Good morning. Welcome to June 13th, utilities and corporate services. Today, we will have a quite a long agenda, and for my understanding, there will be a lot of speakers, so we'll have to move this along as best we can. On that, I would like confirmation of agenda. Thank you, all in favor? Your chair, I would like to add an item to the agenda.
of course, Councillor Demogne. What would you like to add?
This.
Read at the top.
It's the title at the top.
Yeah. Proposed that acquisition, Great Plains, Ward 9.
And that will be an in-camera item.
That goes to the confidential items added as 10.2.1.
As it pertains to land acquisition.
Correct.
Thank you.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Thank you.
No. Excellent. Confirmation of minutes, Councillor Demont.
Yes, confirmation of minutes.
Move.
Moved. All in favor? Opposed?
Great. Consent agenda. Any items pulled? No.
Okay. Consent agenda, Councillor Keating.
Yes.
All in favor? Agreed. Opposed?
Okay. Excellent. So we will be starting with 7.1.
Climate, resiliency, strategy, and action plans.
For my understanding, there are quite a few citizens that would like to talk to this.
So the clerk says, put forward a list of people that, if you would like to talk,
you have the opportunity for five minutes to give your perspective on this matter.
She will put it forward at the desk there, feel free to come up and sign and then we'll call in that order.
However, firstly, what we will do is have a presentation and when we come to the public hearing
part, we do have members from the industry that would like to talk that we have said several
letters and we've agreed that they would condense it down to three different members and give
a presentation and then we can ask all the questions at one particular time to clear things
up and speed it along, so we'll proceed with that.
So in that note, we will start with the presentation, and if you'd like to introduce yourselves
and proceed, please.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Members of committee, colleagues, and guests, thank you very much for being here.
My name is Christopher Collier, Director of Environment and Safety Management.
I'm joined by my colleague Dick Ebersen, Manager of Climate Change and Environment, where
please to present the Climate Change Brazilian Strategy and Action Plan.
This report is the culmination of two years of research, collaboration with internal external stakeholders.
It focuses on the actions the city of Calgary can take to enable businesses and
the community to reduce emissions, reduce our risks due to a changing climate.
And with that, Mr. Chair, as you mentioned, we do have a presentation that Mr.
Eberson will rock us through.
Thank you, please proceed.
Thank you so much.
And good morning once again.
Through the chair, before I kick off, I would really like to thank the collaboration
of all business units over the last two years here at the City of Calgary.
To be specific, the 250 subject matter experts, managers and directors, that supported the
process and provided input, analysis and recommendations for this strategy and action plans.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to industry stakeholders who provided advice
and participated from the insurance industry to build Calgary, to NMax and Atco,
to the
even Alberta food processors, and that's just to name a few of the stakeholders that were actually involved in bringing this plan here today.
The climate program was designed to build climate resilience and specifically supports the city's vision and 100 resilient cities framework.
The program was established in 2017 as a commitment and approach to reducing climate risks and risk exposure as well as guiding the city toward a low carbon future.
The five pillars represent that approach.
We are here today to introduce the results of the plans and actions under the Climate Planning
Pillar.
As part of Action Plan 2015 to 2018, administration was directed to take action on climate change
guided by the approved target of 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2015
and reduced risk exposure from severe weather events brought on by climatic changes.
During 2016-17, in-depth research were conducted.
Stakeholders provided evidence-based input
to identify those areas of greatest impact,
where the city could play a role in enabling industry
and the community.
The approval of the guiding principles
for climate resilience that was done by council
in March of this year created the final step
in guiding the strategy and actions,
which brings us to today.
The main climate resilience actions
are mitigation and adaptation.
Medigation is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions through better energy management
and supporting a low-carbon economy. Adaptation means managing risks to reduce the impacts
of severe weather events on our operations and services while protecting calgarians.
Medigation adaptation actions should be designed to be mutually beneficial. The city's role
is to enable partners, industry, and the community to take action. In addition, the city can ensure
that its own operations mitigate and adapt to climate change.
So let's get into it.
The Climate Mitigation Plan identifies the role of the city to enable industry and community
to reduce their emissions, manage energy and energy costs and enable the low common economy,
as mentioned before.
How do we do it?
The international and local target for greenhouse gas reduction is 80% reduction by 2050.
You will see that in the gray line at the bottom.
The
next line shows the business as usual. Business as usual indicates that we will not
meet this target. The drop in emissions in 2030 is when coal generated electricity will
be eliminated from the grid bringing us in step with other jurisdictions in North America.
This is scenario playing out in all cities around the globe. The path to get there is, however,
different. Several scenarios were evaluated with input from an expert panel made up of local
and international companies and institutions to guide calories path towards 2050.
The recommended path to 2050 is a cost-neutral scenario where for every dollar spent,
a dollar will be saved. The drop in emissions over time includes several actions taken by
all stakeholders from the community industry, the city, and other levels of government.
From improving home insulation as done through energy efficiency Alberta,
to readying our city for electric vehicles in partnership with private companies.
The city's role in these actions are illustrated in the mitigation action plan.
The mitigation action plan contains five themes, 10 program areas and 69 main actions
that the city can take to enable the community and industry to reduce their emissions and
improve energy management.
Sorry, from removing barriers for building energy efficiency to electric vehicle charging
networks to supporting opportunities for natural infrastructure and investigating consumption waste,
the mitigation actions are comprehensive and a starting point.
Business units share in the actions to ensure implementation takes place.
I would like to provide you with an example.
Let's look at buildings and energy systems.
Buildings in Cal are used a lot of energy.
Improving the overall energy performance of buildings in Cal are
will ensure reduction in operational costs, benefit from more comfortable and
higher quality environments, reduce emissions, and support local job growth.
Energy standards are not only for new but also for established buildings.
The federal government are already indicating that a number of changes will be brought forward
in new building codes specifically for higher efficiency in commercial and institutional
buildings.
Local distributed energy networks help decrease emissions, energy use and cost.
Program examples for buildings and energy include energy performance standards in new and
existing buildings, energy consumption information that you will also hear about more in the next
report and neighbourhood scale renewable and low carbon energy systems.
Now of course, as we said earlier, there are 69 actions. I would like to use one example
to just illustrate how this can be done. In 2017, a new logistics and storage facility
in Calgary had a proposal of a very large facility in Calgary, approximately 150,000 square feet.
One about team members noticed the opportunity and worked with other partners in the city
to advise the client of the opportunity to install large-scale solar power solar PV
and possibly reduce their costs.
A feasibility study was conducted which regarded and the result was an investment into solar
PV on the facility.
The specifications indicate that it would provide approximately 25% of the annual electricity
demand.
It is anticipated to reduce over 14,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the life
of the system which is 30 years.
levelized car
Out the incentive, the cost premium would have been approximately 5% and covered by electrical cost savings within three years. This just proves again that if we actually look at those opportunities, we could enable the community and they could actually save emissions and save costs. We use our role as an enabler to get this done. What's next? We are developing an approach to identify such opportunities in creating a standard feasibility study that will not slow down the process for these initiatives to come forward.
Our action plan actually stipulates that the city will encourage the uptake of renewable
low-carbon energy systems in Calgary by reducing barriers to implementation and support informed
decision-making for investment.
Let's move on to the Climate Adaptation Action Plan.
The Climate Adaptation Action Plan identifies the actions business units will take to reduce
the risks in the city's operations and services to Calgarians.
Climate risk is a risk multiplier.
Climate change is a risk multiplier, sorry, and it is a risk.
While we have always experienced extreme weather, what we see now in Alberta and Canada is a
fundamental increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.
This figure indicates the types of catastrophic insured losses across Canada.
The lines in red shows those with some of the highest cost and some of the extreme events.
Seven out of the ten cost list disasters in Canada, however, has occurred in Alberta,
with losses close to $8 billion dollars over the past six years alone, according to the insurance
Bureau of Canada. These include the 2012-15 and 2016 hailstorms, the 2013 floods, and the 2014
September in Calgary. Climate change, climate adaptation reduces our risk exposure against extreme
weather.
The adaptation plan contains five themes, 13 programs and 175 actions.
Action
and maintaining our tree canopy to longer, more complex projects, such as updating our design guidelines and standards for city infrastructure to withstand higher snowfall or ice storms.
We already have a longer history of water management and actions during times of emergency as illustrated during the 2013 flood and the recovery thereafter.
I again would like to provide you with an example. Let's look at infrastructure.
Disruption or damage to roadways, light rail transit, recreation centers, and power distribution
systems can have significant impacts on both municipal services and the lives of citizens
and businesses.
We have seen this already with floods and snowtenberg.
The two critical program areas were identified under infrastructure, including backup power
for critical services and design standards and practices.
Access to power is essential in maintaining these services.
Prioritizing essential services based on climate vulnerability assessments will ensure continuity
of service delivery, including water treatment, protective services, and public housing.
As changes in our weather become more severe, historic data is not sufficient anymore to
ensure future infrastructure can withstand the chronic changes of the severe events.
Updating our design guidelines and standards for city infrastructure to ensure resilient
extreme weather and chronic climate changes is becoming more and more important.
Let me give you an example. Rooves for facilities in Cal are designed using historical
climate data that tells us that a roof has a certain carrying capacity. Or wait, it could carry.
New data tells us that, with changing conditions, we will see more snow and ice, like we've seen in
recent months. This will contribute to the weight on these roofs and causing collapse of buildings.
The corporation is currently reviewing these types of buildings. It is imperative that the
standards and guidelines be reviewed to consider the new data about what is coming.
Business as usual does not work anymore.
Considering the future state should become part of business as usual.
What's next?
You will see business units bring forward actions to be considered through one Calvary in November
of this year.
We look forward to further collaborate with industry partners to provide advice and implement
the actions through a strong governance structure that considers timelines and cost in its implementation.
We will kick off citizen awareness and education as well as engagement during the summer and Q3Q4
of this year. We will pursue external funding opportunities to support not only the corporation
but also the community. We will monitor and report on the progress of actions on an annual basis
and report together with our governance group to council.
In summary, our goals are to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050,
and to reduce risk exposure from severe weather events in operations and services.
We need a strong strategy in actions to make that happen.
We therefore recommend that council approves the climate-resilient strategy and action plans.
Thank you.
Thank you very much Mr. Iverson as you have been very enthusiastic about this project and your team it's great to see so we will start with comments from the public if we'd like to if Miss Louie and your group as we agreed could come up first and we will consolidate your presentation and then once I think you have three members total is that correct?
Okay, so a total of four and then we'll have all the presentations go forward first and then Q&A afterwards once they all finish.
I got a question for you.
Yes, we ask questions now. What do the?
No, we'll wait to all four of presented because some are going to answer others people's questions.
Oh, administration is afterwards.
Okay, thank you.
After the public hearing.
So, if we appreciate it, if you can limit it to five minutes maximum for presentation, please, and Ms. Lee, if you'd like to introduce yourself and begin.
Put your speaker on here, hold on.
Oh, sorry.
I have letters to distribute as well, some additional letters came in since yesterday that I'll just leave up here for quicks to talk to you.
Thank you.
So, good morning, my name is Grace Louie, I'm the Director of Strategic Initiatives and Government Relations at Build Calgary region, and I'd like to start by thanking the Administration.
not only for the work that they've done, but that they conducted certain portions of the work in a very open manner,
inviting a number of stakeholders to the table to provide feedback on the mitigation strategy.
Bill was one of those stakeholders, and it really was a pleasure to work with the team.
And we'd like to especially recognize Claire Becksted, Dick Ebersen, Chris Collier,
and Brits Semvorski for their outreach efforts in sharing a lot of information with us.
So we want to be clear that we absolutely support the climate resilient strategy and we want
to see it succeed.
But we have some questions, concerns about whether or not the way that it's structured
is likely going to give its success.
You'll probably see a lot of people who will tell you about why it's needed and where we
completely agree with that.
We would like to talk about how the plan can be successful.
So the combined strategy and action plans around mitigation and adaptation, we thought included
a hundred and twenty-nine action items in total.
Apparently, we must have miscounted because I just heard Mr. Eberson say that just on the adaptation side, there's 176 actions, so it's actually even a bigger plan.
The climate team was kind enough to spend some time with us to explain how they believe that the strategy and the action plans would roll out.
And so if I've missed anything in my explanation of it, we certainly welcome any sort of corrections from that team.
If you look at the letter that we presented in the attachments that were included in it,
one is an attachment that is a chart that was shared with all of the working session members,
and this was generated by the City of Calgary, and it essentially is a synopsis in chart
form of all the actions in the mitigation plan.
And on second attachment that we provided, it is, we went through the staff report and looked
at all of the actions in the adaptation side of the plan and put that into chart form as
So the way that we understand it is that Council approval of the strategy today would
approve the themes, the programs, and all of the actions which is everything that you
would see in those charts up to the numbered items but not necessarily the things that are
listed as ABC below which is those items would be determined through the discretion of the
business unit or through the initiative that gets started.
So the immediate questions we have when we saw that is that we noted that funding is actually
actually at that sub-level we'll say, and in the staff report, we noted that the funding
is to be considered, but not necessarily required, which brings up questions about whether
actions approved by Council then become also required for funding.
We noted that some redundancies also exist across the action plans in the mitigation and adaptation
side. We're similarly worded, but not exactly same actions exist under different programs,
so we don't know whether or not those efforts could be siloed or integrated. I know that
half of the action plan on mitigation was really well vetted with industry and other stakeholders
and the other half on adaptation probably still need some work on that. Some brand new terminology
has been introduced and not defined not only for industry but probably for the needs of everyone
inside the city of Calgary that will be looking at acting on them. Notwithstanding all the concerns
that we and questions that we saw, too many items of concern jumped at us. One is just the size of
the program. It's a very ambitious program and something of this magnitude of size doesn't appear
to come with a needed overall governance or coordination to run it, to prioritize actions
to monitor, report on it, or to even fund and resource it.
So what happens if a business unit doesn't prioritize it in the same way, another business
unit does, or can't fund an action item?
What if their action is redundant or ends up running counter to another action somewhere else?
The actions themselves are not insignificant.
Some are quite substantial, except for seven in the mitigation plan, 62 are considered to
to be worked down over the next four-year budget,
starting in that four-year budget cycle
and continuing to the next 10 years.
Even of a portion of these call for industry engagement,
we're not sure if we could respond properly
to support each action that we require our involvement.
So we believe that the plan really does need some prioritization.
There's also an assumption,
our second issue is that the assumption is that
what we need to do is generate a lot of new regulations.
The options themselves assume we need to add
or generate a lot of policies, programs, plan strategies
on top of some of that are existing in place.
Our concern is that some of the existing regulatory platforms don't function or misaligned
and don't necessarily achieve the outcomes according to their attention.
So adding new policy on top of old policies that are not currently aligned to each other
or even to climate directives creates more of a challenge and is not a solution.
So what we think is needed is to look back on our existing regulatory base and fix it
before adding to it.
If we don't, we are concerned that we may end up spending a lot of time, resource and
money to back it up afterwards and we do see examples of that now.
Our proposed solution is to stage the approval of the strategy, approve the 10 themes and
the 23 programs today and use that as a platform for a combined mitigation adaptation action
plan and determine and prioritize that action plan through a joint city industry work group
similar to the city industry work program that has been so effective through planning and
development.
We also want to make sure that that group is appropriately supported, resourced and funded
to carry out the work that they need to do.
With that, I will hand over to sort of the next presenter we have for our group.
Thank you.
Good morning, my name is Chuck Stepper, I'm with Stepper Homes and the High Field Land Management Group.
I'd like to thank the city of Calgary Climate Change Team for being open and
willing to share their mitigation strategy with our industry during its development.
The city's approach to use technical working groups enabled industries,
industry organizations such as build to proactively share efforts with external stakeholders.
That offered us an opportunity to engage with the city and
inside our own industry, taking an active role for advocating for positive outcomes in the area of climate mitigation.
I've had the opportunity to chair the Build Climate Change Committee.
We are champions of climate resilience with the city and with our own industry members.
through that committee we've been able to promote events such as co-hosting the building
industry and climate change discussions with the city on May 9th and endorsing build
for its participation on the city's climate energy panel in late March. We support the city
in adopting a climate resiliency strategy and will continue advocacy work in this area. However,
we agree with the concerns that have been brought forward by build and ask that this committee
support their full request. In addition to that I would like to highlight another issue for your
consideration. The action plan as currently presented is triggering questions about alignment
and approach. For example the theme natural infrastructure is repeated in both the mitigation and
adaptation plans with similar but slightly different actions listed under each. Does this mean
that each action is a separate item to be funded and deployed under separate plans?
If not, why not list them together and avoid redundancy?
Additionally, the term natural infrastructure has not been commonly defined, so we don't
know exactly what it is and was newly introduced to the mitigation plan after engagement occurred.
Engagement with external stakeholders on the adaptation side has not yet happened.
I joined approach to address this through a working group with city and external stakeholders
would be very beneficial if we want to see success in this area.
Our industry is currently challenged with existing storm water management plans and
its corresponding requirements and expectations to the degree that is becoming a barrier to
development for many applications, whether in new areas or established areas for commercial
or residential.
Resolving the existing regulatory framework is necessary before we put new regulations
plans and strategies in place.
Our request is to see a cross departmental group that includes externals, stakeholders
to be used to provide governments, prioritize and set actions to implement the climate
resiliency strategy.
Both mitigation and adaptation should be looked at comprehensively through this group to avoid
silos.
Void redundant use of resources. Some of the mitigation actions and many of the adaptation actions will impact our industry. We have not been engaged in these areas and believe we have a critical role to play. We need to be involved in setting actions because that is where we can create successful conditions for implementation and we are seeing what it costs in terms of money, effort and time when this step has been overlooked or assumed that it will organically happen.
To close, I would like to quote one of my industry colleagues who gave feedback on the strategy.
They are currently experiencing some very real stormwater struggles on several projects
across Calgary, but still believe that these struggles can be resolved collectively.
The policy influencers convinced the policy makers that it was more important to have a policy
that we could figure out and figure out the details later.
The policy got forced on everyone and we've been struggling ever since.
I think the concern with the climate strategy is the same.
It all sounds good until we set policy and then find out that we can't implement anything
or the cost of implementation is higher than the cost of doing nothing.
The creation of working groups would hopefully prevent this from happening again if we make implementation
planning part of the overall strategy.
And quote, climate resiliency is a critical issue that needs to be addressed through many
partners.
As an advocate for climate resiliency, I want to be clear that these requests are being
made to ensure the success of the climate resiliency strategy not reduce it.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Doug Owens.
I'm the senior strategic development manager and in charge of government relations for Brookfield
residential here in Calgary. First off thank you very much for the opportunity to be involved
in this process administration has been great. We've had some very spirited conversations with
some people in the room who definitely understand the challenge in front of us. So in my role in
the company with Brookfield I look forward 5, 10, 15 years out and look at how policy shaping up
and my job is really to move the company or work with our senior leadership group and moving the
company in small steps towards what we think the future might look like.
What we see shaping up broadly around the world is the push for energy efficiency.
And that's shaping up in Canada as well through the PAN Canadian framework and the targets
that we have been put out.
And what we're seeing is that in 2030 the roadmap that's been laid out federally for us, and
We believe that the code cycles will follow that, is a 70% improvement on energy efficiency
in the build form.
And that is tough to bring across, but 70% better than what we're doing today dramatically
changes the build form and how our communities are brought on and how redevelopment happens.
Brookfield has moved our operations towards energy efficiency, we're fully supportive of
the build position, noting the concerns that they're bringing forward and their requests.
Energy labeling is one of the actions that has been noted in the plan put forward by administration.
That is one of the things that we shape up broadly across North America that underpins
all of the energy efficiency frameworks is recognizing that prioritizing energy efficiency
before renewables, before more infrastructure or adding costs and leveraging the investments
that communities already have should be prioritized.
What we recognize, too, is that in 2030 per the Pan-Knowing Framework, we believe 75% of
the existing homes out there today will still be standing.
That sector as a market has to be addressed if we're going to move the needle anywhere
on climate change or GHG reductions.
So, we're definitely supportive of an energy labeling program, and that's probably the total position I can put forward today in respect to the climate resilient strategy that Dick and his group is put forward.
So, thank you very much again for the participation in it. It's been great.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Chris Olenberger.
I'm with Neop Calgary today and I'm joined by our Chair of our Government Affairs Committee, Paul Dirksen.
I'm only going to take two minutes just so that we're respectful of your time this morning.
Mainly here today to support build and many of our industry members' concerns about the implementation.
I think you've heard that the industry is supportive of the themes, the goals, the ideas, what people are wanting to do here with the climate resiliency change strategy.
and they just want to be more involved in the actual implementation and how we're going
to execute this. There's some details and some great examples of some successes that
we've worked with at the City of Calgary, like the rail policy recently in which we worked
very difficult challenges through together to come out with a great policy at the end of
the day. And I think that's really the key core ask that we're looking for is to make sure
that we have the opportunity to work together with administration and the city on how we can
and actually do the implementation effectively.
That doesn't just mean cost effectively,
it means actually being able to undertake
and implement some of the tasks that are at hand here today.
I just wanted to emphasize that the implementation,
we're really partners in that.
In fact, we're probably in a big way,
a lot of the implementation team on this strategy
for the city of Calgary.
And so to have that opportunity to make sure
that we're all aligned and speak in the same way
and working together on it
That is hugely important for our industry.
Paul.
Thanks guys, we thought we would tag team this.
I am the chair of the government of various committee.
I'm also the senior vice president of Quadville Property Group.
We have about 5 million feet of existing industrial real estate and
Calgary and another million square feet under construction and
nose creak, including the new Amazon warehouse.
And we own several office buildings in downtown Calgary.
The membership of our group is about 250 people.
Well, we represent the owners and managers of all the commercial real estate.
In Caligering, we were hand in hand with Bill and we are here to echo our concerns about the implementation piece of this initiative.
Our industry is on the leading edge of these kinds of things.
We do solar-ready buildings, we have LED lighting, we have cisterns that limit the flow of stormwater.
Here we have these really exciting property technology initiatives coming forward where we monitor the heating and ventilation of all of our buildings.
This is across our industry and I think one of the best things that we can do in the collaboration phase that we're recommending is bring those best practices to the table.
