a 10 year, 2 day storm event within 2days during the growing season, and from a 10 year, 5 day storm event within 5days during the dormant (winter) season. There is a level of risk that is assumedacceptable with this standard. The risk is that on average every 10 years a stormmay occur that is larger than the drainage system is designed for and thatflooding in excess of the specified time periods may occur. It is also possible thatthese events may occur more than once a year.

In response to complaints from rural residents about flooding that occurredfollowing severe rainfall events in November 2003 and January 2005 (classifiedas 1:30 year events), Council engaged an engineering firm to evaluate the stateof Pitt Meadows’ lowland drainage systems. Klohn Crippen Berger & Associates(KCB) completed their study of the drainage system in April 2006. The studyconcluded that while the drainage system met with the ARDSA standard, with theexception of Drainage Area No. I and 4, the flooding allowed by the ARDSAcriteria was no longer appeared acceptable to landowners in Pitt Meadows.

Since flooding permitted under the ARSDA criteria did not appear to beacceptable to landowners KCB formulated new drainage criteria, referred to asthe MODIFIED ARDSA standard, wherein there would be no flooding during the5 day and 2 day, ARDSA 10 year storm events. Flooding would still be expectedto occur in low lying areas during storm events in excess of a 1:10 year stormevent.

A list of capital improvements ranging from $2,104,000 for works to bring thesystem up to the ARDSA standard in Area 1 and 4, to $13,500,000 to implementnew criteria that would eliminate flooding from the 10 year ARDSA storm in allthe Drainage Areas were presented in the Klohn Crippen report.

#101 835v1

Drainacie Utility Briefinci 3

AECOM Engineering was retained by the City in 2007 to assist in thedevelopment of an implementation strategy, including strategies for fundingimprovements needed to eliminate flooding from the 10 year ARDSA storm, thatlead to the eventual development of a City wide Drainage Utility that came intofull force and effective January 1, 2009.

The cost to operate, maintain, and improve the drainage system to the newMODIFIED ARDSA standard was projected out over 40 years to the year 2050;the time period that is representative of the life expectancy of the City’s majorpump stations. In doing so, it was determined that a revenue equivalent to$1 ,707,0001 annually was required.

Figure 1. Estimated Long Term Drainage Costs (to year 2050)2

Culerts,

Pump stations andflood boxes,$25,400,000

Miscellaneouscapital, $21,800,000

Klohn CnppenBerger upgrades,

$13,500,000

Operating andr__ maintenance,$74,800,000

Based on this information an implementation plan (summarized in Attachment C)was developed that has been used as the basis for capital infrastructure planningsince the adoption of the utility model in 2009.

DISCUSSION:

Pump Station and Flood Box UpgradelReplacement Program:

The City operates and maintains six (6) pump stations, fifteen (15) pumps andeight (8) flood boxes, in the locations shown on Attachment A and referred tobelow.

‘This figure does not include the cost of debt servicing out to 20502

City of Pitt Meadows Proposed Drainage Utility Discussion Paper, AECOM March 2008 (Attachment F)

/

Administration,$10,700,000

#101835v1

Drainage Utility Briefing 4

Area No. 1 No. 1 Pump station and flood box

A 490 hectare drainage catchment area transferred from theDewdney Alouette Regional District to Pitt Meadows in 1995.The original pump station and flood box was constructedaround the 1930s to 1950s.

Area No. 2 Fenton Pump station and flood boxCharlier Road flood box

A 495 hectare drainage catchment area with drainageinfrastructure built/upgraded using grant funding from theAgricultural and Rural Subsidiary Development Agreement(ARDSA) during the 1980s.

Area No. 3 Kennedy Road Pump station and flood boxBaynes Road Pump station and flood boxMcKechnie Pump stationReichenbach flood box

A 4,035 hectare drainage catchment area. 15% of which islocated in the District of Maple Ridge. Again, all of thedrainage infrastructure was built/upgraded using grantfunding from the Agricultural and Rural SubsidiaryDevelopment Agreement (ARDSA) during the 1980s.

Area No. 4 Area No. 4 Pump stationSturgeon Slough flood boxDieter’s Crossing flood box (Pitt Polder)

A 1,650 hectare drainage catchment area

All of the pumps and major pump station electrical systems in all of thesecatchments are reaching the end of their useful life and need constantmaintenance. The majority of the City’s pump station infrastructure is alsoroughly the same age, (approximately 30 years old or older), with the exceptionof Pump Station No. 1 (newly constructed in 2010).

The average expected life cycle of a pump is 20 years and the major electricalcomponents in a pump station have on average a 25 year life cycle.

One of the real challenges in the utility is to try and spread the costs of upgradingand or replacing the pump stations, which are all well beyond the expected usefullife of 20 years, out over the longer term to manage costs.

#101 835v1


Pump Life Cycle Replacement

The current replacement program assumes one pump is replaced per year forthe next 13 years. The program when first established also assumed that onepump per station could be switched out, when in fact the pumps, controls, andappurtenances all need to be updated at the same time to ensure the pumpstations function properly.

An engineering review and assessment of all of the pump stations wasundertaken in an effort to develop standardized specifications for the upgrade ofeach station that maximizes operational efficiencies. The review has alsoconfirmed the need to ensure funding to upgrade the electrical systems as wellas the pumps is accounted for in the capital program. As a result, staff will berecommending a $2,000,000 increase in capital funding for pump lifecyclereplacement as part of the 2013-2017 capital budget.

Area No. I Pump station (2009/201 0):

The circa 1930 - 1950 pump station in Area No. 1 was replaced by a new largercapacity pump station in 2009/2010. The total cost of the new station, flood boxand trash rack was $2,781,148; $1,027,200 was funded through a grant.

Since construction, the new station has been able to keep the entire catchmentarea flood free. The addition of the automated trash racks keeps the pumpscreens clean and allows for the free flow of water into the pump station which iscritical to staying ahead of a storm event. A new flood box was also constructedthat now allows for the gravity discharge of run-off when river levels permit. Theoriginal circa 1930- 1950 flood box in this area fell into disrepair and as a costsaving measure was sealed shut sometime in 1996.

When the City’s pump stations are pumping at capacity they are able to pumpout with favourable weather conditions, up to 1 inch of total precipitation per day.During a storm event it is the flood gates opening during low tide that really helpsdraw down internal water levels.

McKechnie Sub-Catchment Improvements (2012-2014)

Due to the interconnectivity of the McKechnie sub-catchment (Attachment D) withthe rest of Drainage Area No. 3 crossover flow volume into the McKechnie subcatchment is an issue.

“During the winter event, the crossover amount is 67% of the volume generatedover the McKechnie area, while during the growing season event this percentagerises to 90% due to the lack of flood box relief in the Cranberry drainage area.”3

McKechnie Drainage Study, Binnie and Associates December 1998

#101 835v1


Land elevation in the McKechnie sub-catchment ranges between 0.7 and 1.0metre geodetic; some of the lowest land in all of Pitt Meadows. Land outside thecatchment, in other parts of Area No. 3, are at elevations of up to 2.8 metresgeodetic. During extreme rainfall events, runoff in Drainage Area No. 3accumulates in the McKechnie sub-catchment and remains trapped causingchronic flooding problems long after levels in other parts of Area No. 3 havedropped. The timeline for improvements in this sub-catchment, originally plannedfor 2019-2023, were accelerated in 2010 due to concerns with chronic flooding inthe area.

Construction of the improvements described below was to have been initiated in2010 and completed in 2011, with the assistance of grant funding, but wasdelayed by almost two years as the City awaited the funding announcement.The grant application was submitted in May 2009 and the City was advised inJanuary 2012 that its application was not successful.

Construction of this project got underway this fall and is expected to becompleted later this winter.

The project involves:

1. Isolating the sub-catchment area with adjustable weirs installed atstrategic locations throughout the catchment to reduce and preventcrossover flow depending on the conditions, and to provide faster floodrelief utilizing the existing McKechnie pump station.

2. Installation of automated trash racks to keep the pump screens clear.McKechnie pump station has been identified as one of the worst stationsin Pitt Meadows for screen clogging4.

