6. Implementation of an Organics Collection Program within the next solid waste collection contracts with organics collection envisioned to commence in 2007, and that staff report back with the details of the program in the fall of 2005;

7. That staff develop a comprehensive “utility” ~~based~~ funding concept based upon the recommended hybrid model contained in this report providing service to urban, suburban, rural, residential and rural villages for implementation in 2007; ~~Delegation of authority to the Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services to negotiate and approve extensions (for up to one more year, i.e. an 8~~^th ~~year) to existing curbside collection programs;~~

1. ~~for Solid Waste Services and funding options for urban, suburban, rural residential and rural villages for implementation in 2007;~~

8. That the City provide solid waste collection services through a Yellow Bag Program to “non-residential establishments” that meet the eligibility criteria and service level outlined in this report with service to commence in January 2006;

9. Staff solicit “Eexpressions of Iinterest” ” from the private sector for organics processing technology to assess the level of interest, ~~from the private sector~~ and report back with recommendations to Committee;

10. That staff continue to monitor progress on the approval of the Trail Road Expansion Environmental Assessment; and

11. That staff report back annually on diversion rates and any strategies required to support increased waste diversion.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande et que le Conseil approuve :

1. la confirmation d’un objectif de réorientation des déchets de 40 % à même les programmes de services existants, d’ici à la fin de 2006;

2. l’augmentation de la participation à la réorientation des déchets en vue d’atteindre l’objectif de 40 % grâce à la communication de l’information, à la publicité et à l’élaboration d’un programme d’éducation;

3. l’adoption par la Ville d’un objectif de réorientation de 60 % pour les résidences d’Ottawa à atteindre d’ici à la fin de l’année 2008;

4. l’injonction au personnel de continuer à exercer des pressions sur le gouvernement provincial en vue d’obtenir le financement accru de la réorientation des déchets afin de compenser l’augmentation des coûts pour atteindre l’objectif provincial;

5. l’injonction au personnel de présenter une demande en vue d’obtenir le fonds d’habilitation municipal vert de la Fédération canadienne des municipalités afin de supporter les coûts du projet de Plan directeur de gestion intégrée des déchets et les projets découlant; la mise en oeuvre d’une demande de propositions et d’un appel d’offres afin d’obtenir une installation de traitement des déchets organiques pour 2007;

6. la mise en place d’un programme de collecte des déchets organiques dans le cadre des prochains contrats de collecte des déchets solides, le début de la collecte des déchets organiques étant envisagé pour 2007, le personnel devant faire rapport sur les détails du programme à l’automne 2005;

7. l’élaboration par le personnel d’un concept global de financement du « service public », fondé sur le modèle hybride recommandé inclus dans le présent rapport, en vue de fournir un service aux villages urbains, suburbains, résidentiels ruraux et ruraux pour une mise en œuvre en 2007;

8. la prestation par la Ville de services de collecte des déchets solides par le biais d’un programme de sacs jaunes aux « établissements non résidentiels » qui satisfait aux critères d’admissibilité et au niveau de service indiqués dans le présent rapport, le service débutant en janvier 2006;

9. la recherche par le personnel de « déclarations d’intérêt » émanant du secteur privé en ce qui a trait à la technologie de traitement des déchets organiques afin d’évaluer le niveau d’intérêt, le personnel devant présenter des recommandations au Comité;

10. le contrôle des progrès concernant l’approbation de l’évaluation environnementale de l’expansion de la décharge du chemin Trail par le personnel;

11. un rapport annuel du personnel concernant les taux de réorientation et toutes les stratégies nécessaires en vue d’appuyer une réorientation des déchets accrue.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has a mandate to provide solid waste management services to the residential sector of the City of Ottawa. The Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP) provides direction for optimizing the current and future residential solid waste programs to best meet the financial, environmental and sustainability needs of the City of Ottawa over the next twenty years. Two key issues are the focus of this report, Waste Diversion and Solid Waste Funding Strategy.

Waste Diversion

City waste services currently include garbage collection and disposal, recyclables collection and processing and leaf and yard waste collection and composting. ~~The City of Ottawa currently diverts 31% of its solid waste from landfill disposal sites.~~The existing Solid Waste Program has achieved a 31% diversion rate of solid waste from landfill disposal sites.

In 2004, the Province of Ontario set a waste diversion target at 60% by 2008. The next milestone for the City is to achieve 40% waste diversion by 2006 with the support of an education/ communications strategy, with ~~basically~~ the ~~same~~ solid waste programs ~~as are presently provided~~in effect.