And not only would we bring folks like ourselves that are leaders of the community, we would bring the consultants and the engineering folks and the people that actually know what the volume numbers are.
I'm just told what we have to aspire to, let alone try to figure out what that actually
really means.
So, you know, the key for us is that the implementation of all of this, if it just sort
of comes forward really quickly, it could get bogged down and it will start to get some
pushback, right?
And the other thing is the stormwater management piece is really a bit of a Pandora's box
right now and we're concerned about adding layers to that before we have that figured out.
And I think the last thing I would try to leave with you folks is that what we try to do
as an industry and what we try to do as a very large landlord in the country is work with
aspirational goals, but behave in a realistic manner and so we do have the desire to do everything
we can to mitigate whatever we can because we are a major contributor, but we also have to
be realistic, we have to respect that not everybody is a large landlord like us, we might
have a deep pocket and have a bit of a better chance to do some things but there is hundreds
of folks that build force feeders or a few little warehouse buildings that it's going
to be very difficult for them to put some of these things together without incentivization
and best practices and technology. So I'll leave that with you. We're here for questions,
but thank you for your time and thanks again for all the collaboration. We're immersed
in City Hall, we have folks on every initiative you can think of, and we appreciate the time.
I have a letter too, by the way, that we can hand in with Brookville Letter.
Okay?
Great.
Thank you.
We're under the time, which is great.
So we'll start with questions and Councillor Keating, please.
Thank you, Chair.
I remember the pedestrian strategy that came forward, and I think there were 50 or 65 action
items. And at that time we had quite a bit of feedback of saying, how on earth can you
do all of this? But I also remember I believe that that was in a phased in. We're going
to do this, and then we're going to do this, and we kind of evaluated or prioritized the
ones that could be done immediately according to finances or a number of those things.
So I'm looking at 129, which is well over double what that one was. And I don't see any way
in shape or form that we're going to evaluate these in such a way that we can do this one today
with no cost and it's across the board, we can do it in all business units even though they're
listed. So did building anyway, did they kind of come up with some of the more relevant actions,
did they figure out some ways in which they could be prioritized, some are extremely large actions
that may require a number of stakeholders.
Some are little tiny things that I could do all by myself,
which is amazing, yeah, but anyway, so do you have any comment on
how this is going to be implemented?
Thank you for the question.
It's interesting you asked that because we actually went through the list
and thought about that.
There's probably some things here that don't require multi-stakeholder
a group to look at it and probably go on its way and be implemented and other things that probably require a lot more effort.
But we didn't think that it was appropriate that sort of to conduct that work on the floor of committee to ask you to go through the hundred twenty-nine actions and debate whether or not they should be in this bucket or that bucket or another bucket.
We've worked really well with staff and I think the relationships that we've generated with them lead us to believe that if the structure gets put in place where we do have that group that gets set up, I think in a very short order that group itself could probably go through
through all of the lists and determine how best to address it, where it needs to go to,
what needs multi-stakeholder engagement, what doesn't, and how it gets prioritized.
So our ask, rather than trying to take that ask and go action by action item through committee
or council, was to simply say if you trust that we have a good working relationship, we can
probably go off and figure this out under that kind of governance group.
And if we need more direction, if we need funding, however that works, we would come back
to counsel. If we don't, then we would ask that counsel probably give that group at the
authority, the funding, the prioritization to be able to then carry out its work.
Okay. So, I've identified some of the actions, which I looked at, and I'll be asking in a
administration the same questions to some degree. The comment was made that a dollar spent is a dollar saved.
In your buildings, do you see that as a reality, or do you see it as done with the
in existing budgets, or do you have to have huge outlay to start with, and then you
save an operation over time, or can it be, you know, a neutral effect on the budgets?
Yeah.
On the commercial side, it is not a neutral effect.
You know, there is, for instance, in solar energy, a timeline whereby you save a certain amount
there by you pay back your solar installation but you know as a landlord we don't necessarily
get that cost back through a rental rate increase with our tenants right so the investments
we make to make our buildings better don't have a linear effect over time they they definitely
do and then you know as a large organization I need to really emphasize that we are prepared
And we do invest in these things without the recognition of a straight line payback on them because we feel that we need to be leaders in the community for these kinds of initiatives.
And so solar is a very good example.
We make sure that our Amazon building has a solar ready structure, the cost to put that solar array in would be borne by the tenant.
They would be the ones that would do it.
We could do it collaboratively, or we could do it over stage.
The other thing that comes into play is the incentive piece.
LED lighting is becoming quite cost effective because the cost of it itself is low, and
there are government incentives to subsidies, I guess it would be to get that going.
And that's probably a key piece that we need to look at is to incentivize the general community
on this for the betterment of everything is probably the best way to go because it is
not a dollar-for-dollar investment. From the commercial perspective, anyway.
Well, I don't know who will answer this one, but I get the idea that some of these things
are better for the climate better for the environment and therefore they should be invested
even though they may not recoup the investment. I remember back in the day when we went
And when I was building my first house, they came and they said, you know what, do double everywhere on the big ones do triple, but the triple everywhere costs more money to construct and to build and you waste more energy than you'll ever safe.
Did you identify in here any of the 125 that may be in that category that and there is.
And I'll ask the same administration at a later time.
I'll just give an example.
We build our warehouses so effectively now that they don't breed anymore, right?
They used to be nice that they had little seams and they had air coming through them.
They don't, so now we have, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars for
air exchange systems, you know, so there's an impact to some of these things.
So on the commercial side, we have an identified specific.
Things change over time because now it's pretty good thing to put in triple pay. But at the time when the first came, that's why I was looking at, when you look at 129 items, I have no idea which ones are the most relevant and which ones are. Thank you very much. Some are easy wins. Okay. Let's, you know, and that's just some. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Keating. Councillor Meglioca, please. Thank you, Chair. And this is for Grace. I know the city industry joint work group,
that build the supporting, what would it look like and how would you see it working?
Well, we've made reference to the city industry work program that was set up through planning
and development under GM Daugleish.
And while I want to be very clear, we're not looking to add to that group, but we're looking
to set up a structure that's very similar to that.
We've found that it is a really good place for cross collaboration both inside the city
as well as with other stakeholders that sit at the table.
And it's an ability for a group like that to look across at all the actions and
find out and determine what's most important, what should be prioritized.
Let's figure out five things that we really want to achieve and
deliver on this year.
Get that done, report on it, monitor and then move on to the next five things.
And then that's how we sort of managed that larger plan.
We found that it's a great place for our industry to go because then it aligns us.
and we thought that it had value from the city as well, so that's why we use that as the example of what could potentially be set up for this initiative as well.
That sounds really reasonable, thank you.
You know, I received all the letters that you guys have sent from all your members, from every developer to land developers, to home builders.
And they all agreed that climate change is real and climate change has to be done something about it too.
But the way they say it in their letters is, you're already taking these steps, but we're just interfering now.
Is that kind of what you're getting to?
Well, yeah, many of them are already taking the steps, and many of them have come, and that's part of the panel that we had is,
many of them taking the steps and the barriers that they see are maybe regulatory and process, and they'd like to get those results so that more people can do those steps.
And that's really where we think that multi-stakeholder group will help do that.
I think everyone sold on it and knows that we need to do the actions.
There's a lot of refinement that needs to go on to make sure that regulatory piece doesn't become a barrier.
All right. And my final question is, if we were to implement the 129 changes that the administration is recommending,
what kind of costs would be to the end user? It's not going to be, the end user is going to be paying for it, correct?
Yes.
Do you have an idea or no? I'll ask the administration that.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Dumont, please.
Thank you, Chair. I'm thinking Mr. Dirkson, if I may.
So you had made some comments with regards to you always have aspirational goals but work
in the real world. Now, I can certainly empathize with that. I'm wondering if slight and small
all nudges by the city is actually appreciated or, and I can answer, I know the answer is
going to be.
No.
Look, they are appreciated.
What bugs us down is regulation or policy that doesn't have collaborative input, right?
Okay.
So we're in it with you.
I will look to the rail guideline work that we did with the city.
You know, that is a mating category solution.
That is an awesome solution to a problem.
it took a couple of years but you know the federal government nudged us on that and it was untenable
and and we worked together so you know we we don't you know the mood and I've been at this
about seven years and I've been in the industry for 25 but for the past seven years that I've been
revolve a government affairs is it is not adversarial it is so what kind of what I'm getting at is
Your example of the Amazon on building being solar ready, there's an extra cost not to put the arrays up
But there's an extra cost to have it solar ready if I'm not mistaken. Yep, right. So I guess my question would
Be something along the lines of would that be something that the building owners would be opposed to having been in the building codes
To basically when you build your buildings. They have to be solar ready. I
I don't know what these costs actually are.
And again, I think where the clarity needs to come is with large institutional
landlords like ourselves, we have a better opportunity to deploy capital.
It will, where the difficulty could come would be on the guy that would like to build
four little 1000 square foot grade level buildings.
You know, he may not be able to afford that unless he was perhaps incentivized,
or subsidized to do that.
So the blanket answer is less regulation, less code, the better for us is we always feel
that we actually do a very good job, but the nudges here and there and if we get the
industry on the side, it's not going to be a line in the sand.
See, I guess the problem that I've got with that is that as you say, that would mean some
players play in some don't bother.
Now, having said that, a big part of the problem that we on this side of the horseshoe, we don't
really understand the actual costs involved when we put these together, and that's part
of our issue is that it's easy for us to say, hey, solar, that's a great idea.
You guys should all go out and put it ready.
Having no concept of what the actual dollar value is that we're implementing on you.
So that's a part that we have to be very careful about, and I don't know what the solution
to that is. Yeah, it looks like something I would give you, you know, California imposes this,
right? And so developers go to Arizona or Nevada to areas, and I also would say that, you know,
to having every rooftop as a solar farm is aspirational, but if we put things together where we have
some 20, 30, 40 percent over time, this is also the long game, right? So,
So if you don't mind, I'd love to hear your response to that.
So I don't have the depth of background as a large pension fund.
I am a smaller landlord, and we do have ten in season retail and in restaurant.
And they are very sensitive to their operating line costs, right?
They have a gross rent that says, here's how much you pay for your building and stuff like that.
And then the op cost property taxes, running the building, all that good stuff like that.
They are always welcome to energy efficiency savings.
They are not also so welcome to the cost of the capital required that gets passed out.
So, it is a very sensitive time frame for a lot of actual on the ground retail tendencies
and I think on the ground homeowners as well.
I think the key takeaway is we have a lot of expertise in how we can do it.
for example, Paul's example of, we're sold already.
Well, what if we're sold already wrong, right?
What if it's the wrong type of thing to put in right now?
And in 15, 20 years, that money was just fitted away
because what's needed in this place
no longer works from what he invested in the past.
So I think if we work together as a task force
to identify some of these opportunities
to make sure that we make them as available as possible,
make them implementable, make them such that they actually
happen on the ground and don't just sit as policy,
which is I think the root concern we have,
everybody will be better off.
We're looking to bring the implementation solutions
to the table and we're just looking for that opportunity
of that helps.
That does, thank you.
Thank you.
Great questions.
Councillor Gontette, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Actually, your last comment fits in with my question,
Mr. Olinberger.
You said it can't just be policy.
It's got to be something that we can actually implement.
I'm wondering if Urban Land Institute has been engaged by industry.
I don't see anything from them.
Are they at the table?
I don't believe so, not to my knowledge.
Yeah, it's kind of a problem for me because I'm looking at a report called
potential game changer for the global real estate industry.
And it's all about the Paris Accord.
It's a summary for decision makers.
It was issued in September 2016 by ULI Urban Land Institute.
I think most of our membership are our keen supporters of ULI.
As you know, ULI is not an industry group or they're not into advocacy.
They're more into the education components and the networking and things like that.
So there is some amazing tools.
There's no question about a concert on that we could leverage using some of those ULI resources.
But I don't think the absence of somebody say, hi, I got a ULI flag.
Should be taken as anything, they really don't do this type of discussion.
I would probably argue the opposite.
I understand that you're doing advocacy work, and I think it's great, but I will raise
the flag on the fact that we sometimes get caught up in policy instead of best practice.
That's something that happened to us when we looked at health impact assessment and creating
healthier communities.
And we had a big debate at committee, this is before I was on council, about whether we should
to take the role of implementing policy
around designing healthier communities
or should it be best practices?
It ended up being a best practices approach.
When you've got a global organization
that's doing best practices, research,
documenting it, issuing papers,
working with cities like Boston and Tampa Bay,
and Calgary finally has a chapter,
I hope that industry reaches out and works with that group
because I don't see them here and I'd really like to.
I think you have some great points, Mark.
I would like to point out that it's really not up to us to reach out to you all I.
You all I is a very great organization.
They should be here, perhaps they would be here, perhaps they're not aware what's happening.
They will be part of the process, but perhaps Councilor should also be looking to them to
say how come you weren't here.
Absolutely, that's one of my questions for administration.
I don't care who it is, somebody needs to reach out to them and I hope someone in this audience
is a member.
Well friends we'll be talking to them. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Collier, your card, please.
I have a question. I have lots to say later. So by some of the tone of your comments I
get the impression that you think that this hasn't been a collaborative exercise which I take
exception with if I've interpreted the tone of your presentations.
We had a strategic
We plan on the table here 10 years ago for climate change and nothing happened, really.
It was a plan sat there, collected dust, till these guys came along, and then a few of
us have had our shoulder to the wheel here since last October to get moving on this.
So I view this document as a very collaborative document with key stakeholders that has
got us this far so I'd like to get your response back. I also view it, there are two parts
to the attachments which have been mislabeled so I just put a small amendment in there but
this is a huge opportunity as I see it again and I want your feedback for internally at the
city of Calgary for us to get our house in order, and you'll see all of the action
plans line up with specific business units and what their expectations are.
It hasn't gone as far as timelines, what the deliverables will be from those business
units, and consequently how those business units will align with their key industry stakeholders.
So that's the next chunk of work as I see it.
So, having said all that, is my interpretation of what you're saying accurate or not?
Just to understand the question, the interpretation being that we don't believe this was a collaborative
effort.
Right.
That's part of what I said.
I've said a few things that I didn't get the sense that you were very supportive of this work.
No, I want to think of the question because I want to make sure that we correct it.
No, in fact, it has been very collaborative particularly on the mitigation side.
I think there was some things on the adaptation side that occurred that will probably enter
into collaboration later.
It's just it hasn't been done at this point in time.
I think that collaboration is an ongoing process.
It's not something that you do and then you're finished and then you release everything.
So I think what we were trying to bring forward is that the collaboration that we've had
got us to this point.
What we need is a way to functionally and usefully continue that collaboration beyond the approval of this plan, and if, as we understand it, the endorsement of this plan with all the actions as written gets, I'll say, written in stone, it might make those collaborative efforts moving forward more difficult because we'll be perceived that, well, you know, we took this to committee, we took this as council, it specifically says this, we have to deliver to the letter of whatever it is that they approved, as opposed to allowing the collaboration
to take place, to say we understand the direction, we understand the programs, we understand the themes.
What are the best actions that we could take collectively industry, other stakeholders as well as the city in order to make some of these happen?
So we were saying the action plans could probably be better determined by collaboration, by not fixing them in place and making them inflexible.
That was our concern.
We think that that collaboration could and should continue and it should happen under a governance framework so
that when we go in and work with all the different business units, we understand that this strategy
has priority, that alignment of, you know, processes and strategies and plans and specifications
and all these sorts of things, sort of get aligned under a larger banner and a larger party.
Without the way we've worked with Imagine Calgary and the growth management overlay and establishing
industry working groups in order to flesh out those details from an implementation strategy.
I'd be interested in the other's point of view as well.
Yeah, it's not at all about they're having nothing collaboration.
I have a question without that, you know, that, that, that next step that I, that sort of forces us to be able to step back and say, okay, this one we can do now, this one we can do, then, you know, that, that's really where we're coming from. So it's not a line in the sand at all. And for sure, you know, I echo what I said earlier, the, the work we do is, is very healthy and very productive. Right. And the other thing I'd like you to comment on is I would actually like to see.
the whole reporting mechanism evolved from a governance perspective where we actually hear from key industry players like
themselves. When you report to the standing policy committees on the steps that you guys are taking to help us build a great city.
We have a lot of that far. It's a good, it's a good thing for sure.
Okay, yeah. Thanks. That's all I have. I'm done.
Thank you very much. Councillor Ferrell, please.
Thank you. So what I'm hearing is you support that Calgary needs a climate strategy and you
want to be at the table to identify priorities and actions and how you fit in. So what would
be the issue to move forward today? I mean how can we move forward today without delay because
what I'm hearing is delay. There's a sense of urgency here and I think we'll hear from members
of the public that will speak about that and really address your concerns through the implementation.
Thank you very much. I think the challenge we've had to date is the policy complex
and trying to prioritize this.
So I think most of our industry have tried projects of very nature and we run into roadblocks
that make them very expensive and slow and complete.
So that would be an action item which would be to develop a priority and to form a working
group on implementation and go ahead.
Let me have two examples, district energy as an example.
So we'll always say target versus technology.
When we talk about solar or we talk about district energy, both those come with often
unforeseen problems down the road.
So for example, prescribing a solar ready program where companies, individual citizens are
invest money up front to make their homes ready for solar and what that does in the future
is actually limits density potentially because we don't, we have a talk about solar easements
as a city that I'm aware of. So if, if a building is allowed to grow next to it and block that
investment, I mean that's a challenge we're going to have. District energy being prescribed.
So we know as I stated earlier that 15 years from now, which is really quick in the building world,
we're going to have to build 70% more efficient.
There's going to be no need for the heat that these high temperature district energy systems have and they're big investments up front.
So having individuals from industry and administration where we can have those conversations to talk about hey these are going to be the problems down the road.
We'll help in prioritizing decisions today.
But that's an implementation issue, is it not?
I'm thinking about build and UDI before that.
I'm just trying to remember something that you've supported.
So, the plan of Calgary and the municipal development plan and Calgary Transportation
plan, I mean, it goes on and on and often that criticism comes at the 11th hour when we're
ready to bring the report.
I'm not sure if that happened or not.
And so I'm, excuse me, if I'm frustrated, I'm looking for a solution.
There's a sense of urgency.
We have delayed this for a decade, and so we need to move forward with something today.
And I'm just wondering, are you moving forward with us?
So just so that we're clear, because I think perhaps you misunderstood what we're saying.
We're not looking to stop this.
In fact, we very much want to move it forward.
We're saying that in order to be able to move it forward in a functional and effective way,
we need to take the actions and look at them and figure out a way to prioritism so that we can deliver on them.
What we don't want to see is that the belief that if we pass the policy that equates to moving forward,
sometimes just passing policy because there I told you so you got to go do it,
creates challenges not only for our industry but also for administration
on how they work across each other that then you spend years trying to back in that.
And when really we all get it, we do want to go there, we want to go there as quickly as possible, but there's sort of a thoughtful way of putting it together.
Can you give me an example of that?
I have one.
Sorry.
Not directly related to this file, Councillor Farrell.
Nose Creek Watershed Management Plan, we cannot achieve the targets at.
They are about to come back to you and say we cannot do the 2017 targets.
We're going to have to stick with 2013.
And the reality is that the industry can't really effectively hit the 2013 targets either.
So we've set a great plan, we've got great goals, we know exactly where we're going to
go as a theme, we're all supportive of it, but the pace and how it's being implemented
is a challenge.
So that's what we're trying to do today is let's work together in the implementation, we're
all in on the plan.
I think, you know, I hope that would be assumed, we can't move forward without the cooperation
of Calgarians. And that includes members of the industry who will be building our city,
but let's make sure that when we're building it, we build it right. And we look at the technology
that's available to us today. It's hard to predict what's going to happen in the future. I know
it's going to be different. And so, okay, you want to be at the table and as far as prioritizing
and implementation.
Yes.
Thank you.
Councillor Falon.
Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you for your time and we'll proceed with the members of the public.
We'll start with Ms. Monica Curtis, please.
So members from the public, just as a reminder, you will have five minutes to speak.
And if you could begin your speech with your name, clearly so the clerks have the opportunity to document it.
Good morning, Ms. Curtis.
Good morning. I'm Monica Curtis. I'm the CEO of Energy Efficiency Alberta.
So, I'm not sure that characterizes the member of the public as quite it.
But it was the opportunity to provide support to this report.
Thank you committee members for the opportunity to speak to you this morning on this important topic
and express the support of Energy Efficiency Alberta for Calgary's Climate Resilience Report.
Just a quick note about who we are. Energy Efficiency Alberta is the Provincial Crown Corporation that
delivers programs and services that enables Alberta citizens, businesses, industry and institutions
to improve energy use and reduce carbon emissions while diversifying our economy and creating jobs.
We're governed by a board of directors and funded by the government of Alberta.
and guided by a three-part mandate to raise awareness about energy use and the associated
economic and environmental consequences and opportunities to promote design and deliver
programs related to energy efficiency, energy conservation and the development of micro-generation
and small-scale renewable energy, and to promote the development of an energy efficiency and
energy services industry in Alberta and in Calgary.
Our programming, we currently offer suite of programs and continue to evolve that over time.
Those initiatives include things in our first six months from July to December of 2017.
We participated in driving programming across Alberta business, residents and industries that
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 3 million tons, more than 1200 organizations, businesses,
This is nonprofits and institutions and I think we had a comment earlier about the incentive
programs for lighting that includes Calgary businesses that have participated.
Close to 4,700 energy efficient products have been installed across the province.
We have a network of more than 4,500 homes that have participated in our residential programs.
over 600 participating retailers, including a significant number of Calgary both retail organizations and locations.
And as one example, our residential note charge program has 150,000 Alberta residents.
With over a third of those being located here in Calgary,
represents 12% of single family households across the province.
So my point in that is that Albertans and Calgarians are clearly interested, their participation
in this programming demonstrates their interest in being part of energy efficiency and renewable
energy in the city.
This report represents important work for the city of Calgary and a real leadership opportunity
as the councilor noted.
Energy efficiency Alberta supports this report, including the target for an 80% reduction
and greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The plan aligns with broader objectives that energy efficiency Alberta's programming is
designed to support activity that will grow in the coming months and years.
We anticipate that this plan as carbon-centric and performance-based will be based on broad
collaboration and look forward to the opportunity to be part of that.