3. The installation of a flood box in this sub-catchment was initially beingconsidered but as a result of more detailed engineering work it has beendetermined that a flood box would provide no additional relief in thiscatchment. The elevation of the slough in relation to the Alouette Rivermakes it unlikely that a flood box would open during a low tide event. Thisis likely why one was never constructed with the pump station in 1984.

Staff is therefore recommending that a flood box at the McKechnie pumpstation be dropped from the long term capital plan. The financial impact ofthis change is minimal since the project was to have been funded bygrants.

The current 5 year drainage capital plan (2012 —2016) includes the followingcapital improvement projects in the McKechnie Sub-catchment:

Klohn Crippen Drainage and Irrigation Study, 2006

#101835v1


Current 5 Year Capital Project Plan Cost YearMcKechnie flow control weirs $835,000 2012McKechnie Automated trash racks $400,000 2012/2013McKechnie Flood box(grantdependent)** $600,000 2012

**project was dependent on grant funding. Staff will be recommending this project be dropped from the longterm capital program in 2013 as a result of more detailed engineering work undertaken in 2012.

While the original grant application was unsuccessful as previously mentioned,the application has been resurrected for consideration due to another projectbacking out of the program. If successful, this grant would help cover the lifecycle replacement costs of upgrading the pumps at the McKechnie pump stationwhich is estimated at $802,500.

A copy of the preliminary draft capital budget for 2013 — 2016 is included inAttachment H.

Area No. 4 (Pitt Polder) Pump station (2012/201 3):

The largest project remaining in the current five year capital plan is thereplacement of the circa 1930 to 1950 Area No. 4 (Pitt Polder) pump station. Thedetailed engineering design work completed this year in anticipation ofconstruction of this station in 2013 has just been completed and preliminary costestimates for the construction of this station range between $4,900,000 includingengineering and construction contingencies, and $7,400,000 depending on thestyle of pump utilized in the project. The budget in the current capital plan for thisproject, including engineering design, is $2,500,000.

Staff has applied for a $3,875,900 grant for the construction of this pump stationunder the Canada-British Columbia-Union of British Columbia MunicipalitiesAgreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues program.

Staff expect Council may wish to consider deferring this project pending anannouncement of possible grant funding, however works in excess of $250,000would still be needed to fix some serious mechanical and electrical issues at thestation. The only way to avoid these costs is to replace the station.

Other 2013 to 2016 Pump Station Improvements:

Automated Trash Racks

Automated trash rack installations are currently budgeted every 2 years at$200,000. The next station to have automated trash racks, after the McKechniepump station in Area No. 3, is the Fenton pump station in Area No. 2.

Milfoil weed and trash build up on the bar screens are the main limiting factors atmost of the pump stations. Clearing of trash and weeds from the trash racks

#101 835v1


must be carried out on a regular basis, particularly during high flows, in order tomaintain the efficiency and effectiveness of the pumps stations. The majority ofthis work is currently being done by hand which is physically demanding, labourintensive and time consuming work. The introduction of automated trash racksinto the system is a much more efficient and effective way of ensuring the pumpbar screens remain clear as demonstrated by the effectiveness of the automatedtrash racks at the Area No. 1 pump station.

SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System

The pump stations are inspected twice a week and are monitored continuouslyvia the SCADA system. The current SCADA system supplied by Motorola on theMoscad format was discontinued in 2007 and all of the City’s systems are beingupgraded to the new ACE 3600 format. As a result, all of the pump stationsrequire this upgrading. Pump Station No. I was upgraded to this new formatduring the construction of the new pump station in 2009/2010 and upgrades atthe other stations are being phased in over several years as budget permits.

Power Supply

The single most common problem that plagues the pump stations are electricalpower failures. Typically these failures will occur during large storm events whenoperation of the pumps is critical. None of the City’s drainage pump stationshave emergency backup power. All of these stations are on BC Hydro’s criticalinfrastructure list but response varies depending on BC Hydro’s workload. Dueto the size and power requirements of these stations it would be very expensiveto install back -up generators and these costs aren’t currently provided for in theutility capital program which is a risk.

There are flood gates at all of these stations, with the exception of McKechnie,that will function regardless of the availability of power provided the conditionsare right, i.e. low tide.

Water Level Gauges:

Currently water level gauges (staff gauges) are located at all pump stations atboth the inlet and outlet points. Based on the recommendations of the KlohnCrippen report the City’s SCADA program has been updated to allow the captureof historic data, which can and is being used to predict river, slough and ditchwater elevations. With this historic data staff is able to monitor and predict waterlevels at strategic points in the drainage system. This allows Operations staff toturn pump stations on and or change set points earlier in anticipation of higherflows or in anticipation of severe rainfall events.

#101 835v1


Culvert Replacement Program:

The City is responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of 725culverts. These culverts are broken out into two types: the small to largediameter pipe culverts and the large diameter concrete box culverts, usuallyconstructed at major slough crossings. We draw this distinction because the costto replace a pipe culvert ranges from $125/rn - $600/rn, while the cost to replacea concrete box culvert ranges from $1 ,250/m — $2,770/rn.

Klohn Crippen identified a number of undersized culverts which are impedingflows to the pump stations and impacting the efficiency of the ongoing ditchcleaning program — total cost to replace these culverts in 2006 was estimated at$3,866,900.

Other culvert costs not identified in the Klohn Crippen study but included in theutility include:

• approximately 65 very small diameter culverts categorized as 300 mmor smaller that AECOM recommended be replaced due to their smallsize and tendency to block due to siltation, weeds, debris, andsloughing; and

• replacement of deteriorated/collapsed culverts — estimated at a cost ofapproximately $50,000 - $100,000 annually.

The total estimated cost of the culvert replacement program to 2050 wasestimated by AECOM to be $4,600,000.

Culvert replacements are prioritized based on condition and size, and arecoordinated for replacement with major road projects where possible to avoidunnecessary road cuts after roads have been rehabilitated.

Despite investment in this program the rate of culvert failure exceeds the City’scurrent rate of investment. The current culvert replacement program is set at$200,000 every other year in order to facilitate replacement of large diameterculverts, as required. Since 2008, $625,785 has been spent replacing culverts.

Key Ditches:

Channels considered critical to the operation of the City’s drainage systems wereidentified in the Klohn Crippen report on both public and private lands. The Cityhas regulatory control over these “key ditches” under the City’s Drainage Bylaw(No. 2266, 2007). A map showing the location of all of the key ditches in PittMeadows is provided in Attachment E.

In accordance with Drainage Bylaw (No. 2266, 2007) property owners arerequired to obtain permits from the City for:

City of Pitt Meadows Proposed Drainage Utility Discussion Paper, AECOM March 2008

#101 835v1


• constructing in key ditches or watercourses in order to prevent damconstruction, lining of ditches, and obstruction of flows;

• enclosing a key ditch or watercourse, which could impact flows, divertwater, cause flooding, or impact the environment;

• the installation of culverts in key ditches or watercourses and requires allculverts to be installed by the City, or City hired contractors to ensure thatculverts are installed to the exact specifications required; and

• limits rural driveway access to one per parcel, to reduce the number ofculverts in the drainage system and is consistent with urban standards.

Culvert Specifications:

In 2007, the City adopted minimum culvert sizes for all key ditches based on therecommendations of Klohn Crippen that take into account system gradients andforecasted global warming & climatic changes (Attachment F).

Prior to the adoption of Bylaw No. 2266, 2007 the City had no specifications forthe installation of culverts and culverts were installed by property owners whichhas resulted in an extremely large inventory of undersized culverts and orculverts placed at inappropriate elevations.

As mentioned in a previous section these culverts are replaced based on theirpriority, condition and availability of funds.

Ditch Maintenance:

The City is responsible for the maintenance of 204 kilometres of key ditches.The City currently cleans these ditches, except the major sloughs, on a 3 to 4year rotational basis. In addition, routine inspections may identify areas that mayrequire additional cleaning or removal of blockages.

Not all key ditches are located within City rights of way; hence the City relies onthe private land owner to clean some key ditches. Drainage Bylaw (No. 2266,2007) requires owners to maintain private “key ditches” which are integral to theoperation and capacity of the rural drainage system. If owners want the City tomaintain “key ditches” on their property owners must provide the City with a 6metre access corridor.