Implementation of “Compost +” for collection and processing of source separated organic materials, in 2007, is essential to increasing the City’s diversion rate beyond 50% as approved in the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan Phase Two Design Options Report by Council in 2003 and to move towards the 60% diversion as targeted by the Province for 2008.

To assist in increasing the waste diversion from 31%, a communications plan and initiative will be implemented to promote Reuse and Rreduction of solid waste and enhance compostable materials to improve waste diversion.

~~Strategy~~

The proposed IWMMP Strategy recommends the full cost of residential solid waste collection and disposal for April 2007, will be calculated on a flat fee for services basis. This change is recommended to be removed from the tax bill and included on a bi-monthly utilities bill rendered to urban, suburban and rural village residential properties.

~~Rural residential properties not receiving an organics pickup program will retain existing services and payments through the tax bill and not be assessed organics program costs~~.

~~Recycling program costs will be shared by all commercial and residential properties through the current tax billing system.~~

Solid Waste Funding Strategy

Council has directed staff to develop full cost accounting principles for solid waste services to identify the total cost of the residential waste management system, and develop strategies to ensure waste management costs are recovered on a user-pay basis.

As the Solid Waste Program plans for the future, it has become evident that a review of the funding model is also merited. This review will consider a utility-based model for the Waste Collection Program to allocate costs to residents based on a flat fee for solid waste services on a utilities bill or continued allocation through the ~~general~~ tax ~~base~~bill.

As directed by City Council, this report also contains an option for solid waste service to~~for~~ eligible ‘non-residential establishments”. to ~~replace the former small businesses collection that was discontinued in budget~~ Collection to non-residential establishments would be provided on a full cost recovery basis through the sale of yellow bags at an estimated cost of $3.00/bag for equivalent residential level of curbside pickup. The proposed “Yellow Bag Program” is modeled on the City of Toronto Program and would commence in January 2006.

RÉSUMÉ

La Ville d’Ottawa a pour mandat d’offrir des services de gestion des déchets solides dans les secteurs résidentiels de son territoire. Le Plan directeur de la gestion intégrée des déchets (PDGID) propose des orientations en vue d’optimiser les programmes actuels et futurs de gestion des déchets résidentiels solides, de manière à satisfaire aux impératifs de la Ville d’Ottawa au cours des vingt prochaines années sur les plans financier, environnemental et de la viabilité. Deux enjeux clés sont essentiellement abordés dans le présent rapport : la réorientation des déchets et la stratégie de financement des déchets solides.

Réorientation des déchets

Les services de gestion des déchets de la Ville comprennent actuellement la collecte et l’élimination des ordures, la collecte et le traitement des matières recyclables ainsi que la collecte et le compostage des feuilles et des résidus de jardinage. Le programme actuel de gestion des déchets solides a permis d’atteindre un taux de réorientation de 31 % des déchets solides normalement destinés aux sites d’enfouissement.

En 2004, la province de l’Ontario a fixé un objectif de réorientation des déchets de 60 % d’ici à 2008. La prochaine étape pour la Ville consistera à atteindre les 40 % de réorientation d’ici à 2006, avec le soutien d’une stratégie de sensibilisation et de communication, et en appliquant les programmes de gestion des déchets solides.

La mise sur pied de « Compost + » pour la collecte et le traitement des matières organiques récupérées à la source, en 2007, est essentielle pour faire passer le taux de réorientation au delà des 50 %, soit le taux approuvé dans le rapport de 2003 du Conseil sur les options de l’étape II du Plan directeur de la gestion intégrée des déchets, et pour atteindre l’objectif de 60 % fixé par le provincial pour 2008.

Pour aider à dépasser ce taux de réorientation de 31 %, un plan et une initiative de communication seront mis en place. Ces mesures permettront de promouvoir la réutilisation et la réduction des déchets solides, et de mettre en valeur les matières compostables, favorisant ainsi la réorientation des déchets.

Stratégie de financement des déchets solides

Le Conseil a demandé que soient élaborés des principes de comptabilisation du coût entier des services de gestion des déchets solides afin de déterminer le coût total du système de gestion des déchets résidentiels et d’élaborer des stratégies permettant de récupérer les coûts de gestion de ces déchets selon la formule de l’utilisateur payeur.

Tel que le programme de gestion des déchets solide se profile pour l’avenir, il apparaît évident qu’un examen du modèle de financement s’avère opportun. Cet examen tiendra compte d’un modèle fondé sur les services publics, de manière à répercuter sur les résidents des coûts fixes pour les services de collecte des déchets solides, sur une facture de services publics ou par allocation continue sur la facture de taxes.