Energy efficiency Alberta is actively participating in both policy discussions and implementing
and are happy to be involved in working towards important goals that align with the goals that this plan puts forward for the city of Calgary.
We have invested in energy efficiency in the local economy and have a mandate to continue to do so.
As all of us can coordinate and work together.
In our view, the Climate Resilience Report provides an important framework.
work. An adoption of this plan is a critical first step to moving forward in terms of opportunities
for implementing a broad range of actions that can support energy efficiency and renewable
energy for years to come. Energy efficiency, Alberta, looks forward to adoption of Calgary's
climate resilience report as a foundation for action and look forward to the opportunity
to collaborate and coordinate as this moves forward. Thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
I do have one question for you is how do you see your role in terms of the actual action
plans?
Mm-hmm.
So I think there's a number of things.
We do have programs and services that provide funding and services across Alberta that align
with many of the actions that are identified in the plan.
We see opportunities to coordinate our actions.
We are working on similar opportunities with cities like the City of Edmonton, City of
Medicine Hat, Red Deer, Grand Prairie, so a number of cities across the province where
we see opportunities for our programming to support and to the work of individual cities in
these areas.
And then we also see it the other way around where we have programming that can contribute to the goals and objectives that you've laid forward.
Excellent, thank you, Ms. Curves.
Thanks for coming today.
Chair, next speaker is Mr. Bill Phillips, please.
Sorry, Phillips is it?
I mispronounce it.
Philips?
Philips.
Philips, thank you.
There's no L in there.
I've been called Phillips on my life because people don't quite get that there's no L.
I get called Wade all the time.
Or do you just call me whatever you want, most people do that.
Anyway, my name is Bill Fipps.
I'm here on behalf, or as part of Calgary citizens on climate change.
And also I'm a retired minister of the United Church of Canada.
So I play a number of roles.
I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to be here.
but especially the staff and administration for the detailed and visionary work leading
up to this document because I know they've worked very hard at this and I haven't had a
chance to read the whole thing in detail, but it looks like a fairly comprehensive thing
that we've been waiting for and want to move on, okay?
I believe that somebody talked about reality, you know, on the ground reality.
I believe that climate change is the embracing reality of life in the 21st century.
It is the context in which all of life has lived and affects everything we do.
It's not just an issue that you can tick off, oh we did that, we did that, we did that.
It's the embracing reality and I think we have to get our heads around that, that this
This is it, folks, and we're in a state of emergency in many ways.
No part of life escapes the far reaching effect of climate change.
So I'm glad that this report seems to or this plan seems to be integrated throughout all
departments and systems and structures of the city.
That's very important.
This can't just be off in a corner somewhere with people working away on it.
it affects everything the city does and I'm really glad that this plan, as I understand it,
reaches everywhere. It's essential if we have any hope of doing our part in climate mitigation
adaptation. Of course, I'm interested to see the budget connected with each part of this. I'm also
So I'm interested to see and look forward to it with specific timelines and goals so
So, we can measure ...
And I look forward to those that coming forward. I also agree with this that widespread education
and public and community engagement is very important in this because everybody is involved
and is affected by climate change, so we should all be fully engaged as much as we can
at every level of the city's life. Now there's one thing that I think is absolutely essential
on this and in our meetings with various counselors and staff we've said this
every time I think and that is leadership. Every city counselor and the mayor
have to stand up and be counted on this and be seen to be champions for
getting on with our city addressing climate change. It's not good enough just
just for people to know oh yeah I think the cities in favor and they got this
little program and so on, I think every City Councilor and the mayor have to be out
front. In my work, I meet a lot of calgarians from all walks of life, all political parties,
all of that stuff, and stuff has changed in the last year or two. People are eager to do the
right thing and to be involved. And so your leadership and the leadership of your colleagues, including
in the mayor is essential to engage everybody.
People are looking for that kind of positive leadership
that I know each one of you can give.
So we're looking for bold, passionate, informed leadership
for climate mitigation and adaptation.
And if the city of Calgary wants to be a leader,
as I think the beginning of the document says,
then let's be leaders, but you can't be leaders.
If people don't know where you stand, and if people don't know that you're moving this along.
So I just want last comment, just since I'm a United Church minister, I want the city
to know that the United Church of Canada nationally has committed itself to the same goals to
reducing our greenhouse gas emissions on our thousands of buildings throughout this country
by 80% by 2050, and we've instituted a program to encourage congregations and all of our units to be involved in this.
So people are wanting to get on board, and that's different than it was a few years ago.
There are votes in this, actually, folks, because people want the kind of leadership that you can give.
Thank you.
Please stay up.
You have a question from Councillor Cullioucarte, please.
Thanks, Robert, for being here.
How do you incent your congregation to take action at the neighborhood community level?
Well, there are some of them, I can say Paul's church in Edmonton, for example, has had
solar panels for a number of years.
I know the Parkdale United Church, for example, is looking at it.
They've done a lot of work, efficiency kinds of work, and they're examining, as we speak,
putting solar panels on their building.
There are a number of other United Churches who are doing that.
I mean your congregations, the people, individual action.
Well, part, that's what I'm talking about, is that these congregations are taking action.
What it also does, from our point of view, in the way we try to promote it, is encourages
individuals to do the same thing.
If their church is changing their windows or changing their bulbs or all of that stuff people say, you know
I could do that in my house and say the money we had a good education and it talks that shows us how we can do it
The other thing it does as you well know is that is it is an inspiration for the community
When you have solar panels on your feet people say, oh geez
That I heard there's some incentives from the provincial government and from our city to do this
I think I'll get in touch with them.
So, the thing spreads as you see visibly what people are
actually doing.
Okay. Great. Thanks.
They care.
Great.
It's not just a money thing.
They care for the future because climate change is affecting
everybody.
And we won't be here in a few generations unless we act.
It's as simple as that.
Great. Thank you for coming today.
Next is Tom Kerwin, please.
Thank you very much.
And I'm with the same organization that Bill Fips is, in other words, the Calgary citizens on climate change, and I've three points, two general points, and one more specific.
Firstly, as others have, I congratulate the City Administration on its work in getting a comprehensive document together.
I've worked 30 years in federal government and housing and energy issues, and I know how difficult it can be to put such a monstrosity together.
So congratulations, and it's natural that you have over 100 recommendations given how comprehensive the approach is.
Secondly, on the mitigation side, I find it a little disappointing.
I am heart pressed to see how this will get us to the 80% reduction by 2050.
I think I hope that as part of the next steps that there will be some fairly aggressive goals and moves to actually get us there.
because the mitigation plan as currently outlined doesn't give me hope for that one.
The third item, we're rightly in the document somewhat, we have keen on our memory
the 2013 floods.
And I spent a few weeks after that, both mucking out houses and also working at Hillhurst,
sunny side, community center, giving information to residents there about what to do.
And one of the things that struck me from that exercise was that there needs to be good
public information ready, and in other words, it's alluded to in your document, but specifically
in the issue of moisture mold issues, that the province and C-MHC for that matter have
some documentation there, but I'd encourage the city as part of its modest going forward.
It is a fairly straightforward suggestion to actually make sure that that is kept up to date,
that they have ready access to that, so that if we have another flood of that nature,
that we have that type of information readily available, and that's the extent of my presentation today, thank you.
Great. Thank you. You have a question from Councillor Ferrell, please.
Thank you. Thank you for being here. I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name.
Kerwin, Tom Kerwin.
Kerwin and your organization is called outing?
It's the Calgary, the 4C with
Baudix and Bill Fips are with.
And we have, I should mention to Councillor Collier-Cart's question earlier, that 4C, our group
has worked with congregations and having public education events as well, such as at Hilfers
United Church.
Please.
Thank you for doing that.
So how would we meet our targets?
You're concerned that the recommendations won't get us to where we want to go.
What are, specifically, what are your concerns?
Okay.
That the energy efficiency and renewable energy aspects of it still need a lot of work.
And I think that the best way to do that perhaps is that there are a number and I can send
information subsequently to administration.
There are a number of cities across the world in the states in Europe and elsewhere in Canada that have embarked on similar ventures and actually I think have a little more aggressive in what they're hoping to do.
So I'd happy to send that to yourself and to members of the administration.
Thank you. I think all members of council would be interested in that.
Very good. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
The next speaker is Christy. I think it's Paige. It's hard to read the last name here.
Good morning. Is it Paige?
Yeah, it is. It's Christy Paige. Welcome.
I was born and raised in Calgary. I'm a mom. I'm an average Calgaryen. I'm here to talk for two reasons.
One is two years ago, I was invited by a friend to tag along to one of the film festival's
sustainability panels.
And during the Q&A, I was really surprised to find out that we're a joke.
Calgarians are a joke when it comes to environmentalism.
Our environmental literacy is so low.
They gave the example of, they show up in Edmonton, everyone who comes on set brings their own water bottle.
Two years ago in Calgary, Calgarians didn't know what receptacle, to put their water, their plastic water bottle into.
And they just had example after example of that.
That was embarrassing to hear.
I think that our citizens are smart.
I think we need to raise expectations on them.
and I think they'll rise to the occasion.
The other reason I'm here is I'm an asthmatic
and I find the air quality in Calgary on average is great,
but there's pockets where I cross 10th street
to go to state regularly and to cross 10th street
the smog is just stifling.
I need to use my inhaler to cross it
and I think we need to do something to change that.
My family sponsor to Syria and refugee family of seven, we looked at getting them transit
passes in Calgary.
It was not affordable.
It made way more sense for them to get a car.
There is something wrong when that is what makes the most sense.
If Bogota, Colombia can offer free transit, then Calgary should be able to do something to
make it that transit is the better option, the most affordable option.
And as you guys are up there on council, climate change or climate action is great, but
I think it needs to be radical.
And it's not about saving the planet, I mean, that's the bonus.
What it is, is it's about helping those people who need it, the people with health issues
that have trouble breathing in this city, the people who can afford to get around this city.
Those are the votes you guys should be going after by wanting radical climate change.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, thank you for your time.
Next speaker, Mr. Ryan, remain, please.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members.
So my name is Ryan Germain.
I'm the vice president at ADCO for natural gas distribution operations in the Calgary region.
I want to thank the city of Calgary and the climate change program team for giving
ATCO an opportunity to participate in the city's low carbon advisory panel and the embedded
working groups.
As an organization, we endeavor to take part in these multi-stakeholder discussions as a
shared to see a shared energy future that will help us develop a more collaborative, innovative
solutions to climate change.
As a long-time integrated energy infrastructure provider in Alberta, it's our responsibility
at ATCO to deliver clean, efficient, and reliable energy solutions to our customers.
We know that the transition to a lower emitting energy system is extremely complex and challenging.
And ATCO is committed to this challenge.
We're committed to exploring how we continue to deliver the benefits of reliability, resiliency
and affordability while contributing to lower GHG emissions.
Currently, we're investing in innovative and renewable technology
such as solar projects, distributed generation like
micro-combined heat and power, but we're also continuing to discover
ways we can help support transition to a cleaner future.
Today, for example, we're working hard on projects to green our
energy grid and deliver low to net zero carbon renewable natural gas to make best use of our
existing natural gas distribution system. So renewable natural gas or RNG is a natural gas
produced from organic waste such as from farms, forest, landfills, water treatment plants.
It's 100% interchangeable with regular natural gas can be produced 24, 7, 365 days a year.
can be delivered and stored using existing infrastructure.
The benefit of RNG is that it captures potentially more harmful GHGs like methane produced
from organic waste before they enter the atmosphere.
It then can convert that into natural gas for use in buildings, CNG buses, power generation,
which offsets the use of conventional natural gas, further reducing emissions.
In many cases, RNG can be actually carbon negative.
Municipalities are positioned well to demonstrate leadership, realize economic benefits, and increase climate resiliency via the development of renewable content of their energy grid, both as a producer of RNG, but also as a consumer of it.
Well, there's no specific actions citing RNG in the proposed climate resiliency strategy
and action plan.
There is mention of RNG potential as a fuel switching alternative.
And I just want to highlight that as a potential for RNG for fleet vehicles as a viable contributor
towards the city's climate change objectives.
We look forward to continuing to work with the city of Calgary on the important plan of climate
resilience.
We believe our efforts to pioneer low-at-mitting energy solutions for our customers could help inform the city's strategy.
As mentioned, we believe this includes RNG, but also includes many of the strong actions identified in the plan today, like on-site neighborhood scale renewals, low-carbon energy systems,
Electric and low emission vehicles, energy management, and performance. We believe that a viable long-term solution takes understanding of the challenges and needs of the communities, identifying those opportunities, and then ultimately participating in those solutions for a better future. So thank you, again, for your time, and I'm here to take questions, if you have any. I also have just summary of my notes that I can find out. Great. Thank you. Thank you.
I just have a quick question is, I thought we were testing natural gas buses.
We were doing a pilot on that.
Yes, there are CNG buses that is gas from our system directly.
Just highlighting the opportunity to use renewable natural gas to power,
whether they're city buses or other vehicles in the city.
Is there a summary report coming on the testing or is that been done already?
I cannot remember to be honest on the outcome.
We can come back to you on that one.
Yeah.
I believe there is one coming in.
Okay.
So come back.
Thank you for coming today.
Okay.
Next speaker is Mr. Heather, please.
Mr. Heather?
Good afternoon.
Through the chairman to the councilors bless you in the name of Jesus, our creator.
We have examples from nature when I just have a couple paragraphs on the importance of carbon dioxide may not be aware of.
When speaking of breathing, the first thing most people think of is the oxygen.
But carbon dioxide is actually just as important, which not many people know about.
Every cell in our body needs a certain concentration of dioxide emissions around 6.5%
in order to maintain a normal life, when human life first began on the planet, the atmosphere
had a different composition than today. There were over 20% carbon dioxide in the air
at that time. Carbon dioxide concentration has fallen sharply, and now there is only
three hundreds of percent in the air. The human body has to compensate for this gradual decline,
and has done so by creating an internal air environment in the small vesicles, the avioli,
inside the lungs. The optimum amount of carbon dioxide in the blood is 6.5%. If a carbon
content is less than this, the cells get less oxygen because the lack of carbon dioxide
causes a chemical reaction which causes oxygen-rich blood not to be able to be released
to the tissues. And that causes a condition called hypoxia, the death of the cells eventually.
So, we have to realize when I read this report with all of its voluminous, voluminous, 176 recommendations,
I saw Wagon coming down Old Banff Quote's trail. And as I got closer to the center of the town,
I saw a sign on the end, on the side of the wagon, it said, Dr. Ebenezer's Miracle Tonic.
This is a direct attack on our oil and gas resource industry, from which we gain our taxes
to operate our city.
We have the petroleum show going on just down the trail here, and we've got a report which
is a poison pill for the industry.
less oil and gas, less use of this.
And the only way we could keep this road show going is by hoping that the rest of the
world still needs oil and gas while we try to commit self suicide in this manner.
So there's an aspirational disease, aspiration has been mentioned.
There's a disease of the aspirations, which is called mass transference neurosis.
It's a mass delusion that a public can state aspirational goals that are totally
unfulfellable will bankrupt us.
Every one of those 176 actions are going to cost millions of dollars and it's going
to go sailing through this committee this morning on the council entirely uncosted.
This is a disease of the mental process and you see it in just and true to often.
You know?
You see the integration in the NAFTA talks with gender parity and all of these other
things.
So we have to pull back.
If you could keep it to the actual strategy, please.
You're going on, Basel.
You see in the document low-carbon economy.
This is a switch in terminology from the initial environment climate plan.
It was GHG, greenhouse gases.
Now it's low carbon, there's carbon in this thing, this is made of carbon, that is made
of carbon, the plants outside are using photosynthesis, the production of steel involves
high amounts of carbon, the breathing process I've mentioned.
So we're getting entirely off, we're going to spend billions and dollars eventually on an internal attack while Mr. Kenny and Mr. Scott Moe and Doug Ford are fighting the carbon tax and want to revoke it.
And here is the left-wing City Council Administration.
Sure, Heather, stay to the topic.
This is about the strategy.
Do you agree or disagree with the strategy?
We can't even water our spruces.
We've got dying shrub beds all over the city, full of
thistles, curling over, dead spots all over the place.
We can't even handle that.
And we're talking about redesigning the entire city.
This is good for the planning class.
Yes, they'll make millions, but it will have no-
Okay, your time's up, Mr. Heather, thank you for your time.
No, we gather, you don't agree with the strategy.
Thank you.
Next speaker, Ms. Monica Leong, please.
Good morning, my name is Monica.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.
This is not something that I ever do and that I ever imagined I would do.
But I just wanted to come and add my voice to the crowd of people who
are very engaged in the idea that our lives need to change because of climate change.
And that despite the fact that changes will be expensive, not making those changes will
be more expensive.
And in my world, I'm an educator with new Canadians from refugee backgrounds and immigrant
backgrounds.
and I'm a mom, and in my daily world, in my little life, in Calgary, in my little community,
I'm seeing over the last few years that the people that I engage with are more aware of things
about the environment. They're more accepting of the concept of climate change.
And yet, we all just need a little bit more push.
And so my congratulations goes out to you for considering the strategy and these action plans.
and I would very much like to encourage you to accept them and approve them so that
your leadership can help individuals like me and my little family make the kinds of
decisions that are hard to make, and that costs money, maybe, but in the long run are
going to be the right decisions and that will save us money and effort and difficulty in
the future for mitigating these things.
So thank you and I applaud your work.
Great. Thanks for coming. We appreciate your thoughts. Our next speaker, Miss
Sadie Vapon, please.
And your Sadie? Yes. Hi. Welcome. Thanks for coming. Hello. My
name is Sadie. I'm 12 years old and I am here today to make a difference. I want
to try and help fix global warming because it makes lives around the world. Not
just humans worse. In talking to you, we can make a bigger difference. The more
people that are helping the bigger the difference is going to be. I'm not saying that one single
person is going to fix the entire problem of global warming by themselves. It's going to be,
it's going to be by thousands and millions of people working together to make a world a better
a better place. And some people, well, they don't believe that the world is suffering from global
warming that we created. In Harry Potter, I don't know if you've read Harry Potter, but if you have,
you'll know that the Ministry of Magic didn't want to believe that Voldemort had come back from
the dead because they were scared of that idea. But just shoving it away and claiming that it
doesn't exist doesn't make the whole idea just disappear. Pretend that the Ministry of Magic are
the ones that don't believe in global warming. Voldemort is global warming and Harry and many other
people are the ones that raise an army to overcome Voldemort. We are that army and guess what? Once the
Ministry figures out that they were all wrong. They were wrong all along. They put
in maximum effort to help overthrow Voldemort. We want that to happen. We need
this to happen. Since we made this problem, we have to fix it. If we don't, who
will? I'm pretty sure we won't have dolphins and
swas in loud and berms trying to figure this out. You guys are leaders. You can
make a huge difference and lead us in the right way.
My whole family is trying to make a difference.
Even things that are quite small, my sister, Willa,
is working to ban plastics in this city
and my dad does countless things to improve the planet.
I beg of you to try your best and help our mine
and yours future.
And the more people we have helping,
the more people will notice all of us trying to help.
and this will go on like a chain reaction.
Maybe the more people that are helping,
we may have the whole world of 7.6 billion people
helping to change the world.
I'm just 12 years old.
I shouldn't be have to worry about this stuff,
but I have to because this isn't the world
I want to grow up in.
So if we all have to protect my generation,
the next generation and so on,
so please make a change for the better, thank you.
Yes.
Thanks, Sadie.
Thanks for coming up.
You did a great job.
Yes.
Okay.
Our next speaker is Mr. Mike Sherbert, please.
I'd like to thank the committee for allowing us to come speak here.
I'm here with the Climate Action Group.
And I have three things I'd like to speak about.
I would like to all make you aware of that.
But there has been a lot of work done in the type of things that you're already doing
here with this strategy.
And so I'd like to point out to you that if you have YouTube at home, I would like
you to listen to a lecture by a gentleman named Tony Siba, T-O-N-Y-S-E-B-A.
and he's a professor at Stanford and he is an expert in energy pricing and he
speaks very eloquently about disruptions and before you make any decisions on
this particular piece of legislation I would like you to spend an hour and watch
that film because it really really really brings everything to home here and there is so much that he
says which influences everybody here that spoke here today by the way about he shows very convincing
that within the next 10 to 12 years our whole society will be changed drastically.
And one of the things he's convinced about that by the year 2024, all cars, all vehicles will be just electric.
And the internal combustion engine will be totally gone by then.
And he is also convinced that by the year 2030, we will be using 80% less fossil fuels.
And that will get, as far as I'm concerned, I'm a climatologist, by the way.
I have been working as a technician in the environment for the city of Calgary and
many other government levels for 34 years.
And I think that you would do yourself a great favor by watching this lecture.
There's two other things I like to speak about.
It's on YouTube, by the way, and two things I like to speak about is that the by-law,
when it comes to environmental legislation is seriously lacking its very bad shape.
It prevents people from doing a lot of good environmental things.
And the other thing is I have availed myself to, I've created a bucket list, the things
that I've wanted to do, which I learned a lot about while I was.
We put on that bucket list all the kind of things that I would like to do to make the environment
and the air better. And so I have years ago, I changed LED lights and did all the right things
that we are supposed to do. We do need to change our billing code to save on energy in a big
way. And I, for instance, have just recently bought an electric car, and now I'm trying
to put solar panels on my roof so that I can feed the electric car. And that is where
I ran into a problem right there because the city owns Endmax.
They have opted for
or by-laws so that you have to have your solar panels grid died.
And I object to that because in the progressive places around the world where they have already
gone solar very drastically, they have had fights with the utilities and the community.
And it has shown that, eventually, solar electric power is going to get so cheap that it will really remove all other forms of energy.
And I would gladly like to talk to anybody about this because I have researches for a long time.
So, if you have any questions, I think that's all I want to say.
Okay. Yes, we do. We have a question from Councillor Demogh, who is actually on the end of the export.
Gee, thanks.
Yeah, no, I'm done. No pressure.
So, I'm intrigued when you say that solar energy will be cheaper than anything else that we can do.
I'm trying to understand the time frame because my understanding is solar at this point
almost anywhere in the world is still in the triple quadruple cost range of most
other types.
So I'm not clear on how that works when you include what the actual capital expense
costs are, which almost any energy company does.