The following is a list of some of the most significant issues influencing the ditchmaintenance program:

#101835v1


• Access to key ditches on private property

Since implementation of the drainage utility and adoption of the newDrainage Bylaw, access to key ditches on private property has beenimproving. Owners of property with identified key ditches are sent a letterin early spring advising them that the key ditch on their property is in needof cleaning, reminding them of their obligation to clean the ditch, andproviding them with the option of having the ditch cleaned by the Citysubject to the provision of appropriate access and placement of spoil.

Access remains a challenge however in areas where agriculturalplantings, fencing, and decorative landscaping have been placed right upto top of bank. This not only restricts access but does not allow for anyroom to place the ditch spoil that is removed. Not having any ROW,easement, or ownership of these corridors has and will always beproblematic for Pitt Meadows. The Department hopes to have cleaned allof the key ditches at least once, since adoption of the utility, by this timenext year.

• Cleaning of the Major Sloughs

The major sloughs that serve as the main arteries of the City’s drainagesystem have not been cleaned since they were first dredged andreconfigured as part of the ARDSA program in the early 1980’s. As aresult, the conveyance standards established under the ARDSA programfor these sloughs are not being met.

Not being able to clean these sloughs due to access and fisheries issueshas resulted in some real problems with sedimentation and weed growthas shown in the images provided below.

An assessment of the fish habitat provided by the Katzie Slough, thelargest and most critical slough for drainage conveyance, was initiated in2011 as a critical first step in working towards the development of aprotocol(s) with DFO that would allow the City to clean sections of theslough.

A draft of the assessment has recently been received by staff that doesindicate that at certain times of the year the system can and is accessedby salmonids. Uncertainty respecting recent changes to the FederalFisheries Act has delayed finalization of the assessment document untilchanges to the Fisheries Act are finalized and a determination of theimpacts to Pitt Meadows can be better assessed by our consultant.

Given the scope of work and need for specialized equipment to cleanthese sloughs, additional funding for ditch maintenance will likely be

#101835v1


needed if the City is permitted access. An additional $100,000 per yearover the next 4 years is proposed to support major slough cleaning, ifapproved

Vegetation Growth in Katzie Slough

• Beaver management

An excessive population of beavers can pose a safety risk to thecommunity. Beavers block ditches and plug storm drain outlets andculverts, creating a flooding hazard.

Without sufficient numbers of natural predators in the area, the rate ofbeaver proliferation has increased in recent years resulting in an increasein the number of drainage back-ups and incidents of flooding caused bybeaver activity.

When it does become necessary to use trapping to remediate a floodingrisk, the City hires a provincially licensed trapper who follows the rules andregulations governed and controlled by the Province. Traps are notplaced on trails and/or in locations where leashed pets or children wouldbe likely to go.

• Disposal of ditching spoil

The City maintains and manages a fill site adjacent the North Alouette dikeon Neaves Road for the deposit of material removed from the roadsideditch system. The organic material removed during ditching is trucked anddeposit at this site by Operations crews. This controlled site provides avery cost effective means of dealing with this material. Staff estimatesthere to be only 5 years of available space left at this site which means theCity will need to find and or develop other means for the disposal of ditchmaterials.

L

Image 1. North of Airport Way Image 2. South of Lougheed Highway

#101835v1

Drainage UtIlltySriefinq 13

The closure of this fiN site has the potential of adding significant costs tothe ditch cleaning program which may require the frequency of ditchcleaning to be scaled back in order to try and offset some of these costs.

• Accelerated weed growth

Vegetation management in the rural drainage system is becomingincreasingly more difficult with aquatic invasive species (milfoil and parrotfeather) infestations in many areas of the system. Milfoil and parrotfeather can severely plug the trash racks at the City’s pump stations;thereby reducing the effectiveness of storm water pumping. If allowed toprogress unchecked the growth of these weeds can choke off the supplyof water to the pumps, which could result in mechanical pump failure.

Parrot feather is a native of the Amazon River in South America and is apopular aquatic garden plant. Parrot feather is well adapted to slowmoving water and high nutrient environments. It is the Department’sestimation that parrot feather was somehow introduced into the BaynesRoad ditch near Ford Road in 2004 and since that time has continued tospread. It has made its way into the Katzie Slough, travelling right to theKennedy Pump Station. Pockets of it have been observed in the ditchsystem constructed south of Airport Way near the approach to the GoldenEars Bridge and in the ditch system on Dewdney Trunk east of NeavesRoad in Maple Ridge. The assumption is that parrot feather is beingspread by water fowl.

The only means we have to deal with this problem is mechanical removalon an annual basis and as it spreads costs to remove it are expected toincrease.

The City of Pitt Meadows is one of only two BC municipalities that staff isaware of where parrot feather is present. Earlier this year, staff wascontacted by the City of Richmond who indicated that they too were tryingto deal with parrot feather.

Figure 1. Parrot feather in Baynes Roadside Ditch Figure 2. Parrot feather in Katzie Slough atKennedy Road Pump station

#101835v1


In Longview Washington, the Diking District there relies on a dragline toremove infesting parrot feather plants. They conduct the drag lineoperation from August to December each year with control generallylasting for one growing season.

In 2009, staff sat on the Aquatic Species Advisory Committee of the BCInvasive Species Council in an attempt to bring attention to the presenceof Parrotfeather in BC and voice concerns about its potential impacts. Asa result parrotfeather was included as one of the top 10 invasive speciesof interest.

Status of Improvements Recommended by Klohn Crippen:

The following is a list of MODIFIED ARDSA improvements recommended byKlohn Crippen, to eliminate ARDSA flooding:

Recommended Improvements Status

o Replacement of undersized culverts in all drainage areas; Began 2009Estimated cost $4,600,000 over the 40 years utility planning period (multi- year project)

o Establishment of minimum culvert specifications for all key Completedditches (including recommended climate change allowance); 2007

o Upgrade/replace and increasing capacity of Pump station No. 1 New stationArea No. 1 pump station was completely rebuilt in 2009/2010. The cost to the utility constructedwas $1,753,948 and the rest was provided through a grant for a total cost of 20 9/20 1$2,781,148.

o Ensure increased frequency of trash rack cleaning during highflow periods;

o Operational changes made in 2007 to improve frequency Implementedof manual cleaning 2007

o Automated trash racks being installed as stations Initiated 2010replacement and or upgraded

o New culvert under Rannie Road at McNeil Road in Area No. 4; Pending2014-2018

o Future pump station at Charlier Road and Reichenbach Road; PendingStation at Reichenbach Road to be re-evaluated as a result of improvements 2014-2018to isolate McKechnie Drainage Catchment in 2012. Station may no longerbe required.

o Increased pumping capacity in Area No. 3 in particular at Baynes 2013Baynes and McKechnie; McKechnie capacity to be re-evaluated; McKechnieimprovements made in catchment area in 2012 may eliminate the need for 2019-2023future capacity upgrades.

#101 835v1

Drainage Utitty Briefing 15

o Upgraded SCADA infrastructure at all stations to record Initiated 2009historic operational data and trending

ongoing

o Application of the subdivision and development bylaw Completedstandards limiting post-development flows to greenhouse and 2008other large footprint agricultural developments;

o Adopt a Floodplain bylaw as relates to the elevation of Completedconstruction in flood hazard areas. 2008

o Building in a climate change allowance for increasing rainfall Completedinto the design of all new drainage works6. 2008

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

In 2008, the City adopted a utility approach to funding drainage infrastructurestarting in 2009 that captures the full cost of operating the system as a way to tryand generate sustainable long-term funding for drainage infrastructure, in amanner similar to the water and sewer utilities.

The full cost of operating the system over the long term includes:• Annual operating and maintenance costs;• Drainage utility administration costs;• Miscellaneous annual capital costs;• Pump station, flood box and box culvert replacement costs;• Culvert replacement costs; and• Capacity upgrades for culverts and pump stations identified by Klohn

Crippen Berger.