Comme l’a demandé le Conseil municipal, le présent rapport fait également mention d’une option de service de collecte des déchets solides dans des «établissements non résidentiels » admissibles. La collecte dans les établissements non résidentiels se ferait selon un principe de recouvrement intégral des coûts grâce à la vente de sacs jaunes au prix estimé de 2,82 $ par sac, pour un niveau de service résidentiel équivalent en collecte sur le trottoir. Le programme de sacs jaunes proposé est inspiré d’un programme similaire à la Ville de Toronto et débuterait en janvier 2006.

BACKGROUND

The City is responsible for providing solid waste management services to the residential sector. City waste services currently include garbage collection and disposal, recyclables collection and processing and leaf and yard waste collection and composting. It is important that the strategic direction and framework governing these services be re-confirmed prior to developing more detailed implementation plans. This Integrated Waste Management Master Plan – Strategic Service Delivery report is intended to confirm the strategic direction for the City’s integrated waste management and guide the subsequent development and implementation of plans for Committee and Council consideration.

The current Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP), approved by City Council in March 2003, provides direction for optimizing the current and future residential solid waste programs to best meet the financial, environmental and sustainability needs of the City of Ottawa over the next twenty years. Planning for all residential solid waste streams (recycling, yard waste, organics, waste disposal, Take it Back, Household Hazardous Waste, etc.) falls under the IWMMP.

A number of factors have affected the proposed implementation of the IWMMP as originally endorsed by Council. ~~changes and given the recommendations in this strategic update of the IWMMP.~~ They are: Council direction (in reports ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0001 and ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0019); Trail Waste Facility optimization/environmental assessment; Provincial Blue Box Funding via Waste Diversion Ontario; and the establishment of a Provincial target of 60% waste diversion.

A review of some of the important previously made decisions by Council are chronicled as follows:

Council Direction 2003

OIn 3 March 2003, the Environmental Services Committee and Council approved the report, The Solid Waste – Integrated Waste Management Master Plan Strategic Directions and Phase Two Next Steps (Report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0001), which recommended the following strategic directions:

1. That the City increase its efforts to achieve higher waste diversion with a minimum target of 40 percent, and that options to increase diversion up to 70 percent be considered in Phase Two;

2. That the City endorse public consultation, involvement and education as essential requirements to sustain waste management diversion at higher levels;

3. That the City monitor, test, evaluate and implement initiatives that leverage technology or environmental benefits, as appropriate, over the course of the Plan; and

4. That the City develop strategies to ensure waste management costs are recovered on a user-pay basis.

With Committee and Council approval, staff proceeded to determine the appropriate options for meeting the criteria of increased diversion, financial sustainability and customer service. Staff also prepared for the implementation of the framework required for the next collection contract.

On 9 September 2003, Committee and Council approved the Solid Waste – Integrated Waste Management Master Plan - Phase Two Design Options (Report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0019), which included the following recommendations:

1. The development and implementation of a waste diversion education program and a phase-in for reducing garbage bag limits (beginning in 2004) to increase waste diversion towards a goal of 40 percent by 2006;

2. A further expansion of the waste diversion program to achieve waste diversion up to 50 percent during the term of the next collection contract as outlined in this report (as Option F3), including the following components:

a. Compost + residential service (food waste and leaf and yard waste); and

b. Ongoing education and phasing in of lower bag limits.

i. Implementation of this program to start with the new collection contract in mid-2005. (This date was subsequently extended to mid-2006.)

3. Staff report to Council with service level details and implementation plans early in 2004, prior to tendering for the new waste collection contract; and

4. Staff report to Council annually on the Waste Diversion Program performance and the diversion levels achieved.

Council Direction 2004 - 2005

As a result of the Universal Program Review in 2003, during the 2004 budget exercise City Council reduced the garbage and recycling services by $2.3 million by eliminating: film plastic #3 - #7 and polystyrene from the Blue Box; the leaf and yard waste collections in the summer months; and the pick-up of garbage and recycling from all commercial businesses.

Small Business Services Chronology

· City Council discontinued curbside collection for small businesses on 25 March 2004 based on financial and policy considerations. Elimination of this service was implemented on 1 July 2004, for a savings of $620,000.

· Under cover of a memo dated 7 May 2004, staff provided the Mayor and Members of Council with background on the servicing of commercial establishments and taxation, as well as the implementation of the communication strategy of Council’s approved service standard that would become effective 31 May 2004.