What Tony Siva talks about is that we will eventually have so cheap solar power
from solar panels on top of your building that all other forms of power, even the transmission
and any other form of energy, is going to be too expensive.
Okay.
I understand that.
But what I'm trying to understand is, so this gentleman that you're referencing,
I don't
know how, that may well be true, but at what point are we talking 25 years, are we talking
50 years, I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
I will tell you, he talks about autonomous vehicles
by the year 2020-22.
He talks about, like I said earlier,
all internal combustion engines,
all vehicles being built no matter what they are,
We'll be using electric motors in by 2024.
He talks about the oil industry is going to be drastically affected by this.
May I interrupt you?
I was under the impression that you were saying that you were familiar with the solar energy
enough in your own personal basis that you would be able to speak to it.
So can we talk about that rather than what this gentleman is suggesting is going to happen
in some future?
Okay, well, what's happened is that this is sort of forced me, or I realize the urgency
of trying to put solar panels on my roof and having an electric car because everybody
in, everybody's new car after 2022 is going to be an electric car, so that's why I have
opted to do that right now.
Okay, no that's fine.
But one of my big points is I spent my whole life
as an environmentalist.
And one of the big concerns was always CO2.
CO2 is always going to be a problem.
Well, you're going to have people using 80% less fossil fuels
by the year 30.
We are going to reach low CO2 levels long before 50, which everybody is aiming for.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next is Joe Vipon, please, and then after Joe Vipon is Simon Irving, so they're ready.
And I'm assuming you're the proud father.
I am.
Yes.
Welcome.
Can I just answer Dr. Mr. Nebong's, Councillor Nebong's question before I throw myself
into it?
What, you can do it in your, okay, I'll do it at the end if you want to slide it in.
So I'm Dr. Joe Viapund.
I'm representing the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Calgary
Climate Hub, of which we have a number of members here that will be speaking today.
The hub is a diverse group of, Calgary answer, really concerned about climate change.
I think that we've really been working hard to gather information and speak on this topic.
I just want to point out that the last time that I got to speak on this topic was in February 23rd of 2017,
five people spoke at that, of which one of them was Mr. Larry Heather and myself.
Look at this room, it's packed full of people that care.
there. It's been a big change in just over a year and that's amazing. We're super excited
that things are moving forward and we readily endorse this plan. It's a big step for
the city and it's been a long time since you've had a climate plan. So let's go back to
what Councillor Collier said. We did have a plan in 2011. It was quite a good plan. It
It was very well thought out.
There was great discussion amongst the diverse stakeholders and it sat on a shelf and gathered dust.
What was missing was resources.
There was never at any point staff or money put towards that plan and it failed miserably.
In fact, as you all know, our climate emissions are actually higher than they were in 2011.
and we are not expected at all to even come close to meeting our 2020 targets.
This plan needs resources, it needs money, and it needs staff.
There will be a cost to acting on this, but as has been previously pointed out,
there's also a cost to not acting, and that cost is much, much higher.
The second thing we think this plan needs going forward is real targets and real actions.
So there's a lot of hundreds of actions that are laid out there.
The language needs to be stronger, and we do need to have real targets.
We don't know where we're going, how are we going to know whether we're going down the
right track, whether we're getting there.
2050 is a long time from now.
It's a lot of different elections, and it's very easy to kick the can down the road and
leave it for other generations, because hey, we're just in it for four years.
So we need to have four or five year targets so that we know if we're going down the right
path.
The word sprawl is never mentioned in the entire document.
I suspect that's the biggest concern by both Calgary is this concern about sprawl.
We're synonymous.
This city is synonymous with sprawl, and it's the elephant in the room.
If we're not addressing that, we are not going to make our targets.
If we continue to just expand, expand, expand, and neglect the building up of our urban environment,
building up rather than out, we're going to fail.
Citizen engagement, it's really exciting to see that Akko and
Bill Calgary and Pembena were all at the table.
Mr. Collier and Mr. Everson, where were we?
Where were the citizens?
We need to be a part of this.
This is our city, like this is our future.
This, a lot of the decision sure it's going to impact development code,
but it's going to, in fact, people too.
So the people need to be sitting at the table when it comes to this please invite us we want to help
Let us help you and the last thing I think that needs to be pointed out and it already has been pointed out as leadership
You guys are leaders. We elect you to keep us safe to bring us forward
Please be the leaders that will take us forward on climate
This is the time for the city of Calgary to shine
It's our opportunity to embrace the future.
Are we going to be left behind?
Thank you.
Very thoughtful.
As there are no, oh, Councillor Ferrell.
Thank you.
Question for you.
One comment and one question.
Did you have, did you want to answer the previous speaker's question?
If I may, Councillor Demung on Friday in Nevada, the utility solar bid at 2.5 kilowatt hour, there's no other electricity source that can compete with 2.5 kilowatt-centre kilowatt hour, in Alberta, wind bid in in November at 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour.
These are cheap technologies.
We're not talking about residential solar in Calgary.
We're talking about utility solar in Nevada.
And I fully agree that those are different things.
But you can see that where the trends are going.
The costs are dropping fast.
It's pretty exciting.
May I respond to Councillor Ferrell?
Maybe we want some finished.
So you weren't around the table in the development of this plan.
As far as I know, there were no citizen groups invited to partake in this plan.
I could be corrected by administration, but that's my understanding.
Well, you're so tapped into this particular topic.
You would know, I would imagine.
That needs to be corrected moving forward.
And so your group I'm assuming, and I'll put this as a question, are you interested in participating
with some sort of action implementation group as we move forward.
Yeah, there's three really big climate citizen groups around.
You've already heard from 4C, which is Calgary citizens on climate change.
We represent the climate hub and there's also Calgary climate action network.
And so I think all three groups would be interested in being invited to be a part of this.
Okay, that's an important point moving forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Foucault. Concerted, Maul?
Don't misunderstand me. I'm all in favor of solar and wind power as much as we can get.
My concern is back to what somebody earlier had referenced as reality.
And part of the problem is, most of these solar and wind applications have been subsidized immensely
on the front end to be able to offer these kind of rates. Now, I am hoping that at some
point the entire array, sorry, for the pun, can be put forward in such a way that they
can actually be putting in at two in a sense.
But that's the problem that we have right now is filling that gap.
I just wanted to respond to that.
To clarify, the Nevada rate of 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour is unsubsidized.
The 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour wind in Alberta is unsubsidized.
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Simon Irving, and then after Mr. Irving, we'll be Mary Galatek.
Great. Thank you. So, as you said, my name is Simon Irving. I'm born and raised in Calgary,
actually is a fourth-generation Calgaryen. So, I've deep ties to the community, and I think
like all of us here, I care deeply about the city's future. So, with that, I'd like to thank
Dick and his team, first of all, for all their great work. I know putting together a report like
that is a pretty immense undertaking.
So, again, I'm here as a citizen, a constituent,
and also as a member of what is a newly emerging
organization called the Calgary Climate Hub,
which Joe was just speaking about.
So, he's already talked a little bit about that,
so I won't go into too many details,
but I think the hub is a reflection as well,
all the folks here are reflection of the growing concern
and interest on climate change in this city.
So, I just wanna share a little bit of work
that the hub has been doing,
which was that in from February to March of this year, we undertook a citywide survey on climate change.
I mean, truthfully, we did this because we saw what we perceived to be a lack of leadership by the city on engaging citizens.
So this was kind of our attempt to fill that gap, so I want to share some of those results.
They're also in the June 8th briefing memo that we submitted and that was just handed out again today.
Okay, so this survey was filled out by representatives of 71 organizations and 247 individuals, so it's not a large sample size, but I also think that it is large enough that it has quite a bit of merit.
The organizational respondents represented a variety of sectors from agriculture to the arts, environment, energy, indigenous peoples, green buildings, health, communication, and retail.
So some key statistics we found from that, 91% of the respondents want to see City Council implement a strong climate resilience plan that is well-resourced and meets its targets.
82% of respondents want the plan to be implemented in open consultation with Calgarians. 89% of respondents want to be consulted on how the city's climate plan is implemented.
and then 128 people or organizations would be interested in being part of it.
A pool of people whose knowledge and support could be a really essential resource for the city, moving forward and to ensure the success of this plan. And then I think lastly, I'll just share one statistic that I think is really telling. And that's that the top two barriers that folks that filled out the survey identified were that one, they felt there's a lack of opportunities to act on climate change and two, they didn't know what to do to act on climate change.
So, I think that says that clearly Calgarians are ready, our communities are ready, but
we're looking to the city for real leadership.
So yes, we're looking to be consulted.
I think that needs to be a key pillar of anything, but we're also looking for real tangible
avenues to engage on this file.
So I think that it's time, you know, past time that we move beyond investigating and planning
to real tangible actions.
But in order to do this, we need this plan to pass.
And so I'm speaking very strongly in support of passing this plan today, but it needs to be passed as a starting point, not as a statement.
It needs ambitious and defined targets for greenhouse gas emissions, something that it's lacking beyond its 2050 target.
It needs business units need to be properly resourced so that they can complete the important work that's already been outlined and identified.
And I think lastly, the city really does need to consider very thoroughly how to engage and
include its citizens, and include a diverse set of voices that have been absent in its climate considerations thus far.
So with that, thanks for the time to come up and comment on it.
I think Calgary can and should be a leader in addressing climate change, and I'm proud to be here to offer my support and your endeavor is moving forward.
Thank you, Mr. Rubin.
Next speaker will be Mary Valentick, and after Mary Valentick will be Matt Grace.
Thank you so much, it's Dr. Mary Valantich, those of you who have Croatian backgrounds know that CH, we changed it so that people would understand, it's CH, some Valantich.
And I'm here wearing several hats, just like many of my colleagues, I'm a professor, a merit, and a faculty of social work.
I'm an original member of CCAN, that's Calgary Climate Action Network, and a founding member also of social workers for social justice.
That's an interest group of the Alberta College of Social Workers, and we are very much in support of the actions of C-Can, which is that grassroots movement that has been trying very hard to bring about education and advocacy.
Personally, as I'm also here as a citizen, like many others in the room I have grandchildren, I want a healthy environment for them.
And so that's what brought me here, even though technically I may be not up on all these things.
But I do want you to know that a discipline like social work, like I taught human behavior
in social environment for maybe 30 years, but it was social environment.
I did mention the physical environment because I was always concerned about the kind of
pollution in the industries where my father worked, in which I think brought on his cancer.
But did I talk about climate change?
No, we didn't in those days.
But I'm happy to report that the course is now called human behavior and the environment.
So climate change is very much there.
We have in social work journals on this now, we have people who are very, very concerned about climate change.
And I just want to bring that out so that you know that there's many different people out there who will give you all kinds of support.
Of course, action will be essential.
We have already heard about the need to prioritize the actions, et cetera.
I'm not going to comment on that.
I know there's great complexity in this.
People want understandable, clear-cut actions that they can connect to.
I've been a member of, that brings me to the other point on public engagement.
I've been a member of Mayor Nahid and she's civic engagement committee for the last seven
years.
And after we analyzed everything that we could, it's a sense of belonging that people want.
So in the public education which I think is so essential, we don't want to just refer
people to websites and so on.
People want a sense of belonging.
They want to know that they can make a difference.
And so if you can weave that into the public education, that will be important.
Now, as a social worker, we're concerned about what it's like for everyone in the community.
But I just wanted to conclude by one quotation, of course, we're concerned about those who
are more vulnerable, those people who don't have the resources.
You recall what the flood was like.
We all do.
That's a good example.
People without the financial and other resources just didn't make it.
And there's a lovely, I think, very important quotation that illustrates some of the costs
that we haven't really heard of that much.
This is from Christine Mollahan, full-time therapist at the Calgary Counseling Center.
She worked directly with many flood-affected clients at the High River Counseling Center.
She says they rarely came in complaining about the flood itself.
People would say, I'm dealing with anxiety, I'm dealing with depression, I'm having marriage
troubles, and woven into that story would be how the flood has impacted on what's going
on.
Going through a natural disaster, depletes people's resources and ability to cope.
For those who were already dealing with issues beforehand, the flood acted as a multiplier,
aggravating financial and interpersonal issues.
Many of these issues can persist for months or even years.
And I want to highlight this because that's part of the cost that's involved if we don't take the kind of action that this plan is supporting.
So that's why we, as social workers, and there's 8,000 of us in the province of Alberta, and a lot of them are here.
I need to be very much involved and do support you greatly.
Thank you for that perspective.
And Mr. Matt Grace, and then after Mr. Matt Grace is Matt Hammer.
Good morning.
Very much for your consideration.
I'm Matt Grace.
I'm a professional engineer and a lead fellow.
and I've been advising people on how to green buildings up for 25 years.
First half of that was in England, and then very proud to have Calgary as my home for the last 12 years.
I was part of the buildings working group that led to this report,
and I can personally attest that Dick Aberson and particularly Claire Beckstedt ran a very inclusive,
a very professional period of collaboration, and everything was very open, and the analysis
was run excellent.
So I'd like to congratulate the administration on the work they did there, and I fully support
the plan that we have in front of us here.
So my firm Mission Green Buildings, I believe, with the largest engineering firm that specialises
in Green Buildings, so I am probably slightly biased.
And I just said, our role is to advise some of the people you've seen here ready.
We advise developers, we advise municipalities, we advise designers on how to make the built
environment greener.
So I've really got three key messages to share with you.
One is there's good news and there's bad news around climate change action.
The bad news is if we don't act, we are going to see a number of things happening.
we're going to see more instances like the 2013 flood. We're going to see a much more
energy going into our climate. I was personally affected by the 2013 flood and I can attest
to the last speaker of the financial and the personal and the family impacts on that.
When you're dealing with a post-floor disaster, you're not contributing to the community.
You're not attending to your family. You're not looking at a few loved ones. The other thing
that we're going to see is that the colder climates, every climate change prediction shows
that the colder climates are impacted more severely. So the very best scenario in terms
of climate change we're seeing is the IPCC, something called the RCP 4.5. That's kind
of we get our act together and we settle about two degrees increase in average temperature.
We will probably see much more and we will see kind of four degrees.
So in all that, every study shows that we're impacted more.
More likely is the RCP 8.5 and we're going to see much more increase.
The other potential bad news is if we don't act on this, already the data we use to design
our infrastructure is out of date and all the trends are showing that we're going to be
more and more out of date. That means we're designing our buildings already for a
future climber that is going to be different to what actually is. So that's kind
of part of the resiliency. Now the good news is that again every single time you
look at the cost benefits of going green you've heard some good examples with
solar, for example. Every study shows there's a net positive. You go way back to the Kinsey study,
which looked at all the opportunities of mitigating climate change. You look at the IPCC models,
investing in green infrastructure gives you net positive results. You go back maybe 10 years ago
to the Stern report, Nicholas Stern, an economist, not a climate change, fanatic, not a professional
Grinola like me, not someone who's a member of Greenpeace, he said this makes financial
sense.
You go and you look at our own study, the City of Calgary's own study, on the return
on lead buildings and that showed between $10 and $12 back for every dollar invested in
Green Infrastructure.
So there's opportunity there.
It's also an opportunity to show that we're diversifying.
We have the technical skills in Calgary to be a leader in green infrastructure and to make ourselves more resilient, more adaptable, not just in terms of climate, but in terms of a better city.
So I love the attitude we're seeing here, particularly from this side of the council.
No strategy is going to be perfect. No action plan is going to be 100% perfect.
Let's move on with the right attitude. Let's support this and we'll all see the benefits.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Hammer.
And after Mr. Hammer is Steve Betley, please.
Morning. Thank you, Chair.
So my name is Matt Hammer. I'm a Morton Rees Calgaryen.
And I'm a law student here at the University of Calgary.
I, last time I spoke to Council was many years ago for imagining Calgary, and at that point
I was, I was heading off to University, the University of Victoria, and I said that
Calgary would have to win me back in response actually to a question from Council Ferro.
And I'm pleased and proud to say that Calgary has, with investments in livability and walkability,
investments in environmental sustainability, Calgary has become a city that many young professionals
like myself are proud to call home and that's something that we all want to see continue.
We're all invested in having a city that has a strong economy,
that has a strong economy that extracts young workers.
And we recognize that my mom and dad both work in the oil and gas sector.
My colleagues have summer positions and articleings positions in the oil and gas sector.
We recognize that, you know, this is a city deeply embedded in high carbon industries,
and the change is going to be hard.
But we also recognize that the opportunities of change are immense.
You know, the $860,000 jobs figure quoted in the report for the net cost-neutral actions
in the report is an impressive and inspiring figure.
And we should be inspired to think about what that future looks like and what the future
economy of Calgary looks like. I'm also here as a member of the Climate Hub and of the Calgary Climate
Action Network. You've heard from a couple of our members already, and in the documents in
front of you, the three things that we think need to happen to make sure that this plan is
implemented in a way that actually gets us to where we need to go, that is we need strong targets
and concrete actions to meet those targets. We need a plan that is funded and staffed and we need
plan that's developed in open consultation with Calgarians. On that last point, I want to emphasize
the actions that are going to get us to our targets are going to be actions that are undertaken
by industry and by the city itself, but also actions undertaken by all Calgarians. And we're not
going to get buy-in from Calgarians on a plan and on actions that they're not involved in developing.
And I think that the one area that particularly demonstrates all three kind of things that
the hub is asking for is looking at energy and building systems.
As highlighted already by administration is one of the most important areas dealing with
the plan.
In particular, I want to look at the issue of pace, property assessed, clean energy, term many
of you might be familiar with.
but that is missing from the plan, even considerations of it.
As many of you are probably aware, build 10 passed on June 6th,
supporting property-assessed clean energy in Alberta.
The city is probably already engaged in discussions with the province on
the possibilities of these kinds of actions.
And I would like to speak for the plan, for the hub sorry,
in support of further consideration of property assessed clean energy.
For those who aren't aware, property assessed clean energy allows homeowners and potentially
others to install everything from solar panels to energy efficiency upgrades up front not
paying any of the costs and then having those costs assessed back in their property taxes.
The pace is a growing international phenomenon and has been shown to as much as double uptake
of solar and other energy efficiency upgrades in other jurisdictions.
And it's also an opportunity for immense investment worldwide, and it would be a great opportunity
for Calgary to seize some of that investment in developing and supporting a kind of pace
program.
It's also an opportunity for the city to engage in programs which have little upfront
and cost for them.
And rolling them out would be, would be relatively easy in collaboration with the province.
If the city is going to pursue something like this, however, it must also be done in a way that is done that functions in consultation with Calgarians.
If you're targeting a program at residential homeowners, you need to know that they want this program that they're going to be able to use it.
And it needs to be developed in a way that is accountable to their needs and to meeting our targets, and that citizens are involved in that accountability measure.
And so it really rolls together all these ideas and is just one example of the kind of concrete
actions that we need to be moving forward with as a city to build a great city that I and
people like me want to continue to live in.
So unless there are any questions, that's my submissions.
Thank you, Councillor Ferrell has a question for you.
Thank you.
I just, I didn't catch your last name.
Matt Hammer.
What?
It sounds like a, I don't know.
Yeah, I had an alternative career in wrestling.
Yeah.
All right.
Thank you.
And I hear a lot of eagerness to participate.
And thank you for coming back to Calgary.
Glad we won you back.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Mr. Bansley.
Steve is no longer here.
That might be a case with the number of the remaining.
Thank you.
Tim Leip, thank you and after Tim Leip is Stephanie Gagnon.
Is it Leip?
It's actually LIP.
LIP.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah.
My name is Tim Leip.
I am a former social linguistic researcher in Nepal.
Recent business graduate from Merrill University and future CPA.
When I was in Nepal, one of the things I did was I hiked for over ten hours into a
a really remote community, and saw first hand some of the impacts of the massive landslides
they've experienced.
And I was there doing other research.
I used to be actually an ardent climate change denier.
I would spend hours and hours convincing people that climate change wasn't real, that it was
a lie that was made up, and something changed.
So now I spend hours and hours working on several different businesses bringing sustainable
products to consumers, products that help individuals save money, save time, and
to help the environment.
So I definitely see there being a lot of hope in the Serena.
I think it's going to be something that can be resolved.
It's going to take a lot of commitment, a lot of courage, and a lot of compassion to make
it come together.
But I think, like other people have said, there's going to be no perfect plan, but I believe that there is a strong will of intent from the council and from our leadership that it can be resolved well.
So thanks for your commitment to do that.
Thank you for your time.
I appreciate it. Stephanie Gagnon, please.
And after Stephanie is Andrea Hall, please.
Good morning.
Good morning. So Stephanie Gagnon, this is both the personal and professional interest of mine having been involved in climate work.
In Calgary for over 20 years now, I hate to even see that, but anyway, my background does
involve being part of the Office of Sustainability, the City of Calgary, and also involves having
been involved in the industry city work plan, and until recently the manager of community
planning and engagement for McLean you consulting. I've been involved in various initiatives
in the region, including raising awareness of how planning's impact relates to climate change.
But while my professional experience is varied in this area, it's my personal one that I'm here
to speak about today. There are many, many of us know that lots of disasters and lots of
impacts in the natural environment are unavoidable, but it is for the ones that are avoidable
that we need to make a concentrated effort. Two personal examples have actually been raised
by others today. I have witnessed firsthand the Okanagan Firestorm in which my family personally
lost our home and saw the burden that that took in rebuilding. I also personally helped many
friends and family members emerge from the flooding of 2013. And so we talk about the financial
impacts of climate action. And we know the insurance companies are raising the agenda,
raising the dialogue globally around the financial costs. But I want us to remember that there are costs
that go far beyond. And they include community trauma and personal loss that can take many, many
years to overcome.
On a much more rushed sort of less emotional side of things, I will also
a member of the working committee for the mitigation strategy. And I support this plan, no doubt.
With all due respect to all of us who worked on it, administration and many other colleagues
throughout the community, it is not the plan we deserve in 2018, but it is a starting place
for that work. The focus now must shift to implementation. It is a commitment that is lacking in the strategy.
The plan includes a soft set of recommendations with the expectation that actions will be
funded through the one Calgary business planning and budgeting process.
I encourage you to take a look and consider a stronger commitment to implementation in
the strategy so that it doesn't gather dust upon the shelf.
As a personal side, I think I have prevented trying to blow the dust off some of the past
versions.