Funding for drainage is generated from levy established by bylaw and a separatecharge based on assessed value. Prior to the adoption of the utility drainagewas funded through a transfer from general revenue, where the main revenuesource is property tax values.

It is the Department’s job to develop five year operating and capital plans thattake into consideration planned asset replacement (as outlined in UMA’s work onthe utility concept in Attachment F), unexpected repairs due to age, serviceenhancements/new infrastructure put forward in the Klohn Crippen report, andchanges in operating demands, i.e. vegetation management, and input from theCity’s Agricultural Advisory Committee.

A summary of utility expenditures for 2009 to 2012 has been provided inAttachment G, including annual contributions to the Drainage Reserve Fund.

6 According to Klohn Crippen Drainage and Irrigation Study 2006 climate change models predict morewinter rains and an overall increase in rainfall depths of between 10 and 20% over the next 100 years.

#101 835v1

flrinc L ltilitv Rrifinn 16

Currently more than 52% of operating expenses is allocated to pump and pumpstation maintenance as highlighted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Drainage Utility Operating Expenses

The current financial plan provides for an annual contribution to the DrainageReserve Fund of $335,160. Using the City’s tangible capital assets system, theestimated replacement cost of the drainage infrastructure ranges between $49.5and $52.4 million and the annual provision to reserves to fund the replacement ofdrainage infrastructure is calculated at $1,170,076. While these are just overallestimates, it illustrates the challenge of generating sufficient ongoing funding forlife cycle replacement in a utility where capital costs for replacement continue toescalate due to the age of the infrastructure.

It was understood when the utility was established that borrowing would be anecessary part of the program because reserve funds would not be building upfast enough to cover all of the costs of maintenance and improvementsnecessary for the system, as highlighted in the reserve forecasts in Figure 3.

At present the City has a loan authorization bylaw for $4.5 M for the constructionand upgrade of drainage infrastructure, and the debt servicing costs are built intothe utility charge out rates.

Drainage Utility Operating Expenses

• Ditch cleaning

• Culvert maintenance

Storm drain maintenance

• Bar screen maintenance

Pump station maintenance

#101 835v1

Drainacie UtIitv Briefinci 17

Figure 3. Drainage Reserve Fund 2009 - 2022

O 0 - e4 cn0 ‘- -( -( ,-(

r.4 C4 ( 4 C%1

Financial strategies for dealing with funding shortfalls in the drainageinclude:

utility, could

1) Aggressively pursuing infrastructure grants — The City was successful insecuring a grant for the replacement of pump station No. 1 and is awaitingan announcement on two grant applications submitted in 2012 forupgrades to the McKechnie pump station and the replacement of PumpStation No. 4.

2) Increased borrowing in short term to deal with critical infrastructurereplacement as contemplated at the inception of the utility.

3) Increasing reserve contributions in order to build up the reserve to moresustainable levels to deal with life cycle replacement in the medium to longterm in order to reduce reliance on borrowing and grants. Drainage utilityrates have been held fairly flat the past three years in an effort to minimizethe impacts of the utility on the rate payer.

District of Maple Ridge Drainage Contribution to Area #3:

Just over 15% of the total area within Drainage Area # 3 is located in MapleRidge as highlighted in Attachment B, the majority of which is urbanized anddirectly discharges into the drainage conveyance system in Pitt Meadows.

The District of Maple Ridge currently contributes a sum equal to 15% of thedrainage expenditures incurred by Pitt Meadows in Drainage Area #3. Theapproach of appropriating Area No. 3 costs based on land area is historical anddoes not take into consideration different land uses and their impact on drainage.

$1,000,000.00

$500,000.00

$0.00

-$500,000.00

-$1,000,000.00

-$1,500,000.00

-$2,000,000.00

-$2,500,000.00

-$3,000,000.00

-$3,500,000.00

#101 835v1

Drainae Utility Briefing 18

As set out in an agreement between the two municipalities, Pitt Meadows has theauthority to determine and levy rates, taxes or charges to Maple Ridge that areequivalent to the rates and charges in Pitt Meadows for the operation andmaintenance of drainage infrastructure in Area No. 3.

Using the historic formula for allocation of costs based on land area in MapleRidge creates inequities in the allocation of drainage costs between the twomunicipalities. Although the City’s drainage utility structure has been presentedto District of Maple Ridge staff on several occasions, focused dialogue on how toaddress current funding inequities with Maple Ridge is necessary to move towardfiscal sustainability.

CONCLUSION:

Despite investments in drainage, the City’s drainage infrastructure, in particularpumps and culverts, continues to age faster than the City’s current rate ofreplacement, which in turn drives up operating costs. The older the infrastructurethe more maintenance it requires to keep it operational.

The two biggest challenges in the utility are:

• trying and spread the costs of upgrading and or replacing infrastructurethat is well beyond its expected useful life out over the long term tomanage costs and the risk associated with infrastructure failure; and

• building up reserves to sustainable levels in order to reduce the City’sreliance on borrowing and grants.

Council may want to consider the following strategies for dealing with fundingshortfalls in the drainage utility:

1) Aggressively pursuing infrastructure grants — The City was successful insecuring a grant for the replacement of pump station No. I and is awaiting anannouncement on two grant applications submitted in 2012 for upgrades tothe McKechnie pump station and the replacement of Pump Station No. 4.

2) Increased borrowing in short term to deal with critical infrastructurereplacement as contemplated at the inception of the utility.

3) Increasing reserve contributions in order to build up the reserve to moresustainable levels to deal with life cycle replacement in the medium to longterm in order to reduce reliance on borrowing and grants. Drainage utilityrates have been held fairly flat the past three years in an effort to minimizethe impacts of the utility on the rate payer. Given the current climate of fiscalconstraint it will be a challenge to increase rates to more sustainable levels.

#101835v1


Respectf y submitted:

Kimf ro tDep ty AC & Director of Operationsand velopment Services

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Catch ment AreasB. District of Maple Ridge Contributing AreaC. Drainage Utility Implementation/Action PlanD. Area No. 3 - Subcatchment AreasE. Key Ditch MapF. City of Pitt Meadows Proposed Drainage Utility Discussion Paper, AECOM

March 2008G. Storm Drainage Expenditures 2009 — 2012H. Preliminary Draft 201 3-2016 Drainage Capital Budget

Concurring DepartmentsDepartment Signa1ureFinance Department

#101835v1

City of Pitt MeadowsCatchment Areas1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Pump Station (With Floodgate)

Pump Station (No Floodgate)

Floodgates

Kennedy RoadPump

ngton Wetlá,Maintained b’

Meadows

rnes Road //ip Station

ATTACHMENT A

•-

Municipal

Boundary

Catchm

entA

reaB

oundaries

/Portion

inM

apleR

idgeF

lu

FPitL

Meadow

sA

rea#3

Catch

men

tB

oundaries

0250

5001,000

1,5002,000

Map

Created:

2012110/19w

ATTACHMENT B

N)0

0

oLd, Di—.