· On 12 May 2004, Council (Councillor Doucet) asked staff to report back to the Planning and Environment Committee on funding and internal efficiency options that would maintain existing service levels for small businesses.

· On 26 May 2004, Council (Councillor Holmes) asked staff to report back by 9 June 2004 as to the one time and on-going cost for the City to continue to provide curbside waste and recycling collection, diversion and disposal for those commercial businesses that currently meet the residential garbage limit at no cost to the City.

· Under cover of a memo dated 8 June 2004 staff provided Mayor and Members of Council with information related to a Direct Billing System, the Yellow Bag Program and a Business Improvement Area (BIA) Partnership with City Coordinated Billing system.

· In response to ~~significant~~ communitiyes concerns, at its meeting of 9 June 2004 Council directed staff to provide an update on the assessment of commercial business service delivery options.

· Under cover of a memo dated 28 January 2005 staff provided the Mayor and Members of Council with some background information on alternatives with regard to: Reinstatement of 2003 Service Level with Recovery; a Direct Billing to Small Business receiving service, as well as the Yellow Bag Program and a BIA Partnership with City Coordinated Billing system.

· During budget deliberations in January of 2005, Council referred Councillor Doucet’s motion to commit to a part-year restoration of curbside solid waste and recyclable pickup for small businesses at a cost of $400,000 to the 12 April 2005 meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration with the Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan Report.

Review of IWMMP and Funding Strategy

· On 22 June 2004 the Planning and Environment Committee approved an Update of Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (Report ACS2004-CCS-PEC-007) submitted by Councillor Hume. Committee directed staff to review the City of Ottawa Integrated Waste Management Master Plan and report back in September 2004 relative to any recommended changes.

· Committee asked that part of the Solid Waste Services review consider changes to the manner in which services are funded based on the service level summary costs detailed in the IWMMP ~~. (This report provides a study on those financing options).~~

· Plastics Recycling.

Plastics Recycling

· Under cover of a memo dated 3 March 2004 to the Chair and Members of the Planning and Environment Committee, staff had provided the background information and options for modifications to the residential solid waste collection Blue Box Program.

· The 2005 Budget Direction report of 21 September 2004 asked staff to consider reinstating plastic recycling that was eliminated in 2004.

· Under cover of a Memo dated 21 January 2005 to Mayor and Members of Council, staff reported that the cost of reinstating plastics would be $1,260,000. Staff provided background information on costs and markets, the current program, comparators to other municipalities in terms of diversion rates and materials collected, financial sustainability, as well as details concerning a plastic bag pilot, road construction feasibility pilot and a municipal/plastic industry task force.

· Under cover of a Memo dated 31 January 2005 to Mayor and Members of Council, staff addressed Councillor Cullen’s question of options for inclusion of tubs and lids in the Blue Box Collection Program.

Leaf and Yard Waste Collection

· As a result of budget pressures, the summer Leaf and Yard Waste Collection Program was cancelled during July, August and September 2004.

· In response to public reaction, Council reinstated bi-weekly leaf and yard waste collection for September 2004 at an estimated cost of $290,000.

· The 2005 Budget Direction report of 21 September 2004 asked staff to consider reinstating the leaf and yard waste collections in the summer months.

· Under cover of a memo dated 25 January 2005 to Mayor and Members of Council staff provided the background information and options for reinstatement that included Spring/Fall Collection Only, a Combination of Bi-weekly, Monthly and Weekly Collection, Leaf and Yard Waste Depots, and Unattended and Attended Depots as well as Free Disposal at Existing Major Landfill Sites.

· During the January 2005 budget deliberations Council (sitting as the Committee of the Whole) considered Councillor Stavinga’s motion to provide approximately ten (10) depot locations for all residents at an estimated cost of $3,400 per weekend per depot for a total cost of $408,000. That motion was lost.

· As a result of 2005 budget deliberations, leaf and yard waste services were restored to bi-weekly service beginning mid-April throughout the summer with weekly service beginning in the fall.

Provincial Waste Diversion Target

In June of 2004 the Provincial Ministry of Environment published a discussion paper establishing a Province-wide waste diversion target of 60%. The purpose of the paper was to seek municipal and industry input on how to achieve that waste diversion target by 2008. This ambitious target and consultation process has been ongoing throughout 2004 and will continue in 2005. At present, the 60% diversion target has not moved beyond the discussion paper stage. It is the expectation of municipalities and industry that the Province will soon provide regulation legislation and funding support needed to achieve this diversion goal.