I do want to note that some of the clauses here include having climate resilience criteria
in some capital planning as well as good timelines and budgets being included in the responses
that come back which is excellent. I would also suggest that perhaps a supplemental report
could come forward through the one Calgary process, identifying how the actions are being
recommended for inclusion by administration, and then following that with a report say six
months later to report on the funding commitments made by council. This then ties into the asks
from other members of the community that we lend layout the specific actions who specifically
in what departments are responsible for it, the funding, the timelines, and the deliverables.
So as I said, I support this plan and everything in it.
I also support the tremendous effort made by staff and community members in building this plan.
And I really want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this and thank you for the opportunity to move forward.
Thank you. Thank you for your time. Miss Andrea Hall, please.
Not here? Okay. No, Kyok.
My
15 copies here. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Thanks for coming.
My name is Noel Kyok. I'm here representing Sustainable Calgary Society. I'm a co-founder and current chair of the board.
I also work in the faculty of environmental design and the University of Calgary.
I'm also a 2013 flood victim.
I had 60 water in my house that month and I should also say I work a lot in international development.
So I have encountered many communities where in fact this climate change issue is actually killing people.
People are dying around the world because of what we're doing to the climate.
First of all, I would like to congratulate all the city staff that brought this report
together.
It's been a pleasure to be a part of the consultation process over the past year.
I think we've had some really good conversations around that table with business and with industry
and with others who are around the table.
And I could say that I support all the actions proposed in the climate mitigation plan and
I hope it starts to go forward tomorrow.
What I would like to bring to the attention of the committee though are the areas the report
that I would suggest need attention and strengthening. If there's one word, I would use
to describe the report, it would be timid. Though I support all the post-actions, I do not
think these actions are enough to confront the threat, the climate change poses, to the long-term
health, the vibrancy, prosperity, in other words, the sustainability of our city and the regional
global ecosystems that support us. I would like to raise seven critical issues that I see with
the report as it stands that I would like to propose and I've put recommendations in my written
assessment about how I think we could improve this as we move forward.
First of all, governance, the report states that work with industry to establish a climate
resilience group.
I think we've heard a lot already today that there is much more than industry that needs
to be part of the governance of this project, and right now the document doesn't support
that inclusion and think that I think in the way that it must.
The second point is around consumption-based emissions.
The report states that consumption emissions can as much as double the total community-wide GHG inventory.
This is something that we talked about in the committee.
Essentially, what that statement says is that we are targeting, we're assuming that we can reach the target of 2050.
But we're leaving out half of the emissions of our city, that is the consumption emissions, everything that we buy, all the stuff in our homes, our vehicles, our homes, the exotic fruit that we buy.
from all around the world, the production of all of that stuff produces carbon dioxide,
none of those emissions are included in this report.
And that's why I think this is timid, and to suggest that these measures can reach
the targets is a little bit misleading.
The next thing that I think is important to highlight from the report and with regards to
transportation, I think there's a little bit of a bias here towards engineering solutions
and particularly what we can do with the conversion to electrical vehicles and alternative fuels.
The report states that we can save 60 megatons by conversion of EV vehicles if I'm interpreting
it correctly and that all of the things that we can do with transit, with walking and with
biking are only going to give us about 2.3 megatons of savings.
That makes all of those things irrelevant in the sense of this report.
I don't believe that's true.
Just as a short exercise, what I did is I assumed what if we were able to reduce the amount
of kilometers traveled in Calgary by 33% in the next 30 years?
That's not a heroic task.
That would actually bring us down to the number of kilometers that are traveled by the average
Scandinavian today.
If we were able to do that, that would achieve the same amount of reductions, approximately
60 megatons.
If we were able to reduce all of that travel to transit and biking and walking.
So I think there's a lot of work to be done there to pay more attention to active modes.
The next thing I would want to talk about is externalized costs.
And again, we've had meetings around the table, or discussions around the table about externalized
costs.
One of the most significant issues that I thought should be brought to the table isn't in
this analysis, is health care costs.
costs. This is the biggest tax item for Canadians when we look at all of our taxes across
the board. And the research is piling up very quickly to demonstrate that active lifestyles
can significantly reduce healthcare costs and significantly increase our quality of life
and our lifespans. One way, one important way to do that is to promote walking and biking
in the use of transit. None of those costs are included when they factor
Here, the relative costs of all of the actions that are proposed, again, a bias towards the
automobile, really, in transportation.
I think that needs to be improved as we go forward.
Similarly, with land use planning, I think the assumptions that were made are quite timid
about the impact that can be made for land use.
Again, we're saying that 60 megatons can be saved by changing to electric vehicles.
We're saying that seven megatons can be saved by land use planning.
And I think we have to be much more aggressive moving forward and advancing the MDP goals in terms of the
mention, the issue that was mentioned earlier around sprawl and another thing that isn't, doesn't seem to be.
I'm sorry your time is now up.
Okay, so those are five of the seven issues that I think are vitally important.
Thank you.
Our next speaker, oh, I'm sorry Miss, sorry, Councillor Farrell.
The thank you and the other, you had seven, could you describe them briefly,
please?
I think the most, well, hard targets, I think that's already been mentioned by, for
example, Mr. Vipon, that I would second what he has had to say.
And I think the Dr. Valentine has made an important point in terms of who has to be at the table.
And one of the recommendations that I'm making is that we need to put this report to a group of social scientists and civil society organizations to get their tape because the the discussions and the people around the table, I would I would
Characterize it is very technical engineering oriented discussions for the most part and I think there's a whole group of people can that can talk to our consumption habits and our behavior behavior change opportunities.
The spiritual aspect and the ethical consensus to make change all of those things I think
are missing and are vital to be at the table as we move forward with the governance
of this report.
Two excellent suggestions, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we have Ms. Sonia Copra and then our last speaker, Mary Noclebi, I think it's pronounced.
Hi.
Good morning.
So I was hoping to get some technical help for this one because I have a video that I wanted to play
Is there someone who could help me out with that? He's coming down right now
We'll take a few minutes to set up. I guess if Mary Nicole Blee is here
If she could if you don't have anything technical and wanted to speak while they're setting that up that'd be okay
I'm not sure here. We'll find out
and hold it in your video on it.
And use the stick we want to put it into that.
Okay.
Do you, can you run it or no?
No.
No, okay.
I'm sorry then.
Okay, please proceed.
Yep.
So my name is Sonja Chopra and I am a science teacher
at Western Canada High School where I teach biology.
I also help to run the Environmental Club at my school.
I decided to pursue a career in teaching.
I wanted to make others aware of this issue and show them how they can make a difference. Often
times when I teach my students about the science behind climate change, they tell me that
they did not realize its impacts and they want to know what they can do to take action.
That is why I believe that citizen engagement, public awareness, and community involvement
are key to the success of this plan. Our youth want to make a difference and they need
us to help show them how they can.
My students made a video talking about how they feel about climate change and what they
thought about the climate resilience plan, but unfortunately this video, I cannot play
today so I'm going to post their video on social media and I would hope that all of you take
a look at it and hear their thoughts and feelings on this issue.
Thank you.
Thank you for coming, Ms. Cooper.
Okay. I get I was told the individual wasn't here, but they are Chris Carroll, please. Sorry. And then because they were before and then the last speaker will be Mary.
Well, there's another one. Yeah.
Hi. Is this where I stand?
Pardon me? Yes.
Yeah, right where you are now.
Okay. I don't know how that happened because I've been sitting here the whole time and I never heard my name call.
It's kind of interesting almost being the last because I've had the chance to listen
to other people which is maybe going to change my acknowledgments.
My name is Chris Carroll.
I live within the Confederation Creek catchment, specifically within the Highland Park area
which is part of the Confederation Valley which contains former golf course lands.
I found out about this meeting from the Calgary Climate Action Group, and I'd like to acknowledge
that.
I agree that more citizen imprint is needed, and I hope that consular feral's encouragement
in that direction will be followed up upon by consul.
I also agree with the consular conduct, over there, that right practices is the most important
thing to consider in anything. And the gentleman from Britain, who's now on
Calgary, who said to the effect that the support, the spirit of the document is
what is important. Therefore, he supports the document I totally agree with
also. For my purposes, I'm going to refer to the climate adaption action plan
for some quotes that support my feelings on the matter.
So many, I believe it was from Stepper Holmes, said he wasn't sure of the definition of a natural infrastructure,
which the city calls the root of resilience, which I also agree with.
And I think Infra Instructure Canada has identified what they are, that's good enough for me.
I also think an existing creek is a natural asset, even if covered over with concrete
or rerouted in pipe as was in the building boom in so many cities in North America.
Okay.
Natural assets, a move about this, are better able to self-adapt changes in Calgary's climate
than heart infrastructure.
Okay.
Protecting and maximizing the use of these natural assets can offer offset costly investments
and new hard infrastructure.
Helping Calgary efficiently manage the risk of increasingly intense storm and flooding.
Now, for members of the Calgary Action Group that have said that there are soft
recommendations, this perfectly ties in this document.
What they're saying about stormwater management, what they're saying about natural
infrastructure, with the Calgary reneged, regional drainage study that they just did,
They have an option for as a recommendation which recommends certain things.
Sorry, I don't speak to large groups very often, so I'm a little nervous here.
The City of Calgary is already taking action to protect the community's most vulnerable
to major flooding and is working with the province to explore upstream water storage.
In 2017, the disability submitted an inquiry to enable Alberta environments and parks to
get clarity on the potential for public lands claim along the historic reaches of Confederation
Creek.
In November of 2017, the city received an email stating this water feature is indeed crown
owned under Section 3 of the Public Lands Act.
The crown land owned includes the portions of the former HPC golf course lands, confirmation
from ADP will be required to clarify what uses are claimed.
This acknowledges that the public land acts is indeed under best practice.
And it also kind of goes with their stormwater management priority page,
which says include
climate change impacts, this is under highlighted actions, participating business unit will be
water resources include climate action impacts in the development of the storm water management
strategy and implementation planning to guide water management development and redevelopment
areas which we all know. The old areas of town are prone to flooding. Clear and simple.
In
conclusion, I'd like to read the priority statement that was in the document.
Why is it a priority?
The implications of long-term changes to water supply and demand will need to be assessed
for management of storm water and for operating water and waste water treatments plants.
Given the risks of reduced water supply during periods of peak demand, policies and programs
to manage water demand across the entire Bo River watershed must be reassessed for future
climate conditions, okay, over the long term.
Mr. Carol, I'm sorry.
Before this is, this is, this is in practice, this is starting to be done and I am grateful
to Council for doing it.
Okay, thank you, thank you for coming.
Before we proceed, I need common consensus that we will listen.
We have two speakers left, and then we would be able to close the public hearing part
of this section if we can get agreement, all in favor.
Extend our lunch break to then.
Is anybody not on the list other than the two, that's Mary and Lloyd Schuert.
You're also would like to speak.
So now that becomes three.
So two more put their hands up now.
Okay, well that changes everything then.
So we will have to come to after lunch.
I'm afraid so we will adjourn for lunch and be back at 101.
Sorry, 105.
Okay, we're back. There are going to be some quorum issues later on, so we are going to put a motion up on the screen, momentarily.
Okay.
The motion is the following reports before it to the 2018 June 25th Regular Meeting of Council.
There are some important in-camera items that would benefit ashy of Council being there regardless.
So all in favor of moving the reports forward?
Agree? Opposed? Excellent. Thank you.
so we need. Okay, we'll begin with Mary. So you have to wait during that gap. Thanks for
hanging around.
Do I work alongside this fellow? You betcha. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. My name is Mary Nunkelby. I'm a retired teacher and educator, but I'm here primarily in
the role that I think is most important for all of us. I'm here as a citizen and I'm not particularly
here as a citizen of Calgary. I'm here as a citizen of the planet. And I want to reinforce
some of what other speakers have said about the need for citizen engagement. And that
citizen engagement, for me, I would like to see it really focus strongly on the implementers
and the early adapters. We have had solar since March of 2010. It cost us nearly 40,000
to install 4.2 kilowatts of solar. We were told that that time that it wasn't good enough
bang for our buck,
which outraged me because I wasn't in it for the money. I have five
grandchildren. We were more expensive than it might have been because we didn't want
Chinese panels. We wanted Canadian panels if possible, that not being possible. We got American.
And we got panels that we could monitor. We are told every month what we have produced
and we can check on every one of our panels to make sure they're up and running.
We did that because we wanted to be a demonstration spot for people who were considering solar.
And we thought that solar was going to be coming on very quickly because we understood the climate
science. After we read Herman Scheer's solar economy, we knew that it could be done and
that it had to be done. Last year, discovering that the NDP government
had put in a 30 percent rebate, we solarized with an additional 5.58 kilowatts.
We got 5.58 kilowatts for 16,000. Less than half for more panels. And the panels are
more efficient so they are producing three times what our original panels produce.
We've had this in place the full nearly 10 kilowatt since the middle of May.
We are going to exceed megawatt a month.
And that is just one small house.
Please there are more people out there who would be willing to do this if they knew how doable
it is.
It's a simple technology.
Your biggest worry are pigeons on your roof for God's sake.
And we can handle that and with all the news of what's coming we may want to eat those pigeons before long anyway.
So get us involved.
Did it? But you need to get that information out there. Calgary needs to support the Solarization
Plan to the point where no matter who is government in one year, they can't end a program
that makes every kind of sense. And it is going to engage more and more and more of us.
And there's one last thing, NMAX. Last summer, we produced four times the electricity we
used. They're still charging us. Do you know what they're charging us for? I think it's
for sending us a bill and for using those power lines that our tax dollars built. I would
like to see NMAX consider feed-in tariffs. I'll pay you guys when we use your power, but
when you use ours, say thank you to those of us who are early adapters and give us at
at least a two-for-one feed-in tariff.
That's all it would take to get a whole lot more solar
on the roofs of Calgary.
And when you get those solar on the roofs of Calgary,
people are going to follow,
because Calgarians are terrible trenders, right?
So, whatever you can do, one last thing, water.
We need water, catchment plans
that every individual citizen can involve themselves in.
We killed our lawn, we have an organic garden,
and all kinds of, we're by the foothills hospital,
So reams of water run down our alley every time there's a rain we'd like to divert it into our soil a little hold the water
But we'd like a program where the city told us how to do it legally rather than sneaking around trying to make a trench behind your back
So programs that involve
Citizens we need more of them and we need them fast. Thank you
Thank you very much
Very interesting counsel to mom
Now, because I have to do this as a question, would it interest you to know that it's not
N-MAX's decision as to whether to do a feed-in tariff or not, it actually is a provincial
regulation that has to be decided and pushed through the provincial body, it is not an N-MAX
choice.
But N-MAX is lobbying for it?
Well, it's actually up to you guys.
It's up to us to lobby for it because it's a provincial decision.
it's a provincial choice and there are tax dollars that could be at stake.
Furthermore would it interest you to know that the wires that you're talking about that
are paid for by taxpayers dollars are not actually paid for by taxpayer dollars.
They're paid for by end max and then recouped on your bill for the next 10, 20 whatever years
is determined properly on one of the rate-riders that are on the bottom.
But that would only be true for Wires built since the privatization plan the client put
in, would it not?
I mean, up to the time of privatizing electricity, it was a crown corporation.
So I believe that crown corporations were funded by tax dollars.
And that's a sense in which I mean that a large part of our electrical grid was built
by citizens such as myself, and now, no matter how much we do, to turn the climate
thing around, we still get to pay some central body for the, it's only $40, $50 a month.
Can I, can I, what, can I, would it interest you to know that actually the transmission
and the distribution charges that are on there are actually costs that are incurred
to actually transmit the electricity from point A to point B and then to distribute it to all
of the different households. There are costs involved and that's what those transmission and
distribution costs are. The rate riders are what pays for the actual structures that are built
granted as you say since 2000 or 1999 since it was privatized. So that's how the breakdown works.
It isn't out of the blue. There are all sorts of eyes being dotted and tees being crossed to make
sure that there are no excess charges being charged on your electricity bill that aren't
actually backed up by numerous binders and binders of papers that have to go through the,
I get wrong, AUC, ACU, MOUS, one of those letters is where they actually follow through all of this.
Could you explain something else to me, perhaps, Councillor?
How is it that those charges are greater than the actual cost of the electricity? That is something
that we find really mind-boggling because we're not using any electricity.
We're giving you some.
It's kind of like saying the fee that you pay for transit, the cost of your seat is way
less than the cost of the entire LRT train.
Yes, that seat didn't cost much.
But the entire system costs a great deal.
Does that make it reasonable in that way?
It does help.
And I'm, thank you for coming forward.
I still think we should move on feet and tariffs because we would like to be, well,
we may be wanting to go off grid.
So that's another.
And I encourage you to write your MLA and get your friends and relatives to write your MLA's
because it is a provincial decision.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
That was very enlightening.
Thank you, Councillor Farrell.
Oh, okay.
Great.
Lloyd Stewart clicks.
Thank you very much.
I've got copies of a letter here for Councillors.
My name is Lloyd Sue Sham, the Executive Director of Boma Calgary.
Before I get started, I just want to thank the Administration for the opportunity to participate
in stakeholder sessions for this plan, and in particular, I want to thank Claire Beckstead
for her work on this initiative and a really collaborative stakeholder process that informed
it.
Boma Calgary is an offer-profit industry association representing the commercial real estate ownership
and management sector in Calgary and southern Alberta.
While commercial buildings are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions as
the plant points out, we also believe that commercial real estate professionals understand
the importance of GHD emissions and have been actually taking voluntary measures to mitigate
it for over a decade, so we're excited to share that story.
And our members care for, I think, three important reasons.
The first is that electricity, heating and cooling are key cost drivers for commercial
buildings, making the reduction of their use, making the reduction of their use, it's
a valuable cost reduction in a competitive marketplace.
So we see this being taken up as is.
Second, as public awareness of climate change and energy efficiency increases, tenants and
perspective tenants are increasingly beginning to put an emphasis on their workplaces being
sustainable, so you see this through the leasing process.
And finally, in my opinion, most importantly, commercial real estate professionals are
residents of their local communities, and they care about ensuring a high quality of life
for future generations their meaningful action on climate change.
So Boma Calgary contributed to the development of this plan primarily through the building
and energy systems working group.
Discussion centered on policies and tools that were not just effective in mitigating the
environmental impact, but could be done so at a cost that was attainable for all
calgarians and businesses.
Boma Calgary emphasized that there are many paths to reaching the ideal state and that
a long-term plan must recognize this and ensure flexibility.
And with that in mind, we're pleased to see that the final plan is not overly prescriptive
on particular mitigation measures.
I think a previous speaker said we choose targets but not technologies and I think that's
prudent.
So while the plan is extensive, I'll limit my comments to the areas of immediate importance
to our sector. The first and most important one is commercial building benchmarking.
As a local delivery partner for BOMA Best, which is a maiden Canada voluntary benchmarking
and certification program for existing buildings, we are particularly interested in the discussions
on this. We believe that benchmarking is an essential and low cost tool to improving a building's
environmental performance. And based on our experience with BOMA Best, we've seen that the true
strength is the ability for continual improvement. Buildings are scored, verified, and grant
a certification level, but that application in the process behind it becomes an important
management tool that guides management on gaps to be addressed prior to recertification.
What we've seen is the 27% of buildings achieved that higher level upon recertification,
and a few other notable stats are the bone-best certified building to consume 8% less energy and 30%
less water than the Canadian average. So, this, it successes a voluntary, as a voluntary
program, TAS is strong evidence that benchmarking can be an effective tool in combating climate
change here in Calgary. In our view, the process of measuring and studying a building's performance
is a necessary first step in identifying where those improvements can be made. And for that reason,
Boma Calgary is supportive of action 2.2 that calls for the development of commercial building
benchmarking in Calgary. However, we will say there's important principles that need to be reflected
in the program to ensure success, first the purpose of the program should not the primary
purpose should not be the name and shame buildings.
Benchmarking is best seen as a tool that actually provides valuable information to building
management as opposed to a stick that is used by policymakers to force compliance.
Second an effective benchmarking program only compares like buildings.
Commercial buildings have numerous disparities, age size being probably the primary ones,
and all of these impact what energy savings can be realized.
So careful thought must be given to these disparities before requiring reporting.
And finally commercial buildings operate in a competitive environment with certain data
being kept confidential.
So we would recommend that any program be the product of extensive consultation that establishes
what that information to be disclosed is, as well as an accepted methodology to interpret it.
So we've seen the benchmark is improved building performance in Calgary on a voluntary basis,
But there are thousands of buildings that could see benefit and could contribute to the city's target of an 80% GHD reduction by 2050.
The second piece is energy performance standards.
Throughout the stakeholder process, there's plenty of discussion on how building codes can be amended to actually enhance the sustainability in the building sector.
Boma Calgary would be supportive of measures that enable a more sustainable built environment through the building code.
However, we believe that any changes should be considered on a province wide basis.
Our industry operates across multiple jurisdictions and a patchwork of building codes across Alberta will increase the costs complexity and uncertainty of starting or growing a business in Calgary.
In conclusion, the climate resilient strategy and action plan is an important first step in building greener Calgary.
It is an aspirational plan with a clear target and an outline of a plan on how to achieve them, but we know that this alone will not be enough.
In many of the proposed actions, including benchmarking, the most complex work is yet to be done.
As well, some of the proposed changes represent a significant shift in the environment that our industry operates in.
This makes continued collaboration with industry stakeholder as an integral piece of the action plan.
And our view of prerequisite for achieving the plan's goals without resulting in unintended consequences.
So with that, thank you for the opportunity to contribute, and we look forward to working with the city on the specific action items.
Great, thank you.
Is there anybody else from the gallery that would like to speak?
Please come.
Oh, so two left. Okay. I saw you put your hand up first there. So we'll go there and then you
would be glad. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thanks for squeezing me in. My name's
Natalie and I'm an urban resilience consultant here in the city and I primarily focus on the
way built form and neighborhood organization and the elements in neighborhoods can support
support or undermine resilience specifically to extreme weather events.
So this is the approach that I come from.
And so I'm really happy to see this report coming from Council and not Council, not you people.
Admin, they've done an amazing job.
My biggest concern within this report centers on adaptation.
And the fact that the way we organize our city is not terribly efficient.
in terms of not just how we mitigate damage,
but also how we can possibly operate during disruptions.