CD-DL’,CL,,

-ow

DiCD

D

0rt3

0<CtmL,,C

flr*

oitm

CDt

en—‘Di

amrt

mx

n

onNi

I—an

N) 0Di

Di

DCD(/)

Millions$aaNJNJWU)

CUI0Vi01110Ut

H1IIII

NJNBCI.a03

C

z

C

Ocr

>-<Zn

-Q

N)

14

NV,.b4

N

0’

ATTACHMENT C

City of Pitt MeadowsArea #3 Sub Catchments

0 500 1,000 1500 2,000

Pump Station (With Floodgate)

Pump Station (No Floodgate)

Floodgates

Kennedy RoadPump Station

I

_-129th Ave

KennedyCatchmentAreá

Fenton Pump

pltt’ -

W*E

rnes Road /‘Station

Area

:

ATTACHMENT D

Har

ris R

d

Ran

nie

Rd

Ha l

e R

d

Nea

ves

Rd

Ford Rd

Rannie Rd

203r

d S

t

Middleton R

d

McK

echn

ie R

d

Sha

rpe

Rd

McNeil Rd

Bay

nes

Rd

Rei

chen

bach

Rd

Rip

ping

ton

Rd

Old Dewdney Trunk Rd

Kennedy Rd

Woo

lridg

e R

d

132nd Ave/Old Dewdney Trunk Rd

Richardson Rd

McT avish R

d

Windsor Rd

Thompson Rd

Connecting Rd

Fenton Rd

McQuarrie Rd

Fraser Way

Fraser Dyke Rd

196 C S

t

141st Ave

Green Rd

Ford

Rd

Det

our

Sheridan Dr

200th St

Charlier R

d

176t

h S

t

Pa trick R

d

McDonald Rd

150th Ave

Menzies Rd

Barnes Rd

129th Ave

Mountain Pl

Ran

nie

Rd

Ford Rd

Nea

ves

Rd

Ford Rd Detour

McNeil Rd

Ladner Rd

Ran

n ie

Rd

124A AveLougheed Highway

Har

ris R

d

Old Dewdney Trunk Rd

Har

ris R

d

Lougheed Highway

Har

ris R

d

Canadian Pacific Railway

Canadian Pacific Railway

Kenn

edy

Rd

Hammond Rd

224

St

Pitt River

Alouette River

Sturgeon Slough

Sturgeon Slough

Alouette River

North

Alouett

e Rive

r

Pitt River

Fraser River

Fraser River

Pitt Rive

r

Katzie Slough

Katzie Slough

City of Pitt MeadowsKey Ditches

Key Ditch

�

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Meters

ATTACHMENT E

i

‘H—

’> n

i C

ATTACHMENT F

UMA AECOM

Executive SummaryCollecting rainfall that runs off properties, roads and farms into a drainage system is a major undertakingfor the City of Pitt Meadows. The geographic context of the City, low-lying rural areas surrounded bymajor river systems, has most areas located within or draining to a floodplain. The complex system ofcatch basins, pipes, culverts, ditches, sloughs, flood boxes, pump stations and dikes make up the City’sdrainage system — each component is integral to the success of the whole. Today, most property ownerspay for drainage and irrigation services as a general assessment through property taxes.

Flooding is becoming more frequent, particularlyin low-lying parts of the City, as the number,intensity and duration of winter storms is beingaffected by global climatic changes.

Recent land use changes within all parts of theCity, such as construction of residentialhomes/acreages, intensification of agriculturalproduction (i.e. forage versus blueberry), greaterreliance on ditch water irrigation and urbandevelopment have contributed to increased runoff, in terms of quantity and rate, coupled with thefact that these land use changes have lesstolerance to flooding.

Following a severe rainfall event in November 2003, District Council of Pitt Meadows engaged KlohnCrippen Berger Associates to complete a Lowland Drainage and Irrigation Study. This study provided 16recommendations for improving lowland drainage and irrigation capacities. Coincidentally, the CanadianInstitute of Chartered Accountants published a research report titled “Accounting for Infrastructure in thePublic Sector” in September, 2002. It recommends a shift in thinking when considering the impact anduse of municipal assets, such as a drainage system - it recognizes the cost of using infrastructure mustincorporate the realities that infrastructure is susceptible to failures due to age. As it turns out, costs ofusing existing infrastructure far exceed the improvements recommended in the Klohn CrippenBerger Study.

Most municipalities within BC, including PittMeadows, are not contributing sufficient fundsthrough property taxes and other revenues to payfor large capital improvements, such as thereplacement of an existing pump station or boxculvert. The City’s multi-million dollar investment indrainage infrastructure is deteriorating and it willrequire rehabilitation, replacement and upgradesovertime. Finally, drainage and irrigation operating,maintenance and capital costs have beenescalating at a rate greater than other municipalservices. This is unsustainable over the longterm. Continuing to rely upon the general propertytax system for drainage funding will apply greaterpressure on other civic priorities.

Flooded fields

Conveyance system at capacity

UMA AECOM

Council instructed staff to review alternate funding models to address rural and urban drainage needs.

This background report outlines an approach to funding drainage needs, the creation of a drainage utility,similar to the City’s water and sewer utilities.

A drainage utility can provide adequate funding for current and future long-term drainage needs relatingto maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement, upgrades and environmental protection of the urban andrural drainage systems. Implementation of a drainage utility will eliminate financing drainage needsthrough property taxes and reduce reliance on attaining successful grant applications.

Establishing a drainage utility, a user pay system, can promote greater public awareness of drainageissues and asset management systems (long-term thinking) necessary to avoid spikes in taxationrequired to support infrastructure improvements. The benefits to the City of establishing a drainage utilityinclude:

Long Term Drainage Costs (to the year 2050)


Operating andmaintenance,$61,700,000

In order to meet these drainage and irrigation expenditures over the next 42 years a revenuesource equivalent to $1,707,000 annually is needed.

• Establishes a mechanism to fund improved performance, replacement and rehabilitation of majordrainage infrastructure components and opportunities to adopt environmental protectionimprovements;

• Increases in the performance of the overall drainage system (i.e. less frequent flooding over the longterm);

• Captures the full cost of operating a drainage system, which recognizes the cost of usinginfrastructure and promotes long-term thinking;

• Eliminates future taxation spikes to fund large capital costs by establishing an ongoing, reliablerevenue source; and

• Provides opportunity for public input and scrutiny with the operation and capital investment ofdrainage infrastructure by providing the right amount of service for the right price.

Klohn CrippenBerger upgrades,

$13,100,000

7Miscellaneous

capital, $14,400,000

2

UMA AECOM

The planned drainage utility model is predicated on fairness by establishing a city-wide single utility rate.The proposed fee is based upon the area of each parcel or property, plus a portion of the general taxassessment used to calculate municipal taxes.

Drainage Levies

Classification Annual User Charge

I Single Family and Two Family I $28 oer lotMultiple Family $8 per unitIndustrial, Commercial, Institutional $825 per hectareAgricultural $82.50 per hectare

Drainage Tax Assessment Mill Rates

Classification Proposed Mill Rate

Residential 0.1141Utilities 1.4193Major Industry 1.2185Light Industry 0.6893Business 0.4314Recreation/Non Profit 0.2291Farm 0.7346

The amount charged for the proposed drainage assessment will vary between properties, dependingupon the level of improvements and the assessed value of the property.

The proposed Drainage Utility could be in effect as early as January 1, 2009.

3

LIMA AECOM

1.0 IntroductionCollecting rainfall that runs off properties, roads and farms into a drainage system is a major undertakingfor the City of Pitt Meadows. The geographic context of the City, low-lying rural areas surrounded bymajor river systems, has most areas located within or draining to a floodplain. The complex system ofcatch basins, pipes, culverts, ditches, sloughs, flood boxes, pump stations and dikes make up the City’sdrainage system — each component is integral to the success of the whole. Today, most property ownerspay for drainage and irrigation services as a general assessment though property taxes.

The City is surrounded by a series of dikes, initially constructed in the 1950’s, to protect primarily ruralfarm areas from freshet flooding of the Fraser River system, including the Pitt and Alouette Rivers. Sincethat time Pitt Meadows has upgraded dikes in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Recently the Ministry ofEnvironment has considered a hydraulic analysis of the Lower Mainland Fraser River system andendorsed recommendations to raise most existing dike elevations by varying amounts along the FraserRiver and its estuaries. The dikes perform a valuable function by protecting low-lying areas from riverflooding; however they also hold in rainwater and snow melt, most noticeably during the fall/winterseason, as such virtually all run-off requires pumping over the dike system.

Why is the City considering a Drainage Utility?

Following severe rainfall events in November 2003 and January 2005 (classified as a 1:30 year stormevent), Council decided to engage an engineering firm to evaluate the state of Pitt Meadows drainageand irrigation systems. Klohn Crippen Berger Associates completed a Lowland Drainage and IrrigationStudy in April, 2006, which recommended:

• Significant capital improvements tothe drainage system, ranging from$2,104,000 to $12,743,000;

• Technological improvements toforecast and monitor the efficiencyof the system; and

• Improve the efficiency of theconveyance system (ditches)through regular maintenance andculvert replacements.

Following receipt of the Klohn CrippenBerger Study, City Council asked staff,assisted by UMA Engineering Ltd. (UMA),to develop a funding strategy to addressdrainage needs. A series of Councilpresentations, since the fall of 2006,culminated in approval to seek public inputon creating a drainage utility, similar to thewater and sewer utilities used today.

Flooded fields

4

UMA AECOM

Drainage and irrigation operating, maintenance and capital costs have been escalating at a rate greaterthan other municipal services. This is unsustainable over the long-term.

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$800,000

$600,000

$400,000

$200,000

$0

Historic Drainage Cost Escalation

• Operating & Maintenance D Capital

The escalation in drainage and irrigation costs over the last five years (average 12% per year) is notsustainable into the future. Relying on the property tax system alone (general revenue) to fund drainageand irrigation costs, places greater pressure on funding for other civic priorities. Also, it is important torecognize the current level of expenditure does not include improvements recommended in the KlohnCrippen Berger Study, costs to sustain the current infrastructure in the long term (such as costs to replacepump stations), nor costs to improve the level of service expected by the citizens of Pitt Meadows.

What is the current situation?

Within the dike system there are four separate,independent drainage catchment areas within theCity of Pitt Meadows:

• Area # 1 — between the North and South AlouetteRiver;

• Area # 2 — adjacent to Pitt River, north of theAlouette River;

• Area # 3— adjacent to Fraser River, south of theAlouette River (encompassing the urban centreof the City and a portion of Maple Ridge); and

• Area #4— adjacent to Pitt River, north of theAlouette River.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Flooded blueberry field

5

UMA AECOM

With building the dikes the City has, over the years, constructed, or assumed responsibility for, a series ofpump stations, flood boxes, ditches and culverts designed to remove rainfall collected within the dikesystem, by discharging ditch water through the dikes. Storm water run-off within the City of Pitt Meadows,except the Pitt-Addington Marsh, passes through a pump station or flood box to the rivers within andadjacent to the City. Only one catchment area is affected by urban storm water run-off — Area # 3Kennedy. Also, a portion of the District of Maple Ridge flows through Area # 3 to pump stations locatedwithin Pitt Meadows.

The last significant capital investment indrainage infrastructure took place in theearly 1980’s with the construction of theFenton, Kennedy, Baynes andMcKechnie Pump Stations and floodboxes with funding from the AgricultureRural Development SubsidiaryAgreement (ARDSA) program. Since theend of this program in the 80’s, theProvincial and Federal governments havenot supported municipal drainageimprovements within British Columbia.Generally, provincial grant structures,downloading of programs to municipalgovernments and slow growth inrevenues have eroded municipalities’ability to pay for services and facilitiestheir citizens demand1. Small grants arecurrently only available to supportagricultural irrigation improvements.

Flooding is becoming more frequent,particularly in low-lying parts of the City,as the number, intensity and duration ofwinter storms is being affected by globalclimatic/weather changes.

Land use changes within the low-lyingareas of the City, such as construction ofresidential homes/acreages,intensification of agricultural production(i.e. forage versus blueberry), greaterreliance on ditch water irrigation, urbandevelopment, as well as worldwideclimatic changes, have contributed toincreased run-off, in terms of quantity andrate. These land use changes have lesstolerance to flooding.

1 Implementation Plan for a New Drainage Utility, City of Ldmonton, April 2002

Clogged ditched — beaver dam

Existing Pump Station

6

UMA AECOM

District of Pitt MeadowsCatchment Areas

0 5001.000 2,000 3,000 4,OQQ— — Motors

• P,,pp SIac.n No

• Pump SIaOor LwoA foaIa4

Fefi4oa Pump St -

Kennmdy floodPump Salon

1

_—.,

7

UMA AECOM

Most municipalities within BC, including Pitt Meadows, are not contributing sufficient funds throughproperty taxes and other revenues to pay for large capital improvements, such as the replacement of anexisting pump station or box culvert. The City’s multi-million dollar investment in drainage infrastructure isdeteriorating and it will require rehabilitation, replacement and upgrades over time.

2.0 Why Is A Drainage Utility Needed?In September 2002 the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) published a research reporttitled “Accounting for Infrastructure in the Public Sector”. This report recognizes the cost of usinginfrastructure incorporates the realities that infrastructure has a finite life-span and it is susceptible tofailures due to age. It is important to report the full costs of operating the drainage system so that thepublic understands what is necessary and is able to scrutinize the public management of the resource.The research report stresses the importance of regular, ongoing condition assessments andunderstanding the impacts of deferred maintenance. By moving drainage and irrigation costs to a utilitystructure, a fee for service model, the City will be in a better position to recover the full costs of owningand operating this important asset and performance can improve as tax payers have more informationabout costs and fees paid.

A discussion paper entitled “Framing a Fiscal Fix-Up: Options for Strengthening the Finances of WesternCanada’s Big Cities, Januaiy 2002” addresses options and alternatives available to cities to addressfiscal challenges. One option that was explored is “user pay systems that reflect the actual cost ofproviding services”. The paper cites a number of advantages to a user pay approach:

• User pay meets the three criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. User pay produces equity inthat people pay for what they consume. User pay is efficient in that it provides the right amount ofservice for the right price. User pay is efficient and sustainable in that services are readily available;

• User pay bridges the growing gap between increasing demands for expenditure and limited revenueby signalling to citizens and consumers the costs of municipal services; and

• User pay dispels the myth that public goods are free. 2

2 Implementation Plan for a New Drainage Utility, City of Edmonton, April 2002

Milfoil clogs ditches and pumps

8

UMA AECOM

Establishing a drainage utility, a user pay system, can promote greater public awareness of drainageissues and asset management systems (long-term thinking) necessary to avoid spikes in taxationrequired to support infrastructure improvements. Also, the City is pursuing a similar full cost recoveryapproach for the water and sewer utility systems.

January 2005 Flood

Golf course in January 2005

9

UMA AECOM

Benefits of a Drainage Utility

Creating a drainage utility can provide a long-term sustained revenue stream necessary to supportdrainage infrastructure and improvements. The City of Pitt Meadows is particularly vulnerable,sandwiched between three major river systems and surrounded by a dike system. While the dike systemoffers protection from freshet river flows, it also encapsulates winter storms which require storm waterpumping through/over the dike system. A reliable revenue source can result in less volatility in tax rates,particularly for large capital intensive projects such as drainage pump stations.

Currently replacement costs, major capacity improvements and asset management practices are notbeing fully addressed by the City. By adopting this new funding initiative, the City can plan for andaccommodate the significant expenditures required to provide drainage services in the City — by taking aprogressive versus reactive approach to drainage.

Urban drainage ditch Field drainage systems

Farm irrigation pump

10

By improving drainage systems:

UMA AECOM

A utility model increases the City’s ability to accommodate large capital intensive projects in the future byremoving reliance on future grant awards. Since the mid 80’s both senior levels of government haveavoided infrastructure grant programs targeting drainage infrastructure. Creating a drainage utility will notpreclude future grant applications.

By structuring a drainage utility the City has aunique opportunity to create greater public inputinto the operation of the utility, particularly fromthe agricultural community. All major capitalimprovements should be ratified by the ruralcommunity prior to implementation, as they arethe recipients of most storm water run-off in theCity. It is anticipated some expectations,particularly early on, may exceed the City’s ability,even with a utility model; as such a formalcommunity liaison can be used to respond tocommunity or individual concerns.

As improvements are made to the drainagesystem, the conveyance system (primarily ruralditches) can become efficient at providing more,cleaner irrigation water at a faster rate.Approximately 50% of the farms within Area # 3use potable water to irrigate fields — by providing financial incentives and a reliable alternate water supply,farmers can migrate from using potable water to a more sustainable, environmentally friendly ditch wateralternative. Further, as there is no additional capacity within the City’s water network north of theLougheed Highway, the City cannot supply farmers who require additional irrigation water, using thepotable water system, without a substantive capital investment in infrastructure. Switching to irrigatingcrops using non-potable ditch water can result in savings to each farmer.