City of Ottawa staff provided feedback to the Ministry of the Environment on the 60% waste diversion target through participation on an Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Committee. The City also provided comment through the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators (AMRC) Committee. The comments include requests to the Province for additional funding for waste diversion programs and to improve the approval process for organics facilities in the Province. The Province was approached for assistance to support garbage reduction programs. Discussions are ongoing between municipalities and the Province, through WDO Committees on steps to move towards 60% diversion, with many municipalities moving ahead with the implementation of their organics programs. The City will continue to lobby the Province to increase financial support in solid waste diversion, recycling and capital programs associated with waste management.

Trail Waste Facility Optimization / Environmental Assessment

The existing Trail Road Landfill site currently has capacity to continue receiving materials for disposal at current diversion rates until 2008. Recognizing that landfill capacity was limited, the City embarked upon a scoped Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2000 and proceeded expeditiously through public consultation and report preparation in 2000 to 2002. The report was finalized and presented to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for their approval in May 2002.

The scoped EA for the expansion of the Trail Road Landfill site has been with the Minister pending approval since submittal of the application. Legal challenges surrounding other Provincial similar scoped EA’s have prevented the Minister from approving the scoped Trail Road EA. These legal challenges have recently been resolved, allowing the Minister to now consider the Trail Road scoped EA submission.

Recent discussions with the MOE ~~Aprovals~~Approvals Branch indicate that there is movement towards an approval of the scoped EA. Staff will provide updated reports to Committee when they become available.

Upon approval of the scoped EA, the expanded landfill capacity would extend Trail Road Landfill facility life an additional 10 to 40 years beyond the current closure date of 2008. This expansion potential is dependant on waste material diversion rates. The Trail Road Landfill Optimization Report outlines scenarios ranging from the current diversion rate of 312%, yielding a 10 year capacity extension, up to a diversion rate of 70%, with potential for a 40 year capacity expansion.

Ottawa Situation

The current Trail Road Landfill site has approximately three years remaining capacity in the current Certificate of Approval. To ensure long-term sustainability of this valuable City asset, significant waste diversion targets must be implemented to achieve diversion rates of 60% or greater. Sustainable waste management in Ottawa will be achieved through focussed communication and education programs, full implementation of organics separation and collection, continuance of the recycling initiatives and the support and leadership of this program by City Council, community groups and the participation of the public in the adoption of waste reduction activities.

DISCUSSION

The 3Rs Reduce, Reuse and Recycle

Ottawa’s Integrated Waste Management Master Plan (IWMMP) is based first and foremost on the 3Rs; Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.

Reducing waste at source is the most environmentally sustainable approach and relies upon consumers to accomplish this goal through improved awareness, choice and change in habits. Examples of reducing waste include purchasing more durable goods, purchasing goods with less packaging, grass cycling (use of a mulching lawnmower) and backyard composting.

Staff will reinstate the “Don’t bag it, your lawn will love it” campaign to encourage leaving grass clippings on the lawn. This program was initiated in the mid 1990’s prior to leaf and yard waste programs being implemented City-wide. Although the City offers leaf and yard waste collection, it is always preferable for the resident to reduce their own waste through their own means, (ie. Reduce purchasing of packaging, home composting, grass cycling). This campaign included a brochure, bus boards, articles and newspaper ads. Achieving additional at source waste reduction will require a change in consumer behaviour, driven by increased environmental awareness and education through a strong ~~communicationscampaign~~communications campaign.

The Reuse of goods and materials is also a consumer driven goal and provides an opportunity to decrease the quantity of waste requiring management. A wide variety of materials that would otherwise become waste are redirected to meet the needs of other consumers, thereby substituting additional materials consumption. At the local neighbourhood level, garage sales and “swap” events serve a similar valuable purpose. Reuse activities, similar to “at source” reduction efforts, require a change in consumer behaviour.

Current Community Diversion Programs

The Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) is a prevention program with the goal of ensuring that a safe process for disposal of hazardous materials is available to the public. It works in tandem with the City of Ottawa’s Sewer Use Program, as part of our environmental protection strategy. Hazardous materials must be captured through proper City disposal options to reduce the] likelihood of toxic and hazardous materials entering into the drain, streams or storm sewers and which may adversely affect the ][wastewater and biosolids treatment facilities.

The City launched the “Take It Back!” Program in November 1997. The participating vendors take hazardous waste back directly from the public, saving approximately $150,000 in annual waste handling costs for the City. The Program has implemented a simple process which facilitates direct [customer/vendor partnerships and has expanded to approximately 500 participating retailers [across the City of Ottawa in the past few years. The success of this Program means a reduction [in hazardous waste handling requirements for the mobile and permanent depots and increased [level of service to the public.