So as we saw in the winter with a lot of snow,
if we don't have things that are close
and this becomes a land use issue,
if we don't have things that are within a reasonable proximity,
then we actually can't walk to them.
And so when we organize our neighborhoods
and the things that are in neighborhoods,
goods, then we actually have to think about things like, you know, how much of the percentage
of the surface area is permeable to absorb stormwater?
And how many street trees do we have?
And do we even have space for street trees that can cast shadows on paved surfaces to mitigate
urban heat island to lower energy consumption in the summer, right?
So we don't have to crank up our air conditioners.
Are we paving our back alleys because we don't like dust?
because that's not a pro adaptation move.
So I think if I had one suggestion for this report, is A, I love it, B, it needs some
sort of legislative background because at the moment our entire city has been built
basically by developers and these people only examine their construction and their development
through a lens of profit.
and what we have now is a different lens we have to examine things with and I guess I'm hoping
that this is the first step to actually giving a bit of teeth to to admin and to see
planning and development listed as the people who are responsible for a lot of these mitigation and
adaptation issues. I see a lot of water resources, I see a lot of parks and emergency management but I
I think we also need to see a lot of planning
and the planning department and the livable streets people
actually take more active role in sort of chipping away
because it's a nickel and dime thing.
Resilience is nickel and dime, literally and figuratively.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, very interesting.
Okay is there anybody else who'd like to come up and speak?
Thank you.
I have arranged a video with the attack, if it would be time to show it at the end. I'd appreciate it if you would be there.
As long as it's part of the fight minutes. My name is Mike Beireley. I just don't acknowledge that we're here in 3D7, which is the home territory of the Blackfoot, the Stony and Dakota and the Sixth Sika nations.
I've been a citizen in Calgary since 1990.
I worked in oil and gas for a couple decades.
I'm on the board of Spark, which is a renewable energy cooperative.
We have 600 customers that buy renewable energy from us, and we have about 30 micro power
generators, and when generators across the province that provide that energy to the group.
When I was out bike riding yesterday, I passed a house that was kind of famous to me.
I was reading about it in the paper and it's along the Elbow River and it's got a waterproof
wall that you can block off the driveway and there's a bunch of pipes that stick out.
They look like they're attached to pumps.
So if there was a flood again, that house was going to wall itself off and pump any water
out back into the neighborhood. And I think that that house tells a few stories. One is that
that person believes that climate change and the impact of it is real. A second one is that
they don't believe that the city is going to do anything for them and they've decided to do it
themselves. The third one is that no matter how big a wall you make and no matter whether you can
and afford it or not, individual actions of one person
are not going to solve the problem.
I think that shows how important leadership
from this city is, you're the only organization
in a place to deliver like a meaningful support system
to citizens, they're looking to you and to your plans
and to your administration and to your political leadership
to tell them that things are going to be okay,
that we are working on solutions
and that we have meaningful ways of doing them.
But that message didn't get through to the people with the walls.
It also didn't get through to the people whose homes have been destroyed.
It didn't get through to the people living in poverty in this city.
It's not getting through to a lot of people.
And that's because there's a very serious lack of public engagement on this issue.
There are answers and solutions and ideas that we haven't thought of that citizens in Calgary are aware of.
There are people that are working in all sorts of ways, and they're not connecting, and they're not feeling supported.
If we're going to have a meaningful reduction of greenhouse gases, if we're going to have leadership from the city,
we need to connect with the citizens and residents of this town, we need to engage with them, we need to support the learning that they're taking and to also learn from the ideas they have.
I run a program that does exactly that, so it's doable and approachable, and it's something
that the city really needs to do.
So I'm going to just show a quick video in the time I have left that was prepared by
Sonia, students at Western Canadian High, let's see how it goes.
Hi,
my name is Acochi and I am a 12 student at Western Canada High School.
My name is Jasper Crawford and I'm a grade 11 student at Western Canada High School.
Hi, my name is Hilly DeBae and I'm a great 11 student at Westcompton.
Hi, my name is Richard Schaing and I'm a great 11 student at Westcompton.
Hi, my name is Jack Hawthorne and I'm 17 years old.
My name is Hilly DeBae and I'm a great 12 student.
I care about climate change because this isn't just an issue that is faced by one nation nor place.
This is a global issue that needs to be addressed.
I always know about the negative impacts of carbon emissions
but it never became real to me or even something I cared about until this year in biology actually.
actually our teacher would tell us about the perfect systems and the perfect
cycles of this planet and how important they are to maintaining a balance and
then she would discuss climate change and carbon emissions and the negative
impacts that they have on pretty much everything and she would tell us stories and
give us statistics and chose pictures of how we're impacting our planet and it
incredibly sad and it became something I cared about quite deeply and so
that is why I care about climate change because this is our planet, this is our
Earth, it's the only one we have and the only one we ever will have and so I think
it is incredibly incredibly incredibly important to maintain this Earth and to be
nice to it and so yes I do think that if the city of Calgary was to implement a
plan to reduce carbon emissions it would have a great impact and would be
incredibly beneficial to better our future.
Climate change is important to me
because I've seen the negative impact
that's had on the earth.
As a young adult, I'm scared to see
what will happen in the future if it keeps up.
I want to be able to grow up and raise kids
in a world that has the same natural resources
as we do now.
So why climate change is important to me?
It's really because of the effect it has
on our world and our city.
I'd like to draw a comparison to Barbara King's
salvage novels like behavior, and in the passage in the novel, climate changed is described
as all of us being in a boat rapidly floating down at river, towards an approaching waterfall.
And at this point, we can no longer talk about whether there is a fall, if climate change
will affect us, but instead we have to prepare ourselves for what we know is coming, prepare
a city, and it's people to face the approaching climate change.
I
would love to see Calgary do is raise awareness about climate change and engage the public
because the smallest changes an individual can make make the biggest impact.
I think when Calgary can do it to improve its increased population, that's the main
example.
More secondary housing, increase the use of renewable energy in Calgary.
I think Calgary has been doing some good steps towards environmental related issues.
So if these other counties around Calgary could follow and suit, it would help us.
The Western Canada Environment Club wants to thank Calgary for taking the time today to talk about climate change.
We're super excited to see the positive impacts of the climate change resilience plan we'll have on the future
and are glad to know that the calendar is taking steps
to improve the environments.
Excellent, thank you.
I was going to give Ms. Cooper the opportunity
since it was fixed to do so,
but thank you for doing that.
That saves some time.
And our last speaker, finally, the young lady in the front there.
Good afternoon and thanks for waiting.
Hi, so I've never done this before,
so I'm kind of a little bit nervous, but...
No worries.
I wanted to start off by saying I am a proud citizen
since 2013, and I can relate to the anxiety, trauma,
and depression for the people who've lost their homes,
businesses, and real estate during the floods.
You're strong people, and so am I.
I want to say I really enjoy how living in Calgary, Canada,
I as a former refugee immigrant,
am able to learn, volunteer my time and my voice,
and be with some of my family and friends here.
The fact that the LRT station is right
at the fronts of the mayor's offices is amazing and I live for the inclusiveness. It lets people
know that they can share their viewpoints and ideas just like the citizens of climate change
known as the hub. I was hearing about it today and it's a diverse group. They were saying that
they have a lot of goals and they want the government to help with implementing targets.
I also wanted to go on to say that after listening to everyone's speak, I know now that people
in Calgary want implemented change in this beautiful city. It's more than just coming
to the chambers. Yes, we can get more regulations with companies like Enmax, but we can also
start in our own neighborhoods. If we can change anything, let's start with the four walls
that we call home. Then to our family, to our schools, we can all do this because if we don't
our future generation won't live to see tomorrow. I have a lot of futuristic ideas like many young
and old generations of people. We are the majority, not the government. And once we realize that,
things will change. I want to make a difference. Thank you. That was it.
All right.
Thank you very much.
All right.
As of that is the last speaker.
We've now closed public hearing, and we'll go to questions
of administration.
No questions of administration.
Well, shocked after all that.
Okay.
Councilor Farrell.
No, they want to drag anything on.
No, no.
I think we haven't recovered from Monday.
The, we just had an update on the municipal development plan,
Calgary Transportation Plan, and how we are not meeting our targets.
There are very few targets that we're actually meeting,
and one of them is our climate change targets and GHG reduction.
So how can we ensure that this isn't just one of those plans,
that we feel good about for a few days, and then put on a shelf and ignore.
It needs to be represented in our budget.
And frankly, GHD reduction should be represented in every single thing that we do.
So what's embedded in here to ensure that that doesn't happen?
Here's the chair.
Thank you for the question, Councillor Farrell.
So first off, this has been a long-term process of over two years,
which we worked very closely with each and every business unit.
And from the very beginning, we said that our target is to look at the next business cycle
and to ensure that we bring actions forward that each and every business unit can actually
generate themselves as a recommendation to how they will reduce GHG emissions as well as
how they will reduce the risk in their operations and services they are providing.
So that was always the aim.
And that came to fruition in the beginning of this year specifically.
We counsel actually approve the guiding principles and said this should be embedded as part
of one Calgary. And again, thereafter, actually, ALT also recommended that this be become
part of one Calgary and actually be considered as one Calgary coming forward in November.
And this is really that last step that we have here in front of us. There is a specific
recommendation in this strategy that says that we should embed this as part of one Calgary
going forward.
So we were very very very specific about those. The other part of that is also that partnership
and trust relationship that we've created with industry in ensuring that we that we take
that next step and making sure those actions are implementable and prioritized over a period
of time.
So it's interesting in these chambers we hear the industry. We have lots of industries
So what industry do you mean?
I look at a broad, broad scope.
And I talk about industry from community organizations,
down to the building industry,
down to those folks that put up drywalls,
down to electricians.
We look very, very broadly at this,
because it incorporates a broad, broad, broad group.
Of course, we're going to look at stakeholder groups specifically.
It might be associations to work with.
We want to look at best practices. We've been digging into that quite a bit. And those associations are also bringing their best practices forward of what is working for them here in Calgary, Alberta and Canada, but also being influenced because some of them are international companies.
And for that matter, they had to also abide by their international rules, which is great for us here in Calgary.
So yeah, it's a very broad stakeholder group that we are looking at.
I may add as well that we are aiming at working closely with some international groups
to help us guide on how we could establish these governance models for us here in Calgary
and actually working groups to implement it.
Thank you.
I know that with lead, for example, when we have an applicant from outside the city, they
We just normally go for lead, silver, lead, gold, and when asked why they're doing this
voluntary, they say it's just what we do, but we don't require it here.
So it seems onerous, but it's normal in other cities.
So is that something that we could look to the province or do we need to implement something
like that here?
It depends on the project and program in front of us.
This climate mitigation and adaptation plans are very broad in scope.
Some of them are very, very small actions that we can just take and work directly with
companies such as the distribution of electric vehicle charging stations across our province.
It's a fairly easy one that's companies that are coming, they want to do it.
And there are other things that we want to collaborate with industry on, for instance, energy consumption.
And actually, the next report is about energy consumption.
And that's really where we are looking at, like the previous speaker talked about,
where we want to look at the consumption within buildings.
It's not just a regulation that we want to bring in.
There is very clear direction from the federal government that by around the year 2020 to 2022,
they will actually come down with very clear guidelines, and in many cases regulations.
What we want to do is work with industry and prepare our city so that we are ready for when that comes down.
And we've all...
Our partners and their educating us to learn together. And then we move, once we hit a majority of people on board, we actually move to regulations, because that's where we want to establish equity in the market. And we've seen that with many, many processes and policies at the city. I can truly say that in working with various, various groups over this, over the course of this process, it has always been about collaboration. And I really hope that we can continue with that. And like somebody else that I think you're on council, let's get to the actual
on the ground and it's not just at a policy level, but we want to look at the best practices.
What actually works here?
And we might look at short time periods for three months, let's quickly test it on a building,
see if it works, and then spread it to the rest.
And that is the agreement that we've seen from specific industry groups, as well as local
private companies and community groups.
Okay, thank you.
And consultation, we heard a lot of interest in groups being part of the discussion.
And that I would assume is moving forward, we would have those people at the table, is that the plan, and why did we not have them at the table and the development of this action plan?
Through the chair, thank you for the question.
I'm delighted to see the community also become part of what we are doing, but as a first step, we needed to make sure that we have our house in order as the City of Calgary.
We needed to understand what our role would be in all of this, so that we can also accommodate the wishes of those areas where we see the largest scale of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as really reducing the risk for our citizens at the end of the day in the services and operations that we have.
We wanted to clear that out, and we took the time to understand it better to also raise the awareness of staff here at the city.
That was really, really important for us.
Now we actually have much more capacity internally to go out and reach out to the community
and say, let's join together and help us understand what we can do in your backyard for
you as well.
Okay.
Just want two more quick questions.
Mr. Keyhole mentioned active mobility and just upstairs getting the Calvertransportation
plan monitoring report.
In other words, they're not meeting our targets, no wonder, we're not funding it.
So, how does active mobility, walking and cycling, building our communities differently, so
that walking and cycling to everyday amenities are easy?
How do you, do you agree with Mr. Kiho's point that that has been neglected?
How can we bolster that? Is that the next step?
I think as we learn, it's almost like the changing of the blackberry to iPhone and
look where are we today, 10 years later.
Things change very, very fast and we see that in all kinds of vehicles.
For instance, if we just change the electric vehicles, what is the emissions problem?
But then we've got a congestion problem.
So, I think our transportation colleagues are really analyzing all of these various aspects
if you look at the future of transportation, they are looking at various aspects there
to include in our transportation plan the update thereof.
The other side of that is also though when we look at the climate work that we are doing,
we are definitely supporting all active modes of transport, especially where there are densification
that's already happening, because we always know that within a six to eight hundred meter
walking distance, that's where people would walk.
And further than that, that's when you get biking, and so forth, and so forth.
We've built a city, we live in this city, and we try to accommodate the various modes
of transportation.
Are we the most walkable city in the world?
I think not, obviously.
But you know what is trying to find that balance between how we've built the city, and how
people want to live, and trying to reach that target of reducing our emissions through
that.
There's other cities that's got the same examples and they are investing in in different different kinds of technologies like we are doing and like we are testing today
I'm not thinking of the technologies. I'm thinking and making it easier to walk and bike and
that
Takes a little bit of money, but it does take some budget and some commitment and then
Reporting there's a plan to report measure
Report measure do better
Correct. Yes, there is. We're actually planning to do an annual report back to Council
in collaboration with our community and stakeholder and industry partners. And also from a legislative
perspective, we have to come back on a four-year basis and actually update the plan to the province.
Okay, thank you for your work and thank you for all the speakers who provided some very insightful
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Farrell. Councilor Gondick.
Thank you. I asked this question of the land development industry folks that were
up here about ULI, Urban Land Institute. Did you have an opportunity to engage with them
at all?
We did not engage with them directly, but we did engage with various international
stakeholders and best practice groups out there from engineering associations to planning
associations. We've worked with the resilience group here at the city. We've worked with
the C40s organization, I'm not sure if you're aware of them, yeah. So we've worked with various
organizations around the globe actually to understand what we could do here in Calgary.
It's interesting there was a recent or a report just released yesterday to look at the European
European cities and what they are doing and there's very few cities that actually combine
mitigation and adaptation in one report going forward. They feel it's, you know, it's
a huge jump and it's a lot of work all at once. But we definitely have done that. Another
part to that question for you is we also dug deeper than just the best practices coming
from these large-scale international organizations. We even looked at companies and what they are
doing in terms of best practices for their own organizations, everything from transit
companies within North America, if you look at Seattle or those, what have they done
to look at resilience and how they built that into their transit networks, down to plans
that they've done in other cities in North America and also Northern regions as such?
So we've really tried to scope it out tremendously and bring that information back to our advisory
groups and ask them what they felt we could do with that and how we could utilize that information
locally. We don't see that disappearing. We see that being utilized as we move on in this process
of implementation and prioritization as well. I'm glad you brought that up the point about
implementation because what I found in some of the research that I've been doing is the 100 RC
cities are able to tap into the strategy partners they have so it's people like Rand Corporation,
ACOM and Jacobs that they have been working with to create their strategies.
Pittsburgh is a recent example. Yeah, so you've already done this. So I think maybe
what we need to do is provide some comfort to our stakeholders that the
implementation phase is definitely going to be one of best practices and
partnerships. And it sounds like you're working closely with the resilience team.
They're we're hand in hand. Very closely. Yes. And they're great partners.
That's fantastic. And Councillor Keating had to step to another meeting, but he just asked
me to raise a point. He and I would agree. He felt that perhaps some of the highlighted
actions that are in the plan, as you've submitted, are actions that are already underway in
other business units and across the corporation. So, I mean, his question I guess mine as well
is would it alleviate some of the concern that there's 172 items or however many there
are, if we were able to categorize these things are underway, these ones need to be done.
Through the chair, thank you so very much for asking that question. So I didn't want to
bring this spread sheet along, but that's exactly what we've already started to do. No, we've
already done that. So we know exactly what's already underway, but this is a comprehensive plan
to show here's all the actions that we are not just doing yesterday today, but that we
We will also continue to do in the future.
Flood resilience is not going away tomorrow.
We will be working on that for a long term.
But we do have the work ready where we've actually classified already, what we are doing,
what we will be doing.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sure.
Excellent.
Thank you.
Councilor Demogh, please.
We're doing flood resilience.
So, again, back to the action plans, there's lots of them.
I guess this is going to go forward to part of the recommendation that I'm going to be
bringing forward. They're not written in stone. I mean, basically, we're going to be looking
at this. I guess what I'm looking for, it seems to be the word of the day and I'll thank
the City Manager for this. This is in a lot of ways a fluid action plan scenario, correct?
That is true. We've indicated the large scale areas that we need to take action on. Things
like citizen outreach, heat alerts.
These things are how we will do that is a very different story.
But those are the focus areas that we want to get into.
And that's where we want to work with industry, for instance, let's say we look at investment
or enabling energy efficiency in buildings.
We know that that's an area we need to work on.
We've already started to agree on them that we probably need to look at energy labeling and
energy information sharing.
how we do that, a whole different story.
So that's where the security reports are, if you won't mind.
Sorry.
I'm sorry. That's the next report, sir.
I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry about that.
I don't want to go.
But I think, and not to go into the next report,
but that is actually an illustration of how we want to proceed with it.
So we, this plan and strategy is really about putting the focus on here,
where we need to go, that how we will actually do that is a whole different story in many cases.
And so we have to dig deeper in how we actually proceed with that.
And as one of the presenters or speakers had said, depending on what the, sorry,
give me
a second, how the technology might change going forward will affect how the action plan
is.
Anyway, having said that, clerks, you have a new set of recommendations that I was going
to put forward if we put that up on the screen.
I think most of council has seen this.
So,
basically, instead of simply approving the strategy, thanks Councillor Collier-Cardy,
it was absolutely necessary, I think, to actually say the strategy and the mitigation and
adaptation.
I think it's important, and as you described, to acknowledge that going forward, we will
be working with industry, community representation to actually prioritize out of 172, 142.
which ones are the first ones that we should be working on,
because you can't just go out and say work on all of it all at once,
because although we'd like to, that probably won't work very well.
And then again, thank you, Councillor Gondec,
with regards to touching into the 100 Resonient Cities
and how they're doing and what are their best practices.
So, Councillor, these are the recommendations
that I'm putting forward.
I hope you can approve them.
I guess I can't say close just yet.
Did you have a question separate from the recommendation?
Because you asked questions before.
I did ask questions before. I know we're not limited.
But there was one that I've been trying to get my staff to send me a photograph of some notes that I had on my chest.
I think finally did.
So it's something that you may or may not know much about.
The New Zealand is doing some really remarkable stuff around solar.
And I had a presentation about it not that long ago, Mr. Vaipon was there, and they made
time of day, they put a high price in their evening electricity, and they had smart
metering.
And people could watch real time how much power they were using and how much they were saving.
And it empowered the consumer to act in their own self-interest.
And so we don't allow that, but according to this individual who is very embedded in the power structure of New Zealand electricity system, this made all the difference.
They just kind of got out of the way and let people make their own decisions.
That's provincial, is it not?
Are we putting pressure on the province?
I know that they have a goal in some ways it's getting out of the way of consumers doing the right thing.
So, how are we work, I mean, we own NMAX, we have some influence in this area, maybe.
And so, what are we doing regarding smart metering?
Through the chair, I'll take that.
Thank you for the question.
Yes, we're looking at that.
So, through our work and looking at what's best practices across the world, Australia's
other jurisdiction all site, where they actually have smart meters, three pricing systems throughout
about the day. The price of electricity is very expensive there, so there's a very big
cost incentive to run your dishwasher after 10 p.m., as an example. But we are looking
at different jurisdictions, talking with NMAX, talking with our colleagues and the provincial
government. You can hear those conversations now starting to happen, whereas I think
some of the speakers were saying earlier today, two years ago, it was just something that did
overseas. But now we're starting to look at that and investigate that much, much more
detail and it's fascinating the way that those smart readers actually give you that information.
There are Wi-Fi systems. You can walk around your house with your smartphone and you know exactly
what the house is consuming at any given point in time. Some of the stock overseas is very impressive.
And so we're looking at that as well. Okay, thank you. And I'm supportive of these recommendations.
Councillor Demont? Okay, so I'll put a plug-in for End Max. If you've got an opportunity,
Maybe go ahead and take a look at my energy IQ.
It basically does an awful lot of what you just finished describing, so you can actually
track exactly what your energy usage is, whether it be electricity or natural gas.
Having said that with regards to the smart metering, it is something that NMAX is looking at doing, but again, this actually goes back to whether they're allowed to do it through the UCA or CAU. Man, I've got to get those initials, right? Because they have to out of approval in order to charge back to the consumers what those meters would cost. And it is a significant cost increase, so that is something that is being considered. But considering there is a lot of lifespan left on the existing meters, it's a difficult problem. Having said all of that,
When we talk about the working group, how in item number two, how would you be actually looking at
formulating the working group?
Through the chair, thank you for the question. We've actually
described in the strategy 7.1 under governance. We've actually described some of the things that we
would like to achieve as part of this group. We've also looked at the various types of representatives that we
would like to see represented on this group as well.
As I said earlier, we're utilizing a model out of the UK where they are testing this and
have been testing this for the last two and a half years now to look at various industry
members at the table.
