|
3. WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN – ANNUAL REVIEW
PLAN DE VALORIZATION DE L’EAU
|
Committee recommendations
That Council:
1. Receive this evaluation of the City’s Phase I Water Efficiency Plan (2007-2009).
2. Approve program changes for 2010 as set out herein.
3. Approve changes to Water Efficiency Strategy targets set out herein.
Recommandations du Comité
Que le Conseil :
1. examine la présente évaluation du Plan de valorisation de l’eau Phase I (2007‑2009) de la Ville.
2. approuve les changements pour l’année 2010 tel que décrit dans le présent rapport.
3. approuve les changements aux objectifs de la Stratégie pour la valorisation de l’eau tel que décrit dans le présent rapport.
Documentation
1. General Manager’s report Infrastructure Services & Community Sustainability dated 17 May 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0020).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 25 May 2010.
Report to / Rapport au:
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
17 May 2010 / le 17 mai 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par:
N. Schepers, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjointe, Infrastructure Services & Community Sustainability / Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne resource : Dixon Weir, General Manager/Directeur général
Environmental Services Department/Services environnementaux
613-580-2424 x 22002, dixon.weir@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0020 |
SUBJECT: WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN - ANNUAL REVIEW
OBJET: PLAN DE VALORISATION DE L’EAU
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
- Receive this evaluation of the City’s Phase I Water Efficiency Plan (2007-2009).
- Approve program changes for 2010 as set out herein.
- Approve changes to Water Efficiency Strategy targets set out herein.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil :
- d’examiner la présente évaluation du Plan de valorisation de l’eau Phase I (2007‑2009) de la Ville.
- d’approuver les changements pour l’année 2010 tel que décrit dans le présent rapport.
- d’approuver les changements aux objectifs de la Stratégie pour la valorisation de l’eau tel que décrit dans le présent rapport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s water efficiency program combined with other factors has enabled achievement of the city’s target to limit Maximum Day demand to 565 ML by 2008. This is important since maximum day demand is the main driver behind the expansion of backbone infrastructure such as the city’s water purification plants, pumping stations, and reservoirs. Per capita demand has also been reduced, which is a major enabler of smart growth and urban intensification, since population growth can be accommodated using existing infrastructure and services.
Infrastructure investments and declining per capita consumption have enabled deferral of two major treatment plant expansions scheduled to occur within the next 10 years—the Britannia Water Purification Plant (WPP) expansion valued at $48 million, and a $214 million expansion of the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC). These represent significant deferrals of capital spending and debt financing, and help to keep Ottawa affordable. Dollars not spent on costly expansions can be redirected towards the timely renewal and replacement of the City’s aging infrastructure and strategic projects like the Ottawa River Action Plan and increased flood protection measures.
In short, promoting water efficiency is not only environmentally responsible and a provincial permitting requirement, but also good for the financial health of the community. Recognizing this, the City adopted a ten-year Water Efficiency Strategy (WES) in 2005. Phase I (2007-2009) focused on public promotion and incentives, and comprised the following activities:
· Distribution of residential water efficiency kits;
· Issuance of rebates for replacement of up to two inefficient residential toilets;
· Provision of rebates up to a maximum of $10,000 for high volume user retrofits, including high density residential and social housing facilities;
· Distribution of tamper proof water efficiency kits to social housing facilities;
· Retrofitting of City facilities;
· Outdoor water use campaign;
· Other public education and outreach activities; and
· Annual monitoring and assessment, and reporting to Council.
Based upon a detailed review of Phase I, the following key changes are recommended for 2010:
· Terminate the Toilet Replacement program effective June 30, 2010;
· Allocate additional program funds to the High Volume User Program to meet projected demand;
· Amend the Social Housing program to provide financial support for efficiency audits;
· Further reduce the annual auditing requirements for the rebate program from 5% to 3%;
· Further develop the City’s website and continue outreach programs.
Finally, as the 2008 Maximum Day target was met, the 2012 and 2014 targets now appear to be overly conservative. Per capita consumption is also down, but wasn’t initially included as a target. Accordingly, it is recommended that Water Efficiency Strategy targets be amended as set out herein.
RÉSUMÉ
Combiné à d’autres facteurs, le programme Valorisation de l’eau a permis à la Ville d’atteindre son objectif de limiter la demande maximale quotidienne à 565 mégalitres en 2008. Il s’agit d’un élément important puisque la demande maximale quotidienne est le fer de lance de l’expansion des infrastructures de base, comme les usines de purification de l’eau, les stations de pompage et les réservoirs municipaux. De plus, la Ville a réduit la demande par habitant, ce qui favorise grandement la croissance et la densification urbaines intelligentes. En effet, de plus en plus de résidences et d’entreprises peuvent être reliées à la canalisation existante dans les zones urbaines.
En raison de la baisse de la consommation par habitant et des investissements en infrastructure, l’agrandissement de deux centres majeurs de purification d’eau usagées qui était prévue initialement pour les prochains 10 ans ont pu être reporté --- le Centre Britannia évalué à 48 $ millions et Centre environnemental Robert‑O.‑Pickard (CEROP) évalué à 214 $ millions. Ces changements entraînent des reports considérables en ce qui concerne les dépenses en capital et le financement par emprunt et contribuent à ce qu’Ottawa demeure une ville abordable. Les fonds qui ne sont pas utilisés pour des agrandissements coûteux peuvent servir à la réfection et au remplacement des infrastructures vieillissantes de la Ville.
Bref, la valorisation de l’eau est non seulement une attitude écologiquement responsable et une exigence réglementaire provinciale, mais aussi un atout pour la santé financière de la collectivité. Compte tenu de ces éléments, la Ville a adopté en 2005 une Stratégie de valorisation de l’eau échelonnée sur dix ans. La phase I (de 2007 à 2009), axée sur la sensibilisation du public, comprenait les activités suivantes :
· distribution de trousses de valorisation de l’eau dans les résidences;
· offre de remises pour remplacer un maximum de deux toilettes résidentielles à forte consommation d’eau;
· offre de remises pouvant atteindre 10 000 $ pour la modernisation des installations des consommateurs à demande élevée, dont les établissements résidentiels et les logements sociaux à haute densité;
· distribution de trousses de valorisation de l’eau dans les logements sociaux, dont le contenu doit être installé lors du changement de locataire;
· modernisation des installations municipales;
· campagne sur l’utilisation de l’eau à l’extérieur;
· autres activités d’information du public;
· évaluation et suivi annuels, et production de rapports au Conseil.
Cependant, à la lumière de l’évaluation de la phase I présentée, il est recommandé d’apporter les modifications suivantes à la 2010 :
· terminer le Programme de remplacement de toilettes actuel à partir du 30 juin 2010;
· allouer des fonds supplémentaires au Programme des consommateurs à demande élevée pour répondre à la demande prévue;
· apporter des changements au programme de logement social afin d’offrir de l’appui financière pour les vérifications d’efficacité;
· réduire de nouveau les exigences en matière de vérification annuelles du programme de remise (de 5 % à 3 %);
· enrichir le site Web de la Ville;
Finalement, l’objectif de 2008 concernant la demande maximale quotidienne de la Stratégie de valorisation de l’eau a été atteint, et les objectifs pour 2012 et 2014 semblent désormais trop modestes. De plus, la consommation par habitant est en baisse, mais ce paramètre n’a pas été pris en compte dans la Stratégie de la Ville. Par conséquent, il est recommandé d’apporter les modifications suivantes aux objectifs de la Stratégie pour la valorisation de l’eau.
BACKGROUND
The City of Ottawa has actively promoted water efficiency since 2004, when Ontario adopted the Water Taking & Transfer Regulation, O. Reg. 387/04 that requires permit holders[1] to demonstrate a commitment to water conservation. Every year, the city must submit an update to the province on its activities and changes in water production needs.