• Farmers can expect increased yields and intensification of farming uses;

• City can adopt sustainability principles for drainage and irrigation;

• Farmers can utilize undeveloped and under-developed agricultural land;

• Greater employment opportunities can be realized through agricultural intensification;

• Greater mobility during severe storm events and access to recreational amenities;

• Rural acreages and low-lying urban areas would experience less frequent flooding, resulting in a saferenvironment;

• Greater incentive to utilize non-potable water for irrigation and create a more sustainable system;

• Improved maintenance of urban storm water detention ponds, capture of storm water sediment, pollutantsand debris;

• City can start saving for eventual major capital replacements, thereby avoiding future tax spikes;

• Property damage can be minimized and less inconvenience caused by flooding;

• Greater public scrutiny of capital investments in drainage and irrigation can be attained; and

• Residents can continue to enjoy local, high quality farm produce.

Rural residential home

11

UMA AECOM

A reliable funding source means drainage and irrigation improvements will not compete for general taxrevenue used to finance other municipal improvements, such as an ice arena. A reliable funding sourcecan produce more redundancy within the drainage system, which leads to fewer staff call-outs resulting inmore productive Operations staff during severe winter storms and fewer emergency situations.

Drainage Utility Benefits

I

I






12

3.0 How Are Rates Determined?Drainage costs include the following needs over the long term:

. Annual operating and maintenance costs;

. Miscellaneous annual capital costs (including urban needs not funded through DCCs);

Pump station, flood box and box culvert replacement costs;

Culvert replacement costs; and

• Capacity upgrades for culverts and pump stations identified by Klohn Crippen Berger.

Long Term Drainage Costs (to the year 2050)

UMA AECOM

Culerts,$4,500,000’N

Operating andmaintenance,$61,700,000

In order to understand the full impact of each of these categories of expenditures (some ongoing, othersstaggered over time) a cash flow spreadsheet was prepared to the year 2050. This time frame waschosen as it represents the life-expectancy of the City’s major pump stations. To meet the drainagesystem requirements over the next 42 years a new revenue source equivalent to $1,707,000 annually isneeded.

Klohn CrippenBerger upgrades,

$13,100,000


M is ce I a neo uscapital, $14,400,000

13

UMA AECOM

Establishing a new Drainage Utility will transfer the operating, maintenance and capital requirements ofthe drainage and irrigation program to a Utility Reserve, similar to the water and sewer utility. Annualsources of funding a drainage utility include:

Funding Source Amount

Drainage Utility Levy (similar to water and sewer utility charge) $855,000

Drainage Tax Assessment $366,000

Contribution from Development Cost Charges $154,000

Contribution from Maple Ridge $332,000

Total required funding $1,707,000

The drainage utility levy ($855,000) is divided by the total number and area of properties within thedrainage system, while recognizing urban residential properties generate five times the amount of run-offand urban industrial, commercial and institutional properties generate ten times the run-off on aproportional basis. A separate levy is then calculated for each type of property.

The drainage tax assessment ($366,000) uses the total assessed value for each property class to createdrainage mill rates on the same basis as the general municipal tax rate structure.

All property, whether directly connected to a municipal storm sewer system or not, generates storm waterrun-off. It is not possible for a land owner to “disconnect the service” as all storm water run-off requiresthe municipal system at some point in time. Also, urban properties typically produce greater volumes ofrun-off at faster rates of discharge. As a result it is reasonable to “surcharge” urban land uses for theadditional run-off generated. Rural and farm properties contribute run-off as well, albeit in a less obviousway as typically no storm sewer connection exists. All properties benefit from the drainage/irrigationsystem within Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge and therefore should contribute towards a drainage utility.

Drainage charges would appear as a drainage utility charge added to the current water/sewer utility leviesand a drainage assessment shown on the tax assessment.

The revised utility notice would show the area of each property, drainage levy and the amount chargedunder the drainage utility. Properties currently not connected to the City water and sewer systems wouldreceive a utility notice for drainage only. The area of each property would be obtained from MapGuide,the City’s online mapping system.

The tax assessment notice, based on the property’s assessed value determined by the British ColumbiaAssessment Authority, would contain a new charge for drainage. Each year’s drainage mill rates wouldbe determined at the same time as the general taxation mill rates.

14

What is the affect and when?

Proposed Drainage Utility Levy

UMA AECOM

Classification Annual User Charge

Single Family and Two Family $28 per lotMultiple Family $8 per unitIndustrial, Commercial, Institutional $825 per hectareAgricultural $82.50 per hectare

Proposed Drainage Tax Assessment Mill Rates

ClassificationProposed Mill

Rate

Residential 0.1141Utilities 1.4193Major Industry 1.2185Light Industry 0.6893Business 0.4314Recreation/Non Profit 0.229 1Farm 0.7346

The amount charged for the proposed drainage assessment will vary between properties, dependingupon the level of improvements and the assessed value of the property.

The proposed Drainage Utility could be in effect as early as January 1, 2009.

15

4.0 Cost Comparisons

UMA AECOM

A number of properties were researched to determine specific charges resulting from a Drainage Utility.

Cost Comparisons

Townhouse unit-Ford Road one unit $12 $8 $20Hardware store - Harris Road 0.3 $360 $272 $632Fast food restaurant - Harris Road 0.4 $598 $355 $953Shopping centre - Harris Road 5.0 $9,020 $4,100 $13,120Car dealership - Lougheed Highway 2.4 $2,811 $1,979 $4,791Hotel - Lougheed Highway 0.9 $3,040 $740 $3,780Acreage-Harris Road 2.0 $49 $165 $214Acreage - McQuarrie Road 4.0 $55 $330 $385Acreage - Sheridan Drive 0.4 $68 $33 $101Small farm - Reichenbach Road 8.0 $47 $660 $706Large farm - Old Dewdney Trunk Road 41.2 $424 $3,398 $3,822Large farm - Ford Road 61.4 $290 $5,060 $5,350

Properties which contribute greater amounts of storm water run-off will generally pay a higher portiontowards the Drainage Utility.

Land use changes to large impervious area

C

Mobile home one pad $50 $28 $78

16

UMA AECOM

5.0 What Improvements are Planned?During the first fifteen years of operation it is anticipated major improvements can be achieved with theadoption of a Drainage Utility. In the first five years, the City could install a new flood box at theMcKechnie Pump Station, which would take advantage of low tidal river flows during extreme events;construct a new pump station in Area # 1; replacethe aging Pitt Polder Pump Station; and replaceundersized culverts, which hinder water fromgetting to the pump stations.

Residents should start to see tangible benefits ofan improved drainage system within the first fiveyears of operation, particularly in Areas # 1, # 3and#4.

In the second five years, the City could constructtwo new pump stations at Charlier Road andReichenbach Road, which would increase thecapacity to discharge storm water over the dikesystem; undersized culverts would continue to bereplaced; and the City could start replacing oldconcrete box culverts where roads cross over themajor sloughs.

The third five years could see upgrades to the McKechnie and Baynes Pump Stations to increase thecapacity of storm water discharge; replace undersized culverts and aging box culverts.

ACTION PLAN

35

30

25 —

C.2 20—

15—

10 —

Storm construction project

2034 -

2043

2024-2033

2044 -

2050

2009 -

2013

2014-2018

17

UMA AECOM

In addition to these capital improvements staff has undertaken a number of actions to improve theoperation and management of drainage issues within the City, namely:

• Installed ditch water level gauges and improvements to the SCADA system to allow better forecastingof rising water levels;

• Re-opened the existing flood box within Area # 1;

• Reviewing ways of addressing weeds which are choking the ditch conveyance systems;

• Replacing undersized and deteriorated culverts; and

• Reviewing ways to address run-off from large impermeable areas, such as greenhouses.

Flood Box Area #1 - to be re-opened

Water level gauge

18

UMA AECOM

6.0 What Happens If We Do Nothing?

L

Under the current taxation model, the City willcontinue to partially fund drainage needs,which will lead to large spikes in taxation whensignificant capital improvements, such asreplacing a pump station, are required. Onepump station alone requires approximately$1,500,000 to replace — this is equivalent to a15% municipal tax increase. Our future remainsthe same — the City will have to pay for assetreplacement with or without a utility. Byestablishing a utility residents start saving forthose eventual costs.