So we would be looking at a formal group consisting of members from various organizations that could
advise and have actually practices on the ground as well as folks from the corporation.
It would then look at working groups underneath that that would focus on specific areas because
certain a project will not require all of these people on the same group.
I'm going to use electric vehicles on the one hand and on the other hand I can look
at planning or natural infrastructure.
They would not necessarily have the same stakeholders at the table.
So we have to also formulate those separate working groups to actually run fast or sometimes
in certain cases, and others would be at an earlier stage of getting things done.
But what we did say was that we would like to look at a few things, and that would
be to seek that this group should seek to be an independent voice in the city.
That would be able to provide advice on steps towards a low carbon future and becoming
more climate resilient.
They would help us to monitor progress.
They would also advise on the assessment of risks and adaptation opportunities.
They will help us foster collaboration around projects, and they would also help us promote
the best practice and public engagement of how to get more people involved in this process.
Last but not least, they will act as a form where organizations can exchange ideas, research
findings, information and best practices in the areas of GHG reduction and risk mitigation
for our city and region.
Okay. So as a quick follow up, one of my colleagues over on the other side was asking
about reporting back and how this doesn't get lost in the milieu of a large organization.
What are the intentions of keeping us up to date as to how this entire strategy, mitigation
and or adaptation plans and strategies are working?
On an annual basis, we will be coming back and as ESM environment and safety management,
we will be coordinating that piece specifically and bringing a report back, working through
the actions looking at what you would probably get back is here's our prioritized actions
for the year 2019 that we're going to work with and that will be 2021-22 and here's how
we've progressed on those actions to date. You will be seeing that and the intent has always
been that we'll be reporting back not alone, but we'll actually have those business units
that's been involved at the table as well, as well as members from organizations or industry
members specifically involved in that project.
Of course, in a lot of instances, we might just have a starting point, for instance, if you
want to develop standards for roads or whatever, you have to have a starting point in just developing
the standards.
So the reporting back might be, we have started with that action.
Completion might not be seen at the end of every year.
But it would be an annual report back.
Okay.
Thank you. That sounds great.
And with your working group basically just quoting the city manager,
we'll leave it with you.
That sounds fantastic.
Closed.
Thank you. Excellent dialogue today.
So, in that manner, on these amended recommendations, all in favor?
Agreed.
Opposed?
Excellent.
unanimous.
Thank you.
Really good job.
Great report.
Really good input today.
Uh-oh.
I didn't.
Sorry, your chairmanship.
I realize that on the originalist's SBC and utility court serves to recommend that council
approves these.
Does that, is that just a given on the recommendations that we just have?
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
Or we could just ignore them and just make it happen, no?
They don't know what they're talking about, right?
Okay.
So 7.2, Energy Reporting for Commercial Buildings.
Does anybody require a presentation for reporting on buildings?
No?
Okay.
You wore us out, see?
Okay.
We'll just go to the recommendation.
If we could, pardon me, oh I'm sorry, is there anybody from the public that would like
to speak to this?
Mr. Heather, let's stay on topic today please.
It's about reporting,
energy reporting.
Yeah, that's right. So remember back to John Lord where his theme was on affordable Calgary.
So now we're getting a three-year grace period where we're going to not make it mandatory.
But then after three years it looks like the clamps are going to come down and we're
going to make it mandatory for every commercial building to meet certain standards, probably
leads.
This is going to lead to the Detroiting of Calgary.
If you go to Detroit today, there's many commercial buildings that are abandoned because of excessive taxation, excessive regulation of the city.
And you're going to make it impossible for start-up businesses and businesses on the small and medium scale to survive and still make a profit.
But if you impose retroactively these standards and cause them to be required to come up to whatever standards being set for some ideological agenda.
And I think it's a tragic mistake that we, you know, it used to be a city, a freedom of entrepreneurial advancement.
a place where Calgary was the sky was the limit as to opportunity, but you will drive
people out of the city, you will drive out additional business tax base by these recommendations.
And I would ask the city of Calgary to take a stand against this, you're not, you're here
to provide services to the citizens of Calgary, not assume dictatorial powers over them.
And start dictating the standards by which a business should be able to exist in this city.
So we're making a mistake by going along in this direction as in the report that just sailed through without opposition.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
So question anybody else from the public that would like to speak on this?
Thank
you very much.
Lloyd Souchet with Boma Calgary.
I spent the presentation on the last part,
predominantly speaking about building bench barn,
so I won't repeat that.
I'll just say we support the recommendation.
We asked the city to take a gradual approach
only because we've seen good uptake on benchmarking
in the new A-class buildings,
where the real opportunity is in those older B&C class buildings
and they're the ones with the low hanging fruit,
but also less resources.
So, we think that this recommendation really helps us get to a place that in two, three years will expect it coming.
They'll realize it's not this big bad thing coming your way and they'll be industry acceptance for it.
So, we support the recommendation and are happy to help the city implement that in any way they see fit.
Thank you.
Okay, I think you might have some questions or Councillor Ferrell.
Just one question, thank you.
It relates to the comment that I made earlier about other jurisdictions where lead, gold,
or lead platinum, just the normal course of business.
And it's always distressing when it's a pleasant surprise when a developer from Vancouver, West Bank
was an example, just I asked them, why are you going for lead platinum?
That's how we build and so but then they don't have to be forced because it's normal
and I'm just wondering why we don't have that kind of approach for attituding Calgary.
Sure, I'd first start by saying that lead is a good program but where we were.
It's not perfect.
It's not perfect where we see the opportunities in the established
building sector but to your point and to the point I made earlier in that we're seeing
more and more tenants demanding this in their leases and they've got their own, they've
got their own green reporting requirements for the large companies.
So what we're really seeing is it's the sort of consumer demand to start and come up to
a place where building owners and managers saying we want to demonstrate our leadership in
the best way to do that is an established program that shows that to your tenants.
but the important part isn't the label
to tell you operate your building.
And that's where you've seen success in building the best.
It's not what you build it with, it's how you operate.
And that affects every building in Calgary,
not just the brand new ones.
It's also what building materials you use,
and there's a huge amount of energy in the construction.
There's a huge amount of it, GHG and concrete.
So it's exactly, and it's a very good point.
I like to point out, in the poem, a best example, that Gulf Canada Square, which is a 40-year-old
building, is certified to the highest level. It doesn't have the brand new building materials,
but they've steadily made those investments and through benchmarking, we're given a really clear path
on how you can get there. That's a success story where this is achievable for a 50-year-old building,
absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gondec, please.
Did you have questions for the gentleman? I'm sorry if you can go back, Councillor Gondec
to have some questions for you. Thank you, Mr. Cicci. I have a question for you. Do
you feel that this could possibly be a role for ballnut to play instead of the city? Everything
is recommended here.
I would say that we have a service that does
As a lot of what this plan is trying to do, and we absolutely see a role for ourselves
in BOMA BEST within that.
What I will say is the report does identify energy star portfolio manager as the de facto
standard in the building industry, frankly, North America, BOMA BEST feeds specifically into
that.
So, what we ask for through the climate change process prior to this was, don't choose
a market product, let it be flexible. We think both best is at a good price point and frankly
a really effective tool, so we think it'll see success through this. But if you keep it more
generic on the portfolio manager side, that's probably the way you stay neutral in the market.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. I do have a question for administration, just for clarification.
Because of what was brought up before is the intent of this reporting is first of all to create benchmarking, to help the industry within itself and create incentives and look at how they can improve in the years to come so how they can save money it's not changing all the policies in crippling the industry as portrayed earlier just would like confirmation of that.
That is correct. Okay, thank you. Councilor De Maul.
Just a quick clarification, when you talk about commercial buildings, what is your definition
of a commercial building?
Non-residential buildings.
Oh, sure, get picky and be technical. So an office, so an apartment building wouldn't
qualify for this? Not, and I'm just going to check, I'm not under this program, no.
Okay. No.
I guess, no, please.
So we, in the previously approved plan, we do have a program specifically for residential buildings, which is separate.
This is specifically geared nationally towards commercial buildings.
And it sets a, you know, a bar for these commercial buildings that they can compete against.
I guess it's not so much that aspect I was more concerned with regards to, as we heard on the previous subject, the much smaller buildings that are commercial buildings, the stand-alone carpenter, the stand-alone and where that fits in and I appreciate that it's a voluntary, but I'm just wondering how,
So anything, even if it's a house that has been determined to get a new land you zoning in is now a non-residential house,
you would still qualify it in this rating as a commercial building.
It's just that kind of-
You would, but-
Sorry, through the chair.
You would, but we are looking at the larger commercial building.
So, just as a stat, when we look at buildings, over 20,000...
That's already reporting to Workfolio Manager. We've got about 225, those between 1500,000, we've got about 200 buildings already, and those over 100,000, we've got 425. So, and that is out of like on the larger scale. We've got more of them. So they're 685 in business. We've got 485 that's actually reporting. So you can see as it is, like exactly like you said, the bigger the buildings, the more they want to do it because that really helps them with their competitiveness.
And they would like to participate in these kind of things.
So it's really so far, it's been very much industry driven, and our engagement with building
owners and industry and so forth, specifically building industry, I should be clear.
They will all very much in favor and actually suggest that we look at a three-year pilot
program where we can learn more about this together and see how smaller buildings and so forth
can also come on board.
So do we have any kind of a ratio or percentage of how many of these buildings that you just
listed are actually voluntarily into this project already so we have a baseline as to where
it is now and where it will be in three years.
We've got percentages of who's already involved by themselves that have signed up for portfolio
manager.
We do have those numbers.
We literally just finished this investigation probably a month and a half ago.
So we wanted to bring it forward and with this plan then being approved and taken forward
we can actually take the next steps and start working with industry.
They looked at this as one of their priority programs just as an example, okay, they would like me to go on with this
So we will be forming a baseline in the very unique. Correct. We have to. Yes. It's fantastic
So the 20,000 square foot would range so something like Ward's house would qualify
Isn't it bigger? No, it's
19,500. Don't exaggerate
I appreciate the work you've done on this, and I understand it comes from a notice of motion that predates me being on council.
But I feel rather strongly that this is not something that we should be doing.
I think it's very much the purview of an organization like Bulma to be doing it, perhaps in partnership with us.
How do you feel about that?
I will tell you what maybe what we've investigated and what it could help us, how I feel about
maybe different.
But what we have seen now in other cities as well is that you have to collaborate with
the biggest partner involved in this process.
And like I definitely want to say, our partner from Bona said here, yes, they are involved,
but they also have other objectives that they need to achieve.
So for us, it's really a facilitation process and enabling these people to come together.
It's not a forcible thing that we're going to do.
It'll be just one of the projects that we'll be heading up.
It's really about facilitating this.
This is not a massive process for us to undertake.
We are also looking at Edmonton and how they are doing this and trying to collaborate with
them as well.
We've heard from our industry partners that in many cases, they don't want Edmonton and
to be on different pages when it comes to these things, because they are developing buildings together, renovating it together.
So, why don't we work together on that?
And we've already, I mean, we've worked very closely with our Edmond partners already, and they're definitely
game to step it up and work with us on the outcome of this plan.
So, yeah, it is definitely there.
For all of the reasons that you've just mentioned, I'm not going to support this, has nothing to do.
It's not you, it's me.
I really think this should be within the association, and if they really want to make
sure Edmonton and Calgary and any other jurisdiction is on the same page, this should be theirs
to manage.
So that will be my reason for lack of support.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councillor DeMogh, would you like to move this for information?
Yeah.
I will remove it for information, considering that we're not actually telling any business
is what to do. We're not regulating it in any way, shape, or form. We're simply saying
we think it'd be a great idea if you guys as an association were to go out and become,
compare yourselves to other cities and other buildings. I don't see it as the city actually
doing anything, but suggesting and enabling an organization to do what it may normally have
done anyway. So yeah, I'll move this.
Okay, thank you. So, on the question, no, in favor?
Opposed? Councillor Gondec. Opposed? Yes.
No. We're very tight on time because we're
not going to be quorum here to finish off the list item. So, okay, we are going to the
last item. That is, pay as you throw program, controversial black card collection.
For some
I know you do have a report if you could expedite through the presentation would be excellent because we are, we do have issues at 230, be greatly appreciated.
Yeah.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of committee,
Rekfeld Arche, director of waste recycling services.
I'm with Melanie Cook, our manager of strategic services here to discuss the proposed PAsia throw program for the black cart program.
We do have a presentation.
Thank you.
Great.
Good afternoon.
I'll provide you some background information on what we've learned from other municipalities.
Some of the key elements of a pay-as-you-throw program for Calgary.
Sorry, you just need to move your mic down a little bit and stop picking you up.
There you go.
Thank you.
If you recall, one of the key trends identified in our Outlook report was increasing customer
expectations.
One of the initiatives identified to respond to this trend was to provide options for residential
customers through a variable pricing program that would allow residents to choose a black
cart size option and opportunity to pay for occasional access materials outside the black
cart.
So, what is a pay-as-you-throw program?
It introduces choice to residential customers so they can match the size of their black
cart to the amount of garbage they produce.
It also generally includes a tag-a-bag program so customers can choose a black cart size that
meets their needs most weeks, but provides an outlet for occasional access garbage.
Research has shown that pay-as-you-throw programs typically result in high levels of satisfaction
with residences they perceive it to be fair, you're paying for what you use.
The objectives for our pay-as-you-throw program are shown here.
In addition to providing residential customers' choice, we are looking to minimize program
costs and therefore customer rates.
We would also like to avoid the increases in contamination that many other municipalities
of experience, and we'll use this as an opportunity to promote waste aversion and reduction.
What we found in reviewing programs and other municipalities is that the more choice
you offer residents in terms of cart size, the more program costs increase.
Here we show the different prices for 240-liter carts for each program, except for Cochran,
which has 120-liter carts.
The rates in these municipalities for smaller carts can be anywhere from 50-80% of the 240-liter
card rate and the larger card sizes range from 125 to 150 percent of that rate.
We have included the 2019 indicative rate for Calgary as residential black card collection
is currently funded through tax support.
Some of the advice that the municipalities have offered was to avoid very small card sizes
as they are typically, sorry, they are operationally challenging and can lead to a variety of problems
as residents look for other options to manage their garbage.
They also they shared that the impact of their programs was mixed.
Many municipalities have experienced increased blue and green card contamination, while others
have experienced increased aversion.
One of the key considerations in looking at a pay-as-you-throw program are cost drivers.
When we talk about the program cost drivers, as you can see by this graphic, the majority
of costs associated with Calgary's black card program are fixed.
The indicative rates for 2019 for Calgary's current one-card-size program is about $5 a month and that's just a drive-by-the-house.
The cost will be less than $2 a month to handle and dispose of the waste as soon as there's garbage to be collected.
Any financial incentives for customers to reduce their waste will be within the handling disposal part of the rate and program prizes will be developed with this in consideration.
In developing this program, waste recycling services is mindful of the additional program
costs associated with providing additional card size options.
Some of the additional program elements required include the purchase of cards, the tag-a-bag
program, customer education enforcement.
So based on these considerations, waste recycling services is recommending three card sizes
and a tag-a-bag program for the occasional bag of excess garbage outside the black cart.
This image is from the Region Appeals website and it illustrates the program we are recommending.
There are some risks that we need to consider as we move towards a pay-as-you-throw program.
They include the risk that the price differential between the small and medium carts may not meet customer expectations.
Also, some residents who may require a larger cart may not want to pay more and will find an outlet
for their excess weights in the blue and the green carts, leading to increased contamination and therefore cost for those programs.
Our next step will be to develop an implementation plan for your approval in Q2 2019.
The critical element in this plan will be engagement, education, and communication with Calgary
residents.
We want to make sure that Calgaryans are aware of the program and have plenty of opportunities
to experience the different card sizes before we offer them a choice.
It will be really important that we educate residents to make the right card choice to meet
their requirements.
Other communities have emphasized the importance of reaching as many residents as possible.
We will need also need to determine how residents will let us know they like a different
card size and what the pricing structure for the program will be.
Other municipalities have rolled out a variable card program at the same time they launched
automated collection.
So an extra step for us will be to develop a plan to manage the inventory of return 240
liter cards.
So
as I mentioned, we're today asking you for your approval for a Paisy Throgue Program for Calgary, and we'll be coming back in Q2 2019 for your approval of the implementation plan.
We will begin developing the engagement and communication plan early as this is a critical element for program success.
We will present a proposed rate structures part of the implementation plan with final program rates coming through the 2019 budget adjustment.
Our current contracts are for 240-liter carts only and we will need to go through a competitive
purchasing process to buy carts.
It is important the variable cart size is being included as part of the larger cart RFP
as we will get better pricing due to the economies of scale.
The new cart contract will be in place for August 2019 and depending on the schedule of the successful
cart manufacturer it may take several months before we receive the new carts and we will
want to avoid delivering new carts in the winter months.
With this in mind, we expect residents to have access to the different
cart sizes by spring 2020.
So with that, our recommendation today is that the SPC on Utilities
and Corporate Services recommend that Council Director Administration to
develop a detailed program design and implementation plan for pays you
through a program with three black cart sizes and a tag-a-bag program and report
back no later than Q2 2019.
19. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody from the audience? I would like to speak to Mr. Heather.
I deal with underlying assumptions that are presented in the white cover papers
and they're allowed administrations allowed to deal with their assumptions and when I count to them
it's called off topic. But the what we have we mirror weeks from learning that the black carts which
We're supposed to be charged less now because they've gone to two weeks.
We learned that that wasn't so really.
Now we've got the larger carts that will be used to subsidize the smaller carts.
So the less other people, other sizes are charged, the more the onus of the people who have
the larger carts.
So we've gone from one cart to two carts to three carts.
now we're having multiple sizes of the black cart which is it's as if the volume of air volume
in Calgary is somehow more efficient if we just have garbage in a smaller cart rather than a larger
cart. So this is really a tactic of name and shame. So people with the smaller carts are more responsible
to the environment that people with the larger carts. In fact it's quite the opposite. The larger
cards may be involving more people in the residents, actually a discrimination factor
against larger families, family units, and then we're charging them more. I can see the
time coming where the large cart will be eliminated entirely because people aren't doing their
part as it were. You should note that the healthier the economy is, the more garbage
will be produced. The more people employed in packaging, the more people that are tailoring
specifically to the needs of people. Instead of going down to the blandness of a de-civilized
economy where choices are increasingly shrunk. So there's the old joke about the supermarket
in the Soviet Union and the shop owner says, well, we have hundreds of items available for you.
So much when you start naming and shaming a basic service like garbage removal and going to
three cart sizes, you know the little green carts that were chopped out in southwood, they
kept blowing over in the wind, because there are two little to take the wind resistance
so the base was not big enough to endure a wind. So you find them all over our alley
over on their sides and whatnot. But we should remember that it's not garbage elimination.
If you're aiming for 70% reduction by in seven years' time, you're going to end up with a third world economy
that doesn't produce choices. That doesn't attract people of various interests to live in a city like Calgary
because they go for take-out food and they get stuff dripping through their bag because
there's no plastic containers, no straws, no one-use plastics for anything.
This is a mark of poverty mentality, and all these plastics and things are produced by
an oil and gas economy.
What if every municipality in the world cut these plastics uses?
is where would be the use for our oil and gas.
So I would encourage you not to approve this.
Thank you.
Is there anybody else from the audience
that would like to speak to this better?
As there is not public hearing itself closed,
I've never had a run on someone.
I thought there was another gentleman
that was coming forward to speak to it.
No?
OK.
I've never had an argument against choice.
OK.
Okay, questions to administration.
Councilor Meglioca, please.
Thank you.
What?
Nope.
So, thank you for the report.
It feels like what we're doing here, we're capturing.
We're just putting more obstacles in it one day
where we ever want to go to do through private sector.
Is that, do you find, that's what I find.
That's what I think, that's what I'm feeling.
Can you elaborate more on that?
because we're just throwing more obstacles and they're like different kind of bans and pick up the bags and
Tag of bag and we're trying to get rid of the bags now. We're going to introduce them again
And so we whenever we want to do a pilot project with a private sector or maybe the future
Contracted out to someone else. We're just put more obstacles in the way looks like we're just building silos. So we can keep it ourselves
Through the chair. Thanks, can't Councillor Macko. I don't perceive that
If you take a look across Canada, there's private sector service delivery, a number of major municipalities, and they're involved in multiple cart tag-a-bag programs.
Obviously, something that would have to be addressed within the terms of a contract on what the expectation is.
But I don't think we're putting up, I don't see obstacles from that stand, but it's worked in other municipalities.
I don't think the private sector is complained about the nature of the service delivery with respect to the number of carts.
So I don't would do you have to change the mechanism on the trucks to retrofit them to lift the
Through the chair as great question. No, it's it fact if you think in the pilot program for green card
They were 120 liter carts as was noted in the truck
There was no additional additional
Mechanism on the truck to facilitate that so no the truck that you see now can facilitate one twenty two forty three sixty
No problem, right and the tag of bag
How do you visualize it working and there's going to be more cost to administration to to
Administrate all these new programs that you're put into the billing system, the accounting,
the clerks, the cart movement, the increase of a fixed collection cost on your handling and
the processing cost. Through the chair, there will be some administration cost for sure.
Take a bag program though, as we bring it back, it will be a cost recovery program.
So do we move to the end user?
So what would that look like?
We'll be working on that and that's something that we'll bring back as part of the implementation plan.
I'll let you know that we're going away from that's one of the reasons why we brought in the black bins going away from the garbage bags.
Through the chair just yes, that's why we want to have for the different card sizes so that if you know you're routinely producing more garbage than you can get the larger card size.
But really, a tag-a-bag program is for that occasional bag of access so that you pick the right cart from most of the time, but
That you if you do have an extra bag of garbage that you haven't out left for that. So what would be the savings to the end users going to a smaller cart?
And what would be our cost versus their cost?
Yeah, I think as I said, we'll be coming back with the implementation with the rate structure. So we'll look at how that's gonna work
Okay
Do you want to add anything Jim got worked because he's he's done this transition before okay?
Yeah, I have Mr. Chair. I was just gonna add that I don't see these as barriers. These are best practices that
pretty much
most mid-sized and large communities in Canada and the US already have implemented and the private sector whether it's private sector of municipal
employees
This is done across North America.
And with respect to the Tagabag program,
so what we're trying to do is currently right now,
if there's excess waste outside of the block cart,
we currently collect it.
There's a cost associated with that.
But providing homeowners with choice,
we anticipate they will select the proper size container
that will meet most of their needs.
If that, for example, Christmas time,
you have extended family come over, you have excess waste.
you'll be able to purchase a sticker that you can put on to the bag.
So there's a fee, most municipalities charge probably in the order of $3 to $4 per sticker.
So there's an extra cost for that waste, but it will accommodate your needs outside of the bin.
So what we're hoping most homes, they'll select their proper size container.
And those container rates, as I think you heard in the presentation,
if you think of a middle size container right now,
other municipalities charge either 25 or 50% more for their larger container and maybe 25 to 50% less for the smaller container.
We still need to work out what those costs are and those will be coming out at the next stage when we report back to committee.
Well, I guarantee you my neighborhood, they won't be paying for bags.
They just go walk up and down the block and make sure other ones aren't full. They'll just fill theirs.
I know. That's what they would do. They're not going to pay for it. And it's not going
to have just my neighborhood. It don't happen to probably all over Calgary. But anyway,
I'm looking forward to seeing the report. Thank you.
Councillor Demont. Wow, if that was the case, I'd report that to my councillor.
So with regards to the aspect that's going to happen repeatedly, I've been warned to,
where the neighbors will constantly just go to another neighbor's and drop their garbage
bag over there, which seems to be commonplace now, I'm being facetious and sarcastic.
What is the indication of that happening?
When we went out and looked at best practices in other cities and perhaps through your own
personal experience, Mr. Duckworth, General Manager Duckworth, I am curious.
That is something that a number of constituents have contacted me about and said, well, what's
going to happen here?
I mean, what if somebody drops a garbage bag in front of my house without a tag?
Again, now I'm stuck with it.
How do we deal with this?
Anyone?
Through the chair.
Yes, this is something other municipalities experience,
for sure.
And that's why they've really wrecked some of the ones
that have four or five card stores.
Is they say stay away from those really small cards
because then that absolutely happens.
But one of the things that we want to do is spend time,
make sure people get the right size card.
But also we'll need to enhance our enforcement
and education program because we absolutely
really don't want that to happen.
And Mr. Chair, if I can add a little bit further, just based on experience that hasn't
really been a problem, my experience neither in Vancouver or in CalMOOPS.
In fact, speaking from personal experience when my neighbor had excess room and I had extra
garbage, they would allow me to use their bins so that does that does happen.
But with respect to extra bags showing up down and down alleys, that's not has not been
my experience.
Thank you.
Because I mean, I honestly have the same arrangement with both of my neighbors if they have excess.
We talk to each other. I know it's weird, but we actually do.
So I guess I'm never moving toward too.
So I've actually got a couple of questions.
So I've been contacted from a number of constituents with regards to this because they're really quite interested in this and they think it's a fantastic idea.
And unlike Ward 2, they actually want to go forward with the new system.
So several have suggested that this somewhat discriminates against families and larger families.
So how do we respond to that?
Through the chair, actually, Councillor Demogh, I think we're trying to facilitate larger families.
I mean, we have a postage stamp system right now that I think you could argue, discriminates,
I guess, universally.
So in this case for larger families and we're aware of cultural demographic differences throughout the city it provides an option for family units that have extended families
to be able to participate in the program without putting excess bags out.
I mean in a lot of the number of places throughout the city we experience that.
and I think even those residents are looking for bigger option to help them manage their waste,
the residual amount of material it can't be put in the green and the blue.
So I think from my perspective the contrary, it helps them with an option
that allows them to participate in the programs a little bit better.
Okay. So along those lines then, why?
Well, I guess you kind of answered the why we offer a 360 liter, it seems excessive.
Do we have that, you commented briefly, but do we actually have that problem with a lot
of bags on the outside of black bins?
I mean, when I'm driving into work on any given day during garbage day, I rarely see a
garbage bag outside of a black bin, and I'm just wondering, is it geographically unique
or do I, I'll just stop there.
Through the Chair, Councilor Desmond,
it does happen in certain areas of the city,
where there is a constant excess outside the cart
that we have to manage, and there's a cost to that.
There's a cost to the driver not only stopping
to service the cart, but stopping to service the cart
get out of the truck and manage that excess.
So, I would suggest that on any given day,
As Melanie indicated there can be bags outside the cart in any area of the city
And let me let me rephrase that and I'm sorry
I didn't mean to interrupt you there
But what I'm getting at is what is the context here? Is this is this like one in every three households is
I am trying to understand how much the extra bag by the garbage can actually happens
Through the chair. I think on average my understanding is that it is about 3% of households put out excess in any given week
Thank you, I like her.
So when we talk about multi-units,
are we going to be looking at mandating specific sizes
for a multi-unit home?
Through the chair, this is for single-family residential
up to four plexes, so they're outside of this.
That's kind of what I'm getting at for, say,
secondary suites for three plexes,
something along those lines where they're all
using one bin. Is that something that we've contemplated in any way, shape, or form?
Two chairs. So specifically, you're talking about legalized, secondary suite.
Of course, not the illegal ones.
I don't think we're mandating anything.
It's is what we're asking is that residents, whether there's, like we've talked about,
multi-families within an individual dwelling, reflect upon what they truly require from a way
servicing perspective in the size of the cart they choose.
So we're not going to mandate anything at the end of the day.
And again, I understand I'm just reflecting a number of the constituent questions that
have come my way.
So now moving into my questions, why no charge for a bin switch?
I'm finding that a little surprising that we would either allow them to go to a larger order
or to a smaller and have the taxpayer collectively pick up the difference.
Through the chair.
I don't think we've got all the difference.
I don't think we've determined that yet.
We have seen in, there's a range of possibilities available.
There's some municipalities that upon delivery
will allow one cart change free.
If you decide that you can't live within that existing cart,
others charge anywhere from $25 to $75 for a switch.
Okay, thank you.
So the other two items that are,
oh, the other two items I really wanted to know
about are the other options that you list on page 4 of 11, and I'm curious as to how
far aware of these potential programs, I'm specifically talking about the weight based
and the set out systems with the RIF tagging. Now, I realize with both of those,
you have the same potential problem that seems to happen in Ward 2 all the time with regards to
somebody putting their garbage in yours, and if you're weighing it, why am I paying for that difference?
I can see an awful lot of problems with the way scale differences to people saying, well, I didn't
put out that much weight. But the set-out system, I'm rather intrigued with the RIF and I'm
only going to put it out once a month. Through the Chair, Councillor Demont, weight-based
system is difficult because there's that calibration from a weighing perspective of the actual infrastructure
Are in place scales at the landfill sites to minimum twice a year, and they're not moving. In the case of the truck, obviously, it's passing by tipping upwards of a thousand locations a day. So the opportunity for that to get out of whack is there. And from a weights and measures standpoint, that has to be bulletproof, less we have a problem with billing. I think that what you see from a weight-based system is more in place for the front end low
motor bins, the big bins that there is some municipalities that are using them, but
I haven't heard of too many using them for residential.
What they do use them for residential, you'll make note in the attachment there is a weight
limit in some municipalities.
And I believe the way that works is there's a breakaway system on the arm that once there's
a certain weight tolerance could be 250 odd pounds or something like that, it just won't
collected. Now, the RFID, it is very intriguing. I think I've talked about in council.
That would be a place we'd like one end up. What's interesting to me is that you have
a number of municipalities that are very mature in their programs, a variable cart, and have
an embraced RFID. In fact, you've noticed we've listed one. I will tell you that from an RFID
perspective, we are checking into it. I think what you will see, the application for variable
card will be on an inventory perspective to start with. So if we, when we position a
card in front of your home with a number, we'll be able to confirm on a weekly basis that
your card is in front of your home. Now that, I know that sounds silly, but the, the
cards, what we have seen in some jurisdictions on variable card, depending on the size, it
tends to wander down the lane. So the RFID provides an opportunity for us to confirm the
location of a cart is consistent with whether it's address assigned to.
Okay, and could you pull back up on the screen?
I can't remember what this page number was where you compared to other cities in the
costs and the annual fee.
I think it's page four.
Oh, there it is.
So I find it intriguing that Calgary, with the exception of Cawken, I'm very intrigued
does how they're doing it marginally cheaper, is actually by far cheaper than any of the other
cities that we've compared to. Is this indicative of most of the country with regards to benchmarking
ourselves against other municipalities? So this chart is a bit simplified because it's just
the 240-liter cart, so they also have the option, the ones that have variable carts have smaller and
larger cards too. So but the one card system where everybody gets the thing, it is the
chief of system to operate for sure. Not quite what I was trying to ask.
Sorry. I was trying to ask Calgary versus the other versus other municipalities.
Yeah. I guess what I'm saying is did we cherry pick cities that actually have a much higher
municipal waste annual fee or is this indicative of what it is like across the country?
So through the chat to answer your question, we chose these municipalities because of their variable cart program and the lessons that we could learn from them. So we didn't, we asked them about the rights afterwards.
Okay, Mr. Duckworth, you wanted to say something.
I was just going to say that the rates that you see before you hear, I mean, our rates are quite competitive.
There are some municipalities like British Columbia, for example, is their blue box program is funded provincially now.
So let's take another of these rates still when you look at that our rates are very competitive
Some of the rates that you see here are done with municipal staff some are actually done with the private sector
So by and large when you look across the country
Rates are per they're pretty similar
You look at some municipalities for example, and their rates are quite higher
But they have a different system as well
So when you compare rates and we're doing a service review right now
It's important to make sure that you compare apples to apples and we try to do that the best we could here
Okay. Thank you. And Chair, sorry for taking so long. I just had a whole lot of questions. Thank you. No worries.
Come for a gun deck.
Thank you, Chair. And committee, I apologize. I have to run to a family medical appointment in a minute. I appreciate the chance to weigh in first.
I
respect the work that you've done. I appreciate it. But when the second paragraph starts off with as a number of choices provided to residents increases, so to program costs
compounded by the fact that mixed impact on diversion rates and can increase the potential
for contamination.
I'm not usually so black and white about something either cost more, it doesn't I always look
for value, but on this one I'm not sold, that this is the right time to do this.
So I can't support the recommendation, although I'm not going to be here to vote anyway.
I was excited about weight-based, but now I'm a little down on that too.
So I'm afraid for me this wasn't much of a good news story.
Maybe in future years we would want to implement this, but at this point in time in our economy, I can't support it, so I apologize for that.
Thank you, Councillor, oh, I mean Mayor Nenji.
Thanks, thanks Mr. Chair. It's not my practice to come to committee, but I was listening to this debate and I wanted to weigh in because I feel actually a lot like Councillor Gondek.
And this is very good work, but I find myself asking myself the question, what problem
are we trying to solve, because when I think about, you know, the challenges we have
with the green bin, the only complaint I ever hear about the green bin, it's too big.
I have never heard that complaint about the black bin, and I'm a guy who probably puts his
black been out every six, eight weeks in the winter.
And so to me, I think there are two parts
of what's being recommended here.
And one part I actually very much like.
It's time to do bag and tag, tag a bag.
I think that makes tons of sense.
And I think that people can be thoughtful for when they
needed if they've got guests or whatever
if they're doing a project they can go and buy the tags.
I think that's terrific.
I am not sold on the variable card sizes.
You know, when I think about the incentive that we're giving people,
if we're selling them a large bag to not a large card, to not sort their trash,
it seems to me that that is a greater incentive than the financial incentive.
Oh, if I have less, I might go to a smaller card.
And, you know, well, that may reduce the contamination of the green and blue cards.
It does so in a way that is not particularly helpful for us because it increases landfill volume.
So that was my real thinking on this whole thing, and I just wonder if you might want to respond and tell me why I'm wrong.
To chair your worship, we're responding to two things.
I'm responding to inquiries from a number of members of council based on their constituents.
And we're also responding to what we saw from the citizen satisfaction survey,
the overall survey regarding citizen desires on service delivery and the desire that they
want choice in their programs and, you know, from a perspective of what we're feeling
at waste recycling services, we regularly hear from constituents who are doing the right
thing and participating in the car programs that are best extent and they want to be recognized
by that, for from a perspective of a smaller black cart and the opportunity to potentially
pay less. And what they're also interested in seeing is that accountability for the volume
of waste you put out. So they potentially could be looking at their neighbors and saying it
doesn't seem to me that that individual is doing everything they can to participate in the programs
and they regularly put out material outside the cart. This would obviously be a dress or a tag-a-back
program, but they want to see that accountability with respect to garbage production. And what
we have seen from a municipal scan perspective is a variation of a variable cart program
which we're promoting with the tag-back program can best accomplish that.
So given what you're saying Mr. Elder, I could even get my head around the smaller cart.
The bigger one is the one that is causing me a lot of pause. I was chatting with someone
today and I said, I'm a bad example because there's only two of us in the house and I'm never home,
right? And I said, I imagine if you have a kid in diapers and so on, you're going to need a
bigger spot. And she said, I've got a family of five, two very active kids, one of them is in diapers
and I don't feel half of it every two weeks. So I'm really wondering what the thinking around the
large card is. To the chair, thank you worship. It was to do with the larger family units,
And it's also from a worker safety perspective.
The opportunity for us, whether it's 3% or greater from an excess perspective, if there's
the opportunity for us to reduce the worker getting outside the truck and having to manually
lift garbage, like we've got away from an automated collection perspective, that's value from
us.
And we felt that in consideration of those family units that did and those areas of the city
that we did see a regular excess, this was an opportunity for us to provide an alternative
that would limit that and assist the homeowner with that waste management as well as facilitate
that work environment for our staff.
I imagine then that if this passes today, I was very compelling, but if this passes today
that your next job is to really do the financial modeling, but you're not quite there yet, because
is I really want to understand the capital costs
of that versus the operating cost savings
and the occupational health and safety savings
for the people who are picking up the waste
before I make a final decision on this.
Through the chair, thank you, worship absolutely.
And that's, there is work to be done
on development of an implementation plan.
It's interesting, Melanie indicated that,
you see the majority of municipalities
Valley's put in a variable car system when they actually introduce automated collection
to start with.
So you could argue that that price structure can be accommodated within that full implementation
and what we are dealing with here obviously is we have a three car program already in place
and we are introducing that variability component as our diversion programs are maturing
and the opportunity for the resident to truly understand the level of waste from a garbage
perspective that they need servicing for. So, you're absolutely right. That will be
a big part of the work we do over the next several months.
You know, there's an interesting thing here, which is, well, I'm getting a type of medical, but,
you know, I'm just thinking for a guy like me, you know, the next question I would ask you is G,
Can I not have any bins and I'll just tag my bag once every eight weeks when I put something out?
So at what point do we you know, stop that level of customer choice?
Through the chair your worship once again, I'll point to the manual collection component of that and we're trying to eliminate
that
physical interaction
with collecting excess waste and the you know, we recall
Well, 2009 black cart, 2009 was, 2011 black cart was introduced and it was really a move away from any level of manual collection because worker injury in the waste management business is from that manual collection component. So we're trying to get away from that.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll consider that part of your debate by the way, the way you were phrasing it.
100% part of my debate. I won't come back. Councilor Farrell, please.
Thank you. A couple of questions. Councilor Meglio, can I? We're talking this morning. We're both
very concerned about plastics. And I know that Councilor Meglio, because particularly concerned about
plastic bags, I did encourage him to not have bottled water today. So thank you. That's great.
Does this encourage the use of plastic bags with
the tag-a-bag?
Through the chair, the requirement is certainly for properly packaged material outside
the car.
Currently our use of that is for a garbage bag absolutely.
So, but there's no, it's structured so that it's not an incentive to create.
We want a disincentive to waste, and so does this work toward that?
I hardly have any garbage, so I like the idea of having a little bit, but I'm just
wondering about the tag-a-bag, is it expensive enough to actually help us with the right behavior?
Through the Chair, great, great question, Councilor Farrell, depending on what you see
across the country, those tags, I think, General Manager Duckworth indicated three to four
dollars per bag. That's, if you think about the context of what the cart would be on a monthly
basis, it's pretty pricey. To be putting out a bag, we've seen, if I recall, through the scan,
the bags can be as expensive as five dollars. So what, and you're recommending how much?
I have it. I haven't figured, we haven't figured that out yet.
Okay, so we had expensive enough that it doesn't become the fallback.
Correct. If you take a look at, we have a number of people living air-dry, apparently their tax system is $3 per bag.
Okay, all right. No, that makes sense. One thing that we talked about when we were discussing the whole curbside
program was that we would bring in tag-a-bag after we introduced compostables, green cart. And so this is really
following up on a long strategy that we've been talking about from the very beginning.
And would you consider this best practices then to have variable cards? I'm a bit concerned
learned about the big card.
Anyone could possibly fill a cart. However, the smaller ones, it's a really incentive to reduce our waste. Through the chair, based on what we're seeing across the country, this is a really reasonable program, three carts with a tag of bag. We've seen, I think Vancouver, General Manager Ducquo, they had five sizes, something smaller than the 120. And from an operational perspective,
of their feedback to us was try to avoid that number of cards and getting too small because
the point was made by the public that you start getting too small.
There are climatic conditions in Calgary that can cause issues from our servicing perspective.
But we do have experience with the 120 because we did have that in the pilot programs for
the organics programs.
I don't know if that answers your question or not.
Yeah, it does.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. As we need to mover, if there is going to be a mover for the final recommendation.
I'll move the recommendations. As we put it up on the screen.
As I had mentioned, this is a long standing plan that we had anticipated when we first introduced curbside recycling.
and it's a natural progression and it helps improve behavior and reward people who generate less garbage.
So I will, I'll move the recommendations.
Okay. Thank you for debate, Councillor Demont.
So just a one more quick question of administration.
What is the life cycle of our bins?
Are we expecting?
Through the chair, 10 years, 10-year life cycle for the car.
Black bins that we brought out in 2009 were expecting to start rotating out already.
That seems excessive.
I think the manufacturer's life cycle, but I think we're finding that they're lasting
longer than their, sort of the life cycle in the books, and the actual life cycle is probably
a bit longer.
I'm going to admit, Council, that I was one of the parties that was very interested
in seeing this varying cart sizes report come forward because I was absolutely fascinated
with how other municipalities were going forward with it.
I wanted to see what the numbers looked like, what the actual reality on the ground actually
is.
I'm actually really surprised, I have to say, I'm surprised at the negatives that are
seem to be showing up on this and as much as it would seem to be from an optics point
of view, the right way to go to avoid excessive garbage to the landfill to actually allow choice
to the consumer but from what the report seems to indicate is that it's almost the reverse
that we have a higher rate of how did we word that higher rate of contamination. Thank
you. And that concerns me greatly considering that we already have contamination issues due
to the SOARD program. The actual added expense and cost with regards to collection, not just
collection, but sorry, not expense to collection, but for administration and capital cost of new
bins. I'm almost wondering if this is something that we should be setting back and looking at for
when these bins actually start looking at a new end of life. So if we were to look at this more
in the 2025 range, where a lot of the bins would need to be replaced anyway, this would seem to be
a more logical location instead of actually just spending 10 million and having these extra
bins around. I thank you immensely for the report because it answers a lot of questions
that I actually did have, but at this point I'm not going to vote in favor of it. I'm kind
of, I actually have to say I'm quite shocked at what the report, not that it's a bad report,
but what the information came back as because it would seem to be the right way to go but just
doesn't seem to be. So with that I'm not going to be voting in favor of it, Chair.
Mr. Mayor, your heads are debate. I'm going to attempt to referral if you don't mind, Mr. Chair.
Sure. I'm in the same boat as Councillor DeWong, but I don't want to throw the baby out with the black
bin here, because I think that there's an opportunity here, so I'm going to test committee's will on a
referral. And I'm going to suggest that we refer this report back to administration to return with
the financial model as opposed to an implementation plan to return with a financial model, including
an option for tag of egg only, no later than Q4.
Your worship and consideration on one Calgary.
Could you delay it till Q1?
Q1, Q1, Q1, 2019.
Right.
Because I need to see the numbers.
I'm where Councillor Dumont is, but I'd like to see the numbers on the capital in operating
costs and savings, but I don't want you to have to do the whole implementation plan for
to go out those numbers don't make sense. So that's my attempt, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Is it getting typed up now? Okay. Debate on the amendment. Councillor
Debonne. Yeah, on the referral.
I'm intrigued as well. I am concerned that I don't see any of
the capital costs changing. I don't see a saving much on the operational side. It's more
more of a flow-through operational savings to the consumer if I'm not, if I'm understanding this correctly.
Am I administration?
Through the Chair, are you talking about the total operational costs of the program
relative to what they are now?
Yes.
Well, there'll be additional, obviously, we'll have those capital costs to include from an
operational perspective specific to things like cardinatory management.
So there will be some additional operational costs.
So as far as operational savings, we wouldn't be looking at that so much, not so much.
Okay, so like I said, I would be more intrigued in something like this.
I think we're looking at the wrong cycle.
The 2019-22 would seem to be too early if we're going to do this.
Why not tie it into a cycle where we're going to be looking at life cycling out the bins anyway?
And I was kind of hoping kind of the mayor would listen and hopefully do the referral for a different budget cycle rather than just this
Simply because
So that that's where I'm coming from budget cycle because it's 2019 it's over already we go with the cycle before the 19th
No, they're talking about putting in student this in the 2019 to 2022 for your budget cycle and I'm saying if we're going to refer it
Why wouldn't we wait until the bins are up for life cycle renewal?
I
just like to see the numbers as soon as possible.
I think at that point, Council could easily say, go, wait for four years or wait until the bins are ready and that'll become part of the financial model when we're replacing them anyway.
Or let's not do this and I think that if we have all that before us early next year, we've got plenty of time for this Council to make a decision.
Okay,
and so with that, I hope you'll support the referral.
Okay, close.
Okay.
We'll do the vote on the referral.
On favor?
Great.
Opposed?
You were neither.
Okay.
A silent agree.
Ha ha ha.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And motion to adjourn, Councillor Demogne.
No?
We are not.
No.
No. We pushed it to Council, we voted on that earlier.
We are finished the agenda.
A motion to adjourn, Councillor De Maun, a motion to adjourn, Councillor Farrell.
Thank you, a great post.
We did it before lunch hour.