ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: October 5, 1999
Author/Local: PM/7701
RTS No. 01046

CC File No. 3601

Council: October 19, 1999

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director, Risk and Emergency Management, on behalf of the Emergency Management Committee (City Manager, Chief Constable, and the General Managers of Fire and Rescue Services, Engineering Services, and Park Board)
SUBJECT:	Partners in Preparedness -- Emergency Management for Vancouver in the 21st Century

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council endorse a new general program direction described in this report, based on a “Partners in Preparedness” approach. It includes a revised management structure and a process to obtain proposals from the private sector for supplies and partnership services to augment the City’s emergency plan.

B. THAT for a disaster response, emergency expenditures of up to $5 million be authorized in advance; Council would authorize additional funds, as required, for emergency response situation.

C. THAT the City Manager be named as the Director of Emergency Operations and Recovery and the Director of Legal Services be directed to bring forward an appropriate bylaw to implement this change.

D. THAT Council authorize the General Manager Engineering Services to enter into mutual aid arrangements with other municipal Engineering departments in the GVRD for the sharing of Engineering supplies and equipment in emergency situations.

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The recommendations of this report represent an appropriate foundation for the future of emergency planning in the City. Approval of the above is recommended.

COUNCIL POLICY

In 1990 Council identified Emergency Preparedness as one of the City’s seven corporate priorities and supported the continuation of an expanded work program in this area. Over the past ten years, through funding commitments to specific capital improvements and leadership on major emergency response initiatives such as E-Comm, Dedicated Fire Protection, and Urban Search and Rescue, Council has demonstrated a high level of commitment to emergency preparedness.

PURPOSE

This report recommends a new partnership approach to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery and outlines some administrative arrangements to support the future management of emergency preparedness. General endorsation of approach is being sought at this time; specific program details and proposed budget will be brought to Council in early 2000.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past several years, emergencies around the world have provided a graphic picture of the need to prepare for disasters in terms of response and post-disaster recovery: earthquakes in California, Japan, Colombia, Mexico, Turkey, Greece, and Taiwan; bombings at the New York World Trade Centre and in Oklahoma City; the Quebec ice storm; the Winnipeg flood; and hurricanes Andrew, Hugo, and Floyd. These are just some examples of disasters where the need for emergency preparedness was vividly demonstrated.

The City of Vancouver is a leader in emergency preparedness. It has made major financial commitments to bridge upgrading, the implementation of a dedicated fire protection system, and improved fire response capability. Council’s initiative in developing the E-Comm project has given the City a highly capable, post disaster communications system for its emergency responders, as well as a post-disaster emergency operations centre. City support for the development of a fully trained Urban Search and Rescue team, with federal and provincial financial support, has created a capability that is unique in Canada. An enhanced program of internal training and emergency exercises is improving our capability to cope with and respond to significant emergencies.

Over the next decade this mitigation work and capital facility upgrades should continue, but at a more modest pace. With core infrastructure in place, the City can now focus on continued improvements to internal emergency response and recovery procedures, and minor capital improvements which will enhance its emergency response capability. The City needs to increase its efforts in recovery planning, enhance its internal and public training programs, focus on greater community preparedness and make provision for the assured supply of emergency resources in the event of a disaster.

Examples of areas of future focus include supply arrangements to support the delivery of emergency social services; provision of emergency supplies at City facilities and work sites; training for City staff; emergency preparedness and response training for the public; and recovery planning, including arrangements for an alternate City Hall and a public communication capability.

This report seeks Council’s endorsation of a “Partners in Preparedness” model, the general focus of the program, and associated administrative modifications. Specific proposals around program initiatives, along with proposed budget, will be brought forward by the Emergency Management Committee early in 2000.

DISCUSSION

Partners in Preparedness

Recognizing the infrequent nature of major emergencies and the extent to which they drain municipal resources, this report recommends that the City base the expansion of its emergency program on a “Partners in Preparedness” approach. “Partners in Preparedness” would involve pursuing broadly based partnerships with the private sector to make necessary supplies available from private inventories on a pre-authorized basis and also to draw on corporate expertise to support City preparedness efforts. Tenders would typically seek supply and purchase of a portion of needed supplies and equipment, supplemented by pre-authorized and guaranteed access to supplier inventory for additional needs in an emergency.