Recycling service delivered through the City’s Blue and Black Box Collection Programs provides the opportunity to divert materials from landfill disposal. Although recycling services have been provided to Ottawa residents since the late 1980’s, opportunities exist to increase the participation in the programs, by increasing the number of households participating to maximize the material they recycle. “Set out” surveys show that 79% of households in Ottawa are utilizing their Blue Box and 84% are setting out their Black Box recycling containers. Recent waste characterization audits indicate that 94% of newspapers are recycled, while only 67% of boxboard and 21% of juice boxes are currently recycled. As with at source waste reduction and material reuse, a change in consumer behaviour is required to get additional households recycling and increase the level of recycling in those households that already participate.

Plastics Ddiversion Ppilots

Staff is currently developing a plastic bags diversion program to be piloted in the Barrhaven area with the participation of local retail vendors.

A second pilot program is being developed with Tomlinson Environmental to test the use of shredded waste plastics as an asphalt additive. This pilot is scheduled for the summer of 2005.

Glass Diversion

Currently, 10,000 tonnes of glass collected through the Blue Box program is diverted into roadbed aggregate through a pilot program with Tomlinson Environmental.

Achieving 40% Diversion

Ottawa currently diverts 31% of its solid waste from landfill disposal sites. The next milestone is to achieve 40% diversion with the existing Solid Waste Programs and improve education and communication initiatives. To achieve this goal, a change in residents’ behaviour patterns, including single family and multi-family sectors is required. This change must involve an increased “at source” waste reduction, more material reuse and greater participation in current recycling programs.

The implementation of any additional measures directed at changing residents’ behaviour will require an extensive social marketing communications program to make residents aware of the need for the waste diversion measures as well as to encourage them to fully participate. This program must first create awareness of the issue, then positive advocacy for the environment and ultimately action to move towards achieving the 40% diversion target.

A communications strategy will be prepared for both the single family and multi-family sectors. During the course of implementation of this communications program, waste diversion rates will be closely monitored, and the effectiveness of the communications program in changing peoples’ behaviour will be assessed on an on-going basis (i.e., every three (3) months).

It is important to note that it may not be possible to achieve a 40% diversion rate only through positive consumer communication and education. Other municipalities have experienced difficulty in achieving these targets with only education and communication programs and have included other incentive and enforcement programs to achieve higher diversion rates. Some of the incentive programs employed in other jurisdictions have included reduced bag limits over time, further recycling, monitoring and promotion, new bylaws requiring recycling participation and more aggressive enforcement of the by-laws. Through waste diversion monitoring against the target diversion rates, staff will assess the need to consider all additional strategies to improve waste diversion results. ~~The City of Ottawa has already some of these measures for to 4 and planned phase in of future~~

Achieving 60% Diversion

The maximum achievable diversion rate under the present waste management system is likely 40%. ~~through recycling and the current 4 bag curbside limit.~~ The implementation of the residential “Compost +” for collection and processing of source separated organic materials is essential to increasing the City’s diversion rate beyond 50% as envisioned by Council in 2003 and to move towards the 60% diversion as targeted by the Province for 2008. By 2005, twelve (12) municipalities totalling 950,000 households are scheduled to be participating in organics programs in Ontario.

Since 2001, the City of Ottawa has been operating a “Compost +” Pilot source separated organics waste curbside collection volunteer pilot program in nine (9) neighbourhoods of the City, involving approximately 5,300 households. The “Compost +” Program helps divert an average of more than 48% of household waste in these areas. The average organics diversion in the “Compost +” pilot area represents 17.5% of the total waste set out for pickup. The program has demonstrated good diversion performance under the current weekly garbage collection pickup frequency at a four (4) garbage bag limit and considering a modest promotion and education program investment in the voluntary pilot program. Staff forecast improved diversion results with a mandatory organics program, timely reduction in garbage bag set out limits and consideration for bi-weekly garbage collection of solids, weekly collection of organics and Blue/Black Box recycling and increased participation through a comprehensive education, advertising and promotion campaign.

This pilot has provided the necessary opportunity for staff and residents to evaluate collection containers as well as collection equipment. Many other Ontario municipalities have implemented or are implementing programs to collect and process household organics. These programs are summarized in Annex A~~Table 1.2~~ attached.

In On 9 September 2003, Committee and Council approved the Solid Waste – Integrated Waste Management Master Plan - Phase Two Design Options (Report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0019), which included a source separated organics program (Organics +) to start effective in 2005. ~~2003, Council approved an organics program to begin City-wide service in 2005.~~ In preparation for the 2004 City Budget, Council embarked on an extensive Universal Program Review. This Review, combined with 2003 Provincial announcements of some Waste Diversion Ontario funding for Blue Box, lead staff to advise Council in January 2004 of its intention to exercise the final year extension option envisioned in the solid waste collection contracts, which would result in the contracts ending 31 May 2006. Based on the current timing to secure organics processing, staff are preparing a report to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee seeking approval to negotiate a further extension to the curbside collection contracts. ~~This report~~ ~~is now recommending a further extension of the contracts to end of March 2007, with~~

This would see

~~Staff is now recommending that a~~ source separated organics service beginning in 2007. This would allow time for education and communication of the program and tendering of the collection contracts. Staff will also assess the time and process for securing an organics processing facility capacity, and the purchase and delivery of approximately 233,000 green carts to single family urban, suburban and rural village households. A timetable will come back in the fall 2005 outlining the progress of this initiative.

With the direction of Council, staff will report back in September 2005 with a detailed implementation plan, collection contract, curbside service levels and timetables.

As with the current 3Rs Programs, the actual diversion achieved by the “Compost +” program will depend on the degree and quality of participation by the residents of curbside family households.

“Compost Plus” + Processing Capacity

It is recommended that the City proceed with a call for “expressions of interest” from the private sector to scope out viable options for an organics processing facility. New technology and other processing approaches should be considered prior to selection of an organics composting facility option. Staff will assess the interest in the private sector for providing alternative options for organics processing and report back to Committee with recommendations.

Multi-Family Mixed Waste Processing

Improved diversion from the multi-family residential sector will also be required to achieve 60% diversion. It is more difficult to recycle and capture organics in an apartment building setting than in single family homes.

Given the current challenges associated with marketing of the materials recovered/produced from a mixed waste stream, it is recommended that mixed waste processing not be considered until after the curbside single family organics diversion program is fully implemented in 2007. Staff will follow-up with a report to address multi-family waste processing.

Service to “Non - Residential Establishments”

~~Service to “Non – Residential Establishments”~~

During the 2005, Budget Deliberations, Committee of the Whole Meeting – 27 January 2005, Public Delegations response, a motion was raised to “Please provide information on alternative measures for business garbage and recycling pickup, including “tag-a-bag”. In addition, it was resolved that staff include in this update an assessment of commercial business service delivery options. The report recommends a Yellow Bag Program to non-residential properties at full cost recovery. This option will also address the Motion #27-89, from the Ottawa City Council Budget Deliberation Resolution to “commit to a part year restoration of curbside solid waste and recyclable pickup for small businesses at a cost of $400,000”.

~~Recommendation:~~

~~The City of Ottawa~~This report recommends a Yellow Bag Program service to its non-residential establishments (RNRE). The program allows commercial customers who want the program to contact the City for collections at the residential service level for solid waste collection to place garbage in special yellow bags for pick-up. The bags, with obvious City of Ottawa markings and a barcode, could be sold at approved hardware stores across the City at a cost of approximately $3.00 (⁺/-10%) each which covers the cost of waste collection and disposal of garbage and recycling.

The program will be easy to administer since businesses and NRE will only need to register for service with the City and then purchase the yellow bags from commercial retailers for service.

The City would require a database of locations that are involved with the program. There would be no costs to administer a billing and collection system. It is estimated that the costs of garbage bags would be in the order of $375,000 per year. Total costs, including curbside collections, yellow bags and administration would be approximately $1M/year. Based on this estimate, the per bag cost to individual small businesses would be approximately $3.00 (⁺/_– 10%) per bag with a maximum of 4 bags/week (or at the residential level of service), with an annual estimated cost to each business or NRE of $644/year.

There are a number of important issues that need to be finalized prior to committing to the program including:

· A commercial retailer to purchase, distribute and offer for sale the yellow garbage bags; and

· A strong inspection program would be necessary to ensure that the residential bag limits are adhered to.

This program would allow interested establishments to register annually with the City to confirm their eligibility and interest in receiving the service, advisement of the collection contractors of their locations and allow inspection staff to monitor the curbside adherence to bag limits. This program is proposed for a 1 January 2006 implementation. This date will allow staff sufficient time to secure sales depots, advanced advertising to the non-residential establishments, registration of properties and contact with pickup contractors. This time will also allow existing small businesses that have current private contracts in place sufficient time for completion of these contracts for an improved take up in 2006. Staff will report back to committee with program details in September 2005.