With global climatic changes, it has been forecast thefrequency and intensity of winter storms will increase inthe future, resulting in more flooding of low-lying rural andurban properties. This will result in an unsafe situationleading to inconvenience, loss of mobility, greaterproperty and crop damage and impact on theenvironment.

Vegetation management, in particular for invasivespecies (milfoil and parrot feather), is necessary to keepthe ditches clean and free-flowing — recent escalation ofweed growth requires the City to spend greater amountson drainage services, which could impact other civicpriorities, such as maintaining roads and buildings,funding special events and constructing recreationfacilities.

Old pump -Area #1

A Drainage Utility provides an opportunity tostart saving for the future eventual replacementand rehabilitation of major drainageinfrastructure, while maintaining stable taxincreases over the long term.

19

UMA AECOM

7.0 ConclusionCollecting rainfall that runs off properties, roads and farms into a drainage system is a major undertakingfor the City of Pitt Meadows, as most areas are located within or drain to a floodplain. All rainwater run-offin the low-lying rural areas must be pumped to discharge over the dike system.

Flooding is becoming more frequent, particularly in low-lying parts of the City, as the number, intensityand duration of winter storms is being affected by global climatic changes, coupled with the fact there isgenerally less tolerance to flooding within the community.

Today, most property owners pay for drainage and irrigation services as a general assessment throughproperty taxes. This method of funding does not meet the City’s needs to provide a long-term plan for asustainable drainage system - the City is not currently saving enough funding for future infrastructurerequirements. Continuing to rely upon the general property tax system for drainage funding will applygreater pressure on other civic priorities.

The City’s multi-million dollar investment in drainage infrastructure is deteriorating and it will requirerehabilitation, replacement and upgrades. Drainage and irrigation operating, maintenance and capitalcosts have been escalating at a rate greater than other municipal services. In order to meet thesedrainage and irrigation expenditures a revenue source equivalent to $1 ,707,000 annually is needed.

The benefits to the City of establishing a drainage utility include:






20

Contact information:

City of Pitt Meadows

12007 Harris Road

Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2B5

T: 604.465.5454

www.pittmeadows.bc.ca

© 2008 UMA Engineering Ltd. All Rights Reserved.This document is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced in any manner, or for any purpose, exceptby written permission of UMA Engineering Ltd.

STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY EXPENDITURES 2009-2012

2009 ActualsOperating Expenses:

• Ditch cleaning $353,301• Culvert maintenance $ 37,263• Pump/bar screen maintenance $185,526• Hydro $133,158• Catchbasin cleaning/misc storm sewer maintenance $ 58,974• Other (Admllnsurance/Phone, etc) $216,532

o Total operating expenses $984,754Capital Expenses:

• Misc storm sewer improvements $ 26,939• Pump refurbish $ 39,954• Culvert replacements $ 97,461• No. 4 Pump Station $ 5,222• Pumpstation No. 1 replacement $1,382,848• Standby drainage pump $ 86,903• Dieter’s crossing flap gate replacement $ 4,290• Sturgeon Slough flap gate replacement $ 38,747• Drainage utility billing software $ 7,490

o Total capital expenses $1,592,393o Capital Reserve Contribution $269,189


• Ditch cleaning $309,801• Culvert maintenance $ 67,078• Pump/bar screen maintenance $213,464• Hydro $157,918• Catchbasin cleaning/misc storm sewer maintenance $ 47,858• Other (Adm/Insurance/Phone, etc) $227,027

o Total operating expenses $1,023,645Capital Expenses:

• Misc storm sewer improvements $ 17,966• Culvert replacements $247,561• Baynes Road trash rack replacement $ 84,645• SCADA upgrades $ 1,666• Katzie Slough Drainage Assessments’ $ 30,153• Pump station No. 1 replacement $324,514• McKechnie Drainage Improvements $ 16,7882

• Dieter’s crossing flap gate replacement $ 72,433o Total capital expenses $795,726o Capital Reserve Contribution $283,051

Survey, hydraulic modeling and wildwood trail drainage2 Project delayed awaiting grant funding announcement. Grant application submitted May 2009.

#103165v1

ATTACHMENT G

STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY EXPENDITURES 2009-2012


• Ditch cleaning $370,792• Culvert maintenance $ 44,750• Pump/bar screen maintenance $171,350• Hydro $171,920• Catch basin cleaning/misc stonn sewer maintenance $ 38,756• Other (Adm./Insurance/Phone, etc) $236,357


• Misc storm sewer improvements $ 8,105• Pump refurbish $ 58,956• Baynes Road trash rack repair $ 5,950• SCADA upgrades $ 17,835• Katzie Slough Drainage Assessments3 $ 46,485• McKechnie Drainage Improvements $ 85,675

o Total capital expenses $229,636o Capital Reserve Contribution $348,611

2012 BudgetOperating Expenses:

• Ditch cleaning $329,228• Culvert maintenance $ 66,451• Pump/bar screen maintenance $186,528• Hydro $146,000• Catch basin cleaning/misc storm sewer maintenance $ 68,441• Other (Adm./Insurance/Phone, etc) $239,581


• Misc storm sewer improvements $ 20,000• Pump refurbish $ 58,000• Culvert Replacements $200,000• Baynes Road pump replacement $125,000• Area No. 4 Pump station design $300,000• Katzie Slough Drainage Assessment $90,000• McKechnie Drainage Improvements $835,500• McKechnie Pump station Automated Trash Rack $200,000

o Total capital expenses $1,828,500o Capital Reserve Contribution $335,160

Wildwood trail drainage and Katzie Slough Environmental AssessmentSignificant under spend due to delay in grant funding announcement for McKechnie Drainage Improvements.Katzie Slough Environmental Assessment Carry Forward from 2011

#103165v1

City of Pitt Meadows

DRAFT Capital Plan

2013 tlwu 2017

PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT

Department Project# Priority 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

LOperations & Development Serv. iStorm Rehab Projects DS-001 3 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000

Drainage Reserve Fund 20,000 20,000 26,000 20,000 26,000 100,000

Meadow Gardens Way Storm System - New DS-004 4 121,000 121,000DCCs 121,000 121,000

Harris Road Storm System - New DS-005 4 230,000 230,000DCC 230,000 230,000

All Pumpstations - Refurbish DS-012 3 50,000 50,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 256,000Drainage Reserve Fund 50,000 50,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 256,000

Culvert Replacements DS-01 5 2 200,000 200,000 400,000Debt 200,000 200,000

Drainage Reserve Fund 200,000 206,000

Drainage Pumpstations-Misc. Repairs DS-017 3 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000Drainage Reserve Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000

Drainage Pump Lifecycle Replacement - Kennedy DS-01 9 3 267,500 535,000 545,000 1,347,500Drainage Reserve Fund 267500 535000 545,000 1,347,500

New Pumpstation and Move Transformers PS #4 DS-024 3 4,900,000 4,900,000Debt 1,606,000 1,606,000

Grants 3,300,000 3,306,000

Reichenbach/Charlier Pumpstation DS-032 3 - 100,000 100,000Debt 100,000 100,000

Drainage Pump Lifecycle Replacement - Baynes DS-033 3 535,000 535,000Debt 535000 535000

Integrated Storm Drainage Plan DS-034 3 100,000 100,000Drainage Reserve Fund 100,000 106,000

Major Slough Cleaning DS-036 2 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000Drainage Reserve Fund 100,000 106,000 100,000 100,000 400,000

Trash Rack Systems DS-038 3 200,000 200,000 200,000 600,000Drainage Reserve Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 600,000

Irrigalon Study/Strategy DS-039 2 58,000 58,000Drainage Reserve Fund 58,000 58,000

Drainage Pump Lifecycle Replacement- Mckechnie DS-040 n/a 535,000 267,500 802,500Drainage Reserve Fund 535,000 267,500 802,500

Operations & Development Serv. Total 5,915,000 1,073,000 1,038,000 917,000 1,057,000 10,000,000

GRAND TOTAL 5,915,000 1,073,000 1,038,000 917,000 1,057,000 10,000,000

November-01-12

ATTACHMENT H

Documents

Director of Operations & Development Services From: Deputy