The full extent to which partnership arrangements can be achieved will be established through a formal tendering or proposal process. However, there has been considerable indication that the private sector is keen and interested in supporting this initiative. Examples of partnerships include heavy equipment outlets, communications companies, beverage distribution companies, vehicle retailers, mobile food caterers etc.

The Partners in Preparedness program would include visible recognition and formal acknowledgement by the City of its partners. Partners would receive certificates or plaques acknowledging their contribution to preparedness in the City and would be referenced in relevant City literature and websites.

The City’s emergency program continues to grow and mature. Over the past decade significant emphasis has been on response planning and on core physical infrastructure to support response. With response plans and supporting infrastructure in place the focus of the program is now shifting to emphasize recovery issues: community preparedness; emergency sheltering; alternate City Hall; and improved public information. This emphasis gives a greater role to related boards, like the Park Board and the Library Board, as well as to City departments like Permits and Licences and the Communications Division of the City Clerk’s department. This internal partnership will enhance our emergency response capability. The Partners in Preparedness program will extend our emergency affiliations on an even broader basis.

Administration

The Emergency Management Committee has reviewed the management and budget structure for emergency planning. Currently funding for emergency management training and supplies is taken from existing departmental budgets on an ad hoc basis. Often there is no explicit budget planning for these initiatives and budget money is re-allocated as the need arises.
This report recommends that budget be administered by the Emergency Management Committee (City Manager, Chief Constable, Regional Medical Health Officer, and the General Managers of Fire and Rescue Services, Engineering, and Park Board) through the Risk and Emergency Management office. This would help ensure better overall rationalization of expenditures and would ensure that priorities are established on the basis of overall City needs. (Specific Health Board initiatives would be funded by that agency, but could be developed consistently with City priorities).

With the involvement of more departments and private partners and with increasing focus on recovery activities, the Committee has also reviewed the designation of the Director of Emergency Operations. As part of this review, the Committee has examined the response structure of other cities and agencies. In the City, the Chief Constable is the Director of Emergency Operations. The most common practice in other agencies is to designate the chief executive officer -- in the City’s case, the City Manager -- as the overall manager for response and recovery. The Emergency Management Committee believes this change is appropriate for Vancouver, given the increasing breadth of involvement of City departments, private sector agencies and the increased importance of recovery planning. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the City Manager be designated the Director of Emergency Operations and Recovery in the City’s emergency bylaw and policies.

In situations where the City Manager or her designate is unable or unavailable to act, the role would be designated, depending on availability and nature of the emergency, to one of the senior officials on the Emergency Management Committee.

Emergency Expenditure Authorization

In a major emergency it may take time for Council to gather and pass the necessary authorizations for expenditures. Staff may be required by circumstance to immediately commit to authorizing the supply of equipment and materials to ensure effective emergency response.

The Emergency Management Committee believes it is appropriate for Council to pre-authorize an emergency expenditure. An amount of $5 million, to be expended in emergency circumstances under the authority of the Director of Emergency Operations, is not excessive, and would provide a reasonable time of operations before further authority would be required.

Mutual Aid Arrangements

In a localized emergency mutual aid arrangements across municipal jurisdictions can ensure a timely and effective infusion of additional resources to assist the affected jurisdiction. Fire Departments across the GVRD have a mutual aid agreement in place to address this need; Engineering departments would like to enter into similar arrangements. Resources would only be released if not required in Vancouver. This report recommends that Council authorize the General Manager Engineering Services to enter into such an arrangement.

CONCLUSION

Large emergencies drain existing resources. Extraordinary levels of supplies, equipment, and personnel are invariably needed. It would not be reasonable for the City to pre-fund to the level of resources that a major emergency may require. This report recommends that through an inclusive “Partners in Preparedness” approach, the City seek to engage individuals, the community, industry and business in a comprehensive approach to preparedness which will benefit everyone. Implementation of specific initiatives under this program would likely be through a combination of City resourcing and public-private partnership. Now that significant improvements have been made to core infrastructure the report recommends greater focus on training, supplies, and recovery planning. General endorsation of approach is sought at this time; specific program details and proposed budget will be brought to Council in early 2000.

The report proposes a revised structure for emergency planning which reflects the broader partnership and focus. It proposes centralization of budget in the Risk and Emergency Management office and proposes that Council authorize up to $5 million in emergency expenditures. It proposes a mutual aid agreement among GVRD municipalities for Engineering equipment and supplies.

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver