Port Moody unanimously scraps major retrofit, triggering calls to revisit city’s climate commitments

Pricey civic-building retrofits are sowing doubt in some Port Moody councillors as to whether the city can realistically reach its climate goals.

During budget deliberations on Dec. 2, council voted unanimously to remove a major greenhouse-gas-reduction project from the 2026 capital plan, despite staff warning the project was needed to hit the city’s ambitious target of reducing civic building emissions by 80 percent by 2030.

Council largely agreed the Climate Action Plan (CAP) needs to be revisited.

“All other levels of government are reevaluating their targets – the federal government, the provincial government – and I believe that we should be doing the same,” said Coun. Kyla Knowles.  “We’ve done this to ourselves as a council, we’ve given ourselves these targets that we know we can’t reach. . . . At what point do we reassess whether or not it makes sense?”

In a unanimous vote, council removed a $687,600 capital project aiming to replace the main boiler at the Inlet Centre Fire Hall with a heat pump system – the fourth highest top-scoring emissions-reduction project.

The move represents a significant departure from the CAP’s corporate-building retrofit pathway, and signals growing weariness over the costs associated with the city’s commitment to an aggressive timeline.

Council unanimously approved a funding framework to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from municipal buildings and equipment in 2023, a plan which came with a $5.9 million cost estimate by the end of the decade, and an $11.7 million estimate by 2040.

Retrofit reckoning

The fire hall boiler, installed in 2020 has an estimated 13 years of service life remaining. The city had planned to remove it early and repurpose it at city hall, to replace another malfunctioning boiler.

But staff said the central purpose of the project was not asset maintenance – it was emissions reduction.

Three high-capacity heat pumps, installed outdoors on reinforced roof structures due to space limitations, would sharply cut natural gas use. But upgrading the roof, seismic supports, electrical systems, and distribution infrastructure pushed the cost to $687,000 – more than 22 times the cost of replacing the boiler with a like-for-like replacement.

While the project would cut roughly 41 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year – representing 5.6 percent of the city’s corporate emissions reduction target – the project would not lead to energy savings. Electricity costs from running three heat pumps would exceed the cost of using natural gas. 

“When staff first did this pathway study back in 2023, the cost estimate was quite a bit lower,” said Kim Law, acting general manager of engineering and operations, adding the cost was underestimated.

Suzanne Smith, general manager of community development, described the project as a “core action” needed to achieve the the 2030 and 2040 corporate GHG target.

The fire hall retrofit is not the first casualty of tightening budgets.

Council has already cancelled five planned retrofits at Rocky Point and Westhill Park pools, wiping out an additional 90 tonnes of anticipated GHG reductions. 

Combined with the fire hall cancellation, Port Moody has now shelved projects representing roughly 131 tonnes of emissions, or nearly 18 percent of the reductions needed to hit its 2030 civic-building targets.

Fiscal pressure

Budget and fiscal considerations weighed heavily on the Dec. 2 discussions.

For months, council has been wrestling with approving the budget and capital plan for 2026. Residents have weathered sharp tax increases, totaling 21.6 percent over the last three budget cycles, with council now attempting to trim a 6.3 percent increase for next year.

The city has also halted a scheduled $619,000 transfer to the Climate Action Implementation Reserve for 2026  – funding meant to support major incoming climate investments. The reserve is funded through the Climate Action Levy, a one-percent annual tax increase approved until 2028, but council opted not to raise the levy this year to cut back on taxes.

Coun. Callan Morrison, who has repeatedly urged greater scrutiny of climate-related capital costs, first introduced a motion to remove the boiler project from the capital budget on Nov. 2. Despite all his fellow councillors voting it down, he reintroduced an alternative motion at the following budget meeting, which resulted in the item being cut entirely.

Morrison said he did not fully grasp the city’s climate commitments would lead to retrofits far exceeding the price of replacements.

“There is no financial benefit . . . the return on investment is non-existent,” he said. “Finding out that this replacement is going to cost our community 2,200 percent more than replacing it with a like-for-like replacement is simply irresponsible spending.”

Coun. Kyla Knowles also expressed concern about the cost of meeting the city’s climate commitments, adding the council needs to have a bigger discussion about whether its “goals make sense.” 

“Imagine where you’re a taxpayer, and your boiler goes out . . . I’m not going to go and spend 2,200 percent more because it’s better for the environment and contributes to fewer greenhouse gasses. That’s just not what people do,” Knowles said. “I understand the urgency of climate change. I think we all do, we see it. We are adding massive costs, though, to everything.”

Other councillors warned that the decision, while financially defensible, carries broader consequences.

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki cautioned that council was conflating general tax pressures with a climate-reserve-funded project that would not change residents’ 2025 tax bills.

She said that what council was really discussing was the city’s commitments to its emission reductions targets, which was “a much bigger decision than a budget conversation.”

“What folks are concerned about is their tax bill. . . . This project has nothing to do with that,” she said. “The ramifications are much more impactful than this motion right here, and we all have to recognize that.”

Coun. Samantha Agtarap supported removing the project but agreed that the city must revisit its climate strategy, which is now five years old.

“Is there other opportunities where we can still achieve our goals . . . without the $687,000 expenditure?” she said. 

Mayor Meghan Lahti also backed the removal but emphasized the need for a comprehensive climate-plan “check-in.”

“The project seems a little premature,” she said. “Going in and removing something that isn’t end-of-life just for the sake of doing it is not . . . the best use of those funds.”

Coun. Amy Lubik reluctantly supported the motion but stressed the moral and scientific imperative behind the city’s climate commitments.

She warned that all over the world, leaders are walking back on their climate commitments, and climate disasters are increasing.

“These are not arbitrary (numbers), they are based on trying to meet those specific targets that have come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – that’s a scientifically determined goal,” Lubik said. “I think that morally, it’s something that we need to do for our community, for other communities, for our planet.”

Climate divisions

The fire hall retrofit is only the latest climate-related project or policy to raise concerns and divisions on council over cost implications. 

In late 2024, the cost to replace two boilers at Rocky Point Park Pool nearly doubled, from $244,000 to $455,438, requiring additional funding. While it was approved, Knowles and Morrison both voted in opposition, citing that one of the boilers was only five-years old.

The decision to forge ahead with stricter efficiency and emission requirements for new developments in fall 2024 was met with resistance from Morrison and Coun. Diana Dilworth over costs, but eventually passed by a 5-2 vote.

Last September, council voted 5–2 on adopting a zero emission policy for new civic buildings, with Knowles and Morrison opposed, also over potential costs. 

Meanwhile, council’s enthusiasm for a district energy system in Moody Centre has significantly cooled following new modelling showing limited near-term emissions benefits and narrower cost savings than originally projected.

The new skepticism over the CAP targets is far cry from staff’s position in the spring of 2024, when they reported the city was on well on track for hitting its 2030 targets.