All permit applicants must complete a Water Conservation Schedule which includes…water efficiency best management practices that have been implemented and will be implemented including…for example, water use audits…water efficient fixtures, leak detection, conservation water rates, economic incentives to users to encourage water efficiency,…public education programs and other initiatives. [2]
Water Efficiency can also be found as a key component in the City’s Combined Sewer Area Pollution Prevention and Control Plan (PPCP) as a tool for controlling stormwater runoff and managing base flows in the sewer system, and in the City’s Environmental Strategy.
In 2005, the City adopted a ten-year Water Efficiency Strategy (WES). The Strategy set out a three-phase implementation program, with each successive phase designed to build on the previous—only becoming regulatory and punitive if targets are not being met.
The Phase I Water Efficiency Plan (2007-2009), which focused on education, promotion, and incentives, was adopted in 2006. A total of $1.87 million in funding was approved over the three-year period to implement the following measures, (as modified in response to ongoing performance monitoring[3]):
· Toilet Replacement Program – rebate for the purchase and installation of City-approved water efficient toilets;
· Water Efficiency Kit Program – free water efficiency kits available through events and the Client Service Centres;
· High Volume User Program – rebates for the purchase and installation of City-approved water efficiency fixtures and appliances, program includes Social Housing Provider facilities;
· Social Housing Water Efficiency Kit program – free water efficiency kits;
· Outdoor Campaign – summer educational program and water timer pilot;
· City Facilities Retrofit Program - funds to carryout water efficient retrofits at City facilities; and
· Annual monitoring and assessment, and reporting to Council.
Implementation of Phase I has been a success. Since rollout of the outdoor Waterwise campaign in 2004, the City has seen a decline in per capita consumption. Based upon 2009 billing records, gross per capital consumption is currently 291 l/c/d (litres per capita per day), a 9% decrease from the 2007 gross per capital consumption of 319 l/c/d. This also represents a decrease in the volume of wastewater requiring collection and treatment.
However, while that decline can be attributed in part to the City’s water efficiency program, there are several other larger societal influences at play, including the following:
· Public Awareness – Attitudes and behaviours are changing. The public is generally more aware of environmental issues, including water efficiency. The increasing price of energy has helped to encourage greater water efficiency.
· Marketplace Changes - Today’s domestic water fixtures such as toilets, showerheads, dishwashers and washing machines, along with commercial fixtures, are significantly better, and more affordable and accessible than a decade ago.
· Property/Lot Size - The size of residential lots is shrinking, and the percentage of lot coverage (impervious surface) is growing, effectively limiting opportunities for outdoor water use in newer communities and areas undergoing infill.
· Precipitation - Spring and summertime water demand has decreased. Weather patterns since 2004 have facilitated behaviour change; the question is whether the behaviour will revert if a relatively dry growing season were to occur.
· Legislative Changes - The impact of the 1992 Building Code change that mandated all new construction to have water efficient plumbing devices is now being realized. A Water Demand Study carried out in 1994 predicted that by far the greatest impact on the city’s long-term water demand would be changes in building codes.
· Incentive Programs - Finally, other levels of government and public utilities have been promoting and providing incentives for becoming energy and water efficient.
We are entering an extended period of infrastructure renewal that will demand increasing levels of investment to renew and replace pipes that are in the ground today. Therefore, the degree to which we can stave-off the pressures of growth through water efficiency will help the City to focus financial resources on infrastructure renewal and replacement.
ANALYSIS
A comprehensive review was completed of the Phase I Water Efficiency Plan, as implemented between 2007 and 2009. Below are highlights of that review.
Projected versus Actual Program Participation
By far the most popular program element was the Toilet Replacement Rebate. The Phase I plan adopted in 2006 projected that approximately 1,400 rebates would be issued annually. Actual numbers were more than double that amount, and in Fall 2009 the program had to be halted when demand outstripped funding. An additional $260,000 was approved by Council in December 2009 which enabled processing of the remaining applications and continuation of the program.[4]
Table 1: Toilet Replacement Rebate Program Uptake
|
Year |
Rebates Issued |
Dollars Issued |
|
2007 |
272 |
~$18,000 |
|
2008 |
2,328 |
~$155,000 |
|
2009 |
4,909 |
~$330,000 |
|
2010 |
~6,600 |
~$450,000[5] |
Water efficiency kits have also proven very popular amongst householders. Unfortunately, the distribution of tamper-proof kits specifically designed for social housing providers continues to fall below projections despite targeted communications with that sector and streamlining of the application process.
The High Volume User (HVU) Program also continues to be over-subscribed. However, there has been a failure by some applicants to complete the approved works, in a timely fashion. Therefore, city-monies are committed that have yet to be distributed. Implementation deadlines will be put in place to mitigate this in future.
Finally, two major City facility retrofit programs were completed at city facilities in 2008 and 2009:
· Nault Park – replacement of an old wading pool with a new water efficient splash pad.
· Carleton Lodge – replacement of 185 old toilets with new water efficient toilets.
Retrofits of Civic Centre washrooms in 2007 could not be carried out as planned, due to unforeseen circumstances.
Customer Savings and Impacts on Base Demand
Although, not all water savings can be attributed to the Water Efficiency program, based upon 2009 billing records, the gross per capital consumption is currently 291 l/c/d, a 9% decrease from the 2007 gross per capita consumption of 319 l/c/d. This also represents a decrease in the volume of wastewater requiring collection and treatment.
Table 2 - Phase I Outputs & Outcomes 2007 – 2009
|
||||
|
|
Number of applications received |
Number rebated / distributed |
Dollar Savings per application (avg./yr.)[6] |
Water Savings per application (avg./yr.) |
|
Water Efficiency Kits[7] |
|
|
|
|
|
Client Service Centres |
|
4,716 |
~$100 |
~36 m3 |
|
Enbridge Gas |
|
5,250 |
~$100 |
~36 m3 |
|
Social Housing |
|
552 |
~$100 |
~36 m3 |
|
Toilet Replacement Rebate Program[8] |
8,615 |
7,509 |
~$200 |
~73 m3 |
|
% audited |
5% |
|
|
|
|
Social Housing Rebate Program |
7 |
5 |
~$1,600 |
~580 m3 |
|
High Volume User (HVU) Rebate Program |
|
|
|
|
|
< 100 units |
20 |
9 |
~$13,000 |
~4,800 m3 |
|
100+ units |
48 |
14 |
~$52,000 |
~19,000 m3 |
|
City Retrofit Program |
|
2 facilities |
~$24,000 |
~8,800 m3 |
|
ANNUAL WATER SAVINGS[9] |
|
|
|
~1,256 ML |
Community Awareness and Feedback
Surveys carried out during the course of the program demonstrate that a significant segment of the community is aware of the program, and can recall Waterwise key messages. However, communication targets set out for Phase I were not met, and improvements are needed.
City staff and councilors have received both kudos and complaints during the past three years, which are summarized as follows:
Compliments
· Many, many “thank you” and “keep up the good work.”
· Tremendous interest and uptake at community events such as Doors Open, the Home Renovation Show, and Eco-fairs.
Complaints & Criticisms
· Assessment of toilet rebate applications is too bureaucratic and unfair. Such complaints were greatest when the program was first rolled out, and there was confusion regarding qualifying toilets, and the program requirements. To address these concerns, several changes were made to the application form and web site. In addition, the internal approval process was streamlined. And, whenever there is uncertainty, staff offered to conduct an on-site inspection. These improvements allowed approval rates to increase from 69% in 2007 to 89% in 2009. However, because the standards are applied equally to all, some applications continue to be denied and complaints result. Of those applications denied thus far in 2010, ~52% were based upon the limit of two (2) rebates per household.
· Administration costs are excessive, rebate applications take too long to process. The target turn-around time for toilet applications is generally 8 to 10 weeks. However, applications currently exceed 40/day, and demand outstrips the resources available to process them. This problem also extends to the review and approval of HVU applications, but cannot be easily addressed through automation.
· Toilet rebates are a poor use of ratepayer funds since the business case exists today for homeowners to carry out toilet replacements. However, 2009 applicant survey data indicates that conservation and rebate availability lead the rationale for purchasing a new water-efficient toilet.
· The water efficiency program should focus more on social housing as this housing stock is in greatest need of upgrades, and has the least funding available. This would benefit not only the City as the owner of most units, but more importantly would also benefit those who are least able to afford rate increases. Changes are proposed to help address this concern.
· The City should work more closely with non-profit organizations. The City is open to partnering with the non-profit sector, and is currently exploring an opportunity to partner with ONEchange. Such partnering makes greatest sense where staffing needs are significant and volunteer time can be leveraged.
· The City is not doing enough to promote and encourage water efficiency, for instance the program should be expanded to include rebates for rain barrels, water efficient washing machines, and dishwashers. Staff are considering implementation of a rain barrel program.
· The Water Efficiency Program is a waste of ratepayer money because it results in lower water sales, and higher Water & Sewer rates. These are common misconceptions regarding the causes of declining sales, the drivers of increasing costs, and the financial benefits of water efficiency, which are as follows:
o Increasing costs are largely due to the repair and replacement of aging infrastructure.
o Higher rates are needed to support the capital renewal program (more than 50% of the annual rate budget), as well as increasing regulatory requirements, and inflation.
o Decreases in water sales are due to many factors, as explained in the BACKGROUND section of this report.
o Water efficiency is a permitting requirement, and the City has designed the program to meet local community objectives as set out in the City’s Official Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan, and Pollution Prevention Control Plan.
· Duplication between the City’s toilet program and the ecoENERGY rebate program (federal and provincial governments). Access to rebates under the federal and provincial are only available to those who complete audits valued at approximately $350. The federal program effectively ended March 31, 2010.
However, this type of feedback clearly points to the need to improve community understanding of all of these inter-related and complex issues.
Changes in Maximum Day Demand
Monitoring of water production data indicates that the combination of water loss control on the supply-side, and water efficiency on the demand-side are yielding positive results. Historical data indicates that average daily production rates have not been this low since 1982.[10]
The 2005 Water Efficiency Strategy projected that the “do-nothing” maximum day demand for 2008 would be 613 MLD, and set an efficiency target of 565 MLD. As shown in Figure 1, actual maximum day demand did not grow as projected, and the maximum day target was more than met. However, the city experienced frequent rainfall during the growing seasons of 2005-2009, therefore, it is difficult to determine whether these results are circumstantial or reflect a more fundamental change in attitudes and behaviours.
Figure 1 - Annual Production and Maximum Day Demand
Given the consistency in results in recent years and a general decrease in new residential lot sizes, it was deemed prudent to update projections to reflect lower average outdoor water use.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Water Efficiency Strategy targets be amended as follows:
|
Table 3 – Water Efficiency Targets |
|||||
|
Parameter |
2008 |
2009 |
2012 |
2014 |
2016 |
|
|
Original Status Quo Maximum Day Projection (megalitres/day) |
613 |
|
695 |
725 |
|
|
|
§ Revised Status Quo Maximum Day Projection (megalitres/day) |
|
520 |
533 |
542 |
550 |
|
|
Original Water Efficiency Target (megalitres/day) |
565 |
|
580 |
595 |
|
|
|
§ Revised Water Efficiency Target (megalitres/day) |
|
487 |
498 |
504 |
511 |
|
|
New Status Quo Gross Per Capita Consumption[11] (litres/day) |
|
280 |
280 |
271 |
262 |
|
|
§ New Water Efficiency Target (litres/day) |
|
280 |
273 |
264 |
255 |
|
|
New Status Quo Avg. Residential Per Capita Consumption[12] (l/d) |
|
184 |
183 |
177 |
172 |
|
|
§ New Water Efficiency Target (litres/day) |
|
175 |
175 |
168 |
163 |
|
Assessment of Program Costs
The rebate elements of the Water Efficiency Program meet all of the requirements of the City’s draft Grant and Contributions Policy. Table 4 presents the expenditures of the Phase I Water Efficiency Plan.
Table 4 - Phase I Budget versus Actual Expenditures
|
Program Element |
Total |
|
Water Efficiency Program |
$1.57 M |
|
City Retrofit Program |
$0.30 M |
|
Budgeted Total |
$1.87 M |
|
Actual Total |
$1.39 M |
|
Approved Staffing[13] (FTEs) |
1.0 |
Remaining unspent funds from previous years will be used to address the expected surge in participation in the Toilet Replacement program based on the cancellation of the Toilet Replacement program; and held for future year’s program delivery.
The budgeted and actual delivery costs for the City’s program are low when compared to other similar jurisdictions in Ontario. Ottawa’s population and program are most similar to that of the Region of Peel, which has 4 FTEs, 2 temporary and 4 to 6 seasonal positions.
On average, cities of comparable size delivering comparable water efficiency programs have five FTEs allocated to program implementation, plus part-time or seasonal staff.
Table 5 - Comparisons to Other Jurisdictions
|
|
Population |
Program Annual Budget |
Program Staffing |
Toilet Rebate Program |
Water Efficiency Kit Program |
ICI or HVU Program |
Social Housing Program |
|
City of Ottawa |
900,000 (813,000 on central sys.) |
$1,330,00 |
1 FTE |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
Region of Peel |
1,220,000 |
$2,700,000 |
4 FTE & 2 temp & 4-6 seasonal |
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
Region of Waterloo |
500,000 |
$1,499,545 |
5 FTE & 3 PT |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
Halton Region |
467,200 |
$715,000 |
1 FTE, 1 PT & 1 temp |
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
City of Calgary |
1,050,000 |
$2,500,000 |
9 FTE & 3 seasonal |
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
City of Barrie |
140,000 |
$100,000 |
1PT |
ü |
|
|
|
|
City of Toronto |
3,000,000 |
$5,500,000 |
12 FTE, 1 PT & 2 students |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
|
Region of Durham |
590,000 |
$200,000 |
1 FTE, 1 shared position |
|
|
|
ü |
|
Region of York |
1,000,000 |
$4,000,000 |
2 FTE, 2 PT & 1 student |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
DISCUSSION
Based upon the foregoing ANALYSIS, the following sections recommend program changes for implementation in 2010. The approved 2010 Rate Budget allows for delivery of the Water Efficiency Program as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 – 2010 Program
|
Program Elements |
Budget |
2010 estm. number of rebates / applications |
|
Toilet Replacement Rebate Program |
||
|
$25,000 |
~3,000 |
|
|
Social Housing Water Efficiency Kits |
$8,000 |
~500 |
|
High Volume User Program Rebates |
$420,000 |
> 42 |
|
Social Housing HVU Program Rebates |
$42,000 |
> 4 |
|
City Facilities Retrofit Program |
$100,000 |
1 |
|
Outdoor Program |
$10,000 |
|
|
Education/Promotion |
$50,000 |
|
|
Total |
$1,063,000 |
|
Toilet Replacement Rebate Program
Therefore, it is recommended that the Toilet Replacement Rebate program be terminated effective June 30th, 2010 and that receipts must be dated or date stamped by the retailer/vendor on or before June 30th, 2010 to be considered for a rebate, and that rebate applications be received by the City on or before August 31st, 2010.
This year to date, the program has received an average of 42 applications per day. At this rate, it is estimated that the program could receive a total of ~5,200 applications by June 30. The reality, however, is that once the program termination is announced, there will likely be a surge in applications. Any funding remaining after the processing of the 2010 Toilet Replacement Program applications will be reallocated to the High Volume User Program.
High Volume User (HVU) Program
The High Volume User Program rebates property owners for the purchase and installation of a City of Ottawa approved water efficient toilets, showerheads, washing machines, dishwashers and spray valves.
|
Table 7 – High Volume User Program Participation and Water Savings
|
|||
|
Year |
Number of Applications Received Annually |
Number of toilets to be replaced |
Annual Water Savings in m3 |
|
2007 |
17 |
~2,100 |
~105,000 |
|
2008 |
16 |
~1,900 |
~95,000 |
|
2009 |
35 |
~7,300 |
~533,000 |
A comparison of the City’s investment (rebated dollars) and the private sector’s investment was completed to determine the financial effectiveness of the High Volume User program. In summary, between three and nine dollars was invested by the private sector for every dollar invested by the City, as shown in Table 7. Therefore, it is recommended that the program dollars focus on this sector, which generally yields greater savings at less cost to the City.
Table 8 – Dollars Leveraged through the HVU Program
|
High Volume User Program |
Number of Toilets Replaced |
City Dollars Rebated |
Private Dollars Invested |
Rebated / Invested Ratio |
|
2007 |
1,127 |
$42,550 |
$375,280 |
1 : 8 |
|
2008 |
1,701 |
$71,230 |
$709,150 |
1 : 9 |
|
2009 |
609 |
$41,330 |
$167,886 |
1 : 3 |
Due to the changes in the provincial plumbing code, it is recommended that the toilet rebate component of the HVU program be modified as shown in Table 8:
Table 9 – Recommended Changes to the Toilet Rebate Element of the HVU Program
|
|
Phase I |
As of July 1, 2010 |
|
City of Ottawa Approved[14] toilets |
6 litre and 4.8 litre |
4.8 litres or less |
|
Value of rebate |
$60 and $75 |
$50 |
|
Construction date |
Pre-1996 |
No restriction |
|
Maximum rebate |
$10,000 |
No change |
|
Submission requirements |
§ Before and after photos § Invoicing/receipts § Technical specification sheets § 12-months water billing information § Owner-applicant |
No change |
|
Claim Deadline |
None |
Within 18 months of approval to proceed |
To ensure that program objectives are met, an 18-month implementation deadline will be placed on all applicants that receive approval to proceed. This allows sufficient time for the work to be budgeted and completed in the fiscal year following approval to proceed.
Social Housing HVU Program
A total of 10% of HVU program funds will continue to be dedicated to retrofits carried out by social housing providers. This increases total funds dedicated to social housing to $42,000[15] per year. Any retrofit applications received in excess of this amount will still be eligible for funding under the HVU Program if monies remain uncommitted.
The Social Housing HVU program will be expanded to allow for a 50% rebate on the cost of an efficiency audit, up to a fixed amount.[16] And, the program will be modified to match the requirements of the updated High Volume User Program. Finally, any works arising from an efficiency audit will remain eligible for the full $10,000 retrofit rebate.
Rain Barrel Program
Based upon the ANALYSIS contained herein, staff will investigate the option of delivering a Rain Barrel Rebate program commencing 2011.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Excessive water consumption means greater volumes of water and wastewater requiring treatment, along with additional demands on source water, energy and other resources, and larger discharges to the natural environment. Successful implementation of the City’s Water Efficiency Program will have a positive impact on Ottawa’s natural and man-made environment.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
Water efficiency for residents on private wells benefits not only the homeowner but also the community by reducing energy and treatment costs and reducing demand on local aquifers.
CONSULTATION / PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This initiative implements the policies and objectives of Ottawa 20/20, the Infrastructure Master Plan and the Environmental Strategy, all of which underwent extensive public consultation. Furthermore, it implements the City’s 2005 Water Efficiency Strategy and 2006 Water Efficiency Plan, both of which are public documents approved by Council.
Recommendations for program improvements were received from the Environmental Advisory Committee on September 10th, 2009 and were considered in the preparation of this report.
This report was circulated for review to former Real Property Asset Management, Corporate Communications, Housing Branch, and within the Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability Department.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR
This program is implemented city-wide.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATION
There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing any of the recommendations in this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
The 2010 water efficiency program supports “Objective 3: Protect the water environment ad source water supply” of the City’s Strategic Plan, as well as several policy objectives set out in Ottawa 20/20 and the City’s Infrastructure Master Plan by enabling residents and local businesses and institutions to better manage their water use.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no technical implications.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION
This report has no tax implications.
Funding for 2010 is available in the 2010 approved Rate Capital Budget in Internal Orders 905800 Water Efficiency Program. Funding requirements for 2011 and beyond, such as that required for the Rain Barrel Program, will be identified and included in future Rate Draft Budgets.
DISPOSITION
Environmental Services Department will adjust the program and update the Water Efficiency Strategy as approved by Council