Service Provision Options: Balancing Services to Needs

The service level strategy proposed for residential and ~~small commercial~~ non-residential establishments solid waste disposal envisions several customer classifications and service levels:

1. The urban and suburban area would receive the current services with the proposed organics program, commencing in 2007;

2. Rural – Suburban Village, would receive the same services as the urban area;

3. Rural Residents Solid Waste Service: Consider the needs of rural customers for the retention of the current solid waste services, Blue and Black Box recycling and promote on-site composting. Curbside organic pick-up may therefore not be required and a differential level of service, at reduced cost, be applicable for rural customers.

4. Eligible “~~non-residential~~NRE” service may be offered through a Yellow Bag Program with consideration for residential level of service for those customers qualifying for curbside pick-up.

These strategic options will require further development and final approval prior to full implementation in 2007. A further series of reports will be brought to Committee and Council based upon Council’s direction and acceptance of th~~ese~~is conceptual service models.

Solid Waste Program Long Term Funding Strategy

Many Canadian municipalities have begun to investigate and implement alternative methods to fund solid waste services to decrease the pressure on the tax base and increase the incentive to divert materials from landfill through Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) programs. These programs require that residents pay a nominal per garbage bag fee over and above their mandated bag limits. Municipalities such as the Cities of Vancouver and Edmonton have gone as far as implementing a full utility model to fund all residential solid waste services.

Council has directed staff to develop full cost accounting principles for solid waste services to identify the total cost of the residential waste management system and develop strategies to ensure waste management costs are recovered on a user-pay basis.

As the Solid Waste Program plans for the future, and targets increased diversion goals through ongoing education and introduction of new diversion programs, it has become evident that a review of the funding model is also merited. This review will include consideration of a utility based model for the waste collection program to allocate costs to residents based on usage of service, or continued allocation through the general tax base.

In September 1994, the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton assumed responsibility for solid waste collection and diversion from all area municipalities, excluding the Township of Osgoode. At that time, the service was funded through a transition plan whereby the former Region requisitioned each of the local municipalities for the contract costs and levels of service existing in the municipalities.

Beginning in 1997, the transition plan was replaced with a region-wide dedicated tax rate for solid waste services applied to all rateable property classes, excluding those within the Township of Osgoode which maintained a separate tag-a-bag system for municipal solid waste services.

With the amalgamation of the City of Ottawa, the requirement for the special service area was removed, and the separate solid waste tax rate was also eliminated. The annual operating costs of the Solid Waste Program were included in the City general tax rate and assessed against all rateable property classes. That continues to be the funding model in place today.

For discussion and analysis in this report, costs of the Solid Waste Program are drawn from the 2005 Approved Operating and Capital Budgets and the 2004 Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP), and are segregated into three services:

· Waste Collection;

· Waste Diversion / Recycling; and

· Waste Disposal / Landfill.

As indicated in Annex D~~ppendix A~~, the 2005 net tax requirement of the program includes direct operating costs less direct revenues, an allocation for contribution to capital improvement and debt servicing, less program share of corporate revenues such as payments-in-lieu of taxes.

In addition, for the purposes of reflecting the full cost of the program in this analysis, the following elements are added:

· Allocation of indirect program support costs as per the methodology of the 2004 Financial Information Return;

· Updated contribution to capital to satisfy the 10-year projected requirements from the 2004 Long Range Financial Plan; and

· Contribution to reserve for the expected requirement of the landfill closure/post closure liability.

The allocation of indirect program support costs does not constitute a new cost to the taxpayer, but rather only recognition that these costs support the Solid Waste Program even though they may not be resident in the Solid Waste Program budget. Annual contributions for full funding of the LRFP requirement and the projected landfill closure/post closure liability are new costs to the program and to the taxpayer, as they are not currently provided.

Discussion

Review of Funding Models

In general terms, services provided by Ontario Municipalities are funded through the assessment based property taxation levy, or user charges, or utility-based billings. Taxation is normally the chosen funding source for municipal programs that provide a benefit, either direct or indirect, to all ratepayers regardless of property class. User pay charges are applied where a direct benefit is accrued to the user only. In some cases, funding is provided through a combination of taxation and user charges. An example is Transit Services, where the passenger is charged a specific fare, but fares are subsidized by the general taxpayer who also receives benefits including reduced traffic congestion and reduced requirement for construction and maintenance of additional roads. The final funding source available to municipalities is utility-based billings that are a direct function of consumption of a service. The example in Ottawa is water and sewer billings.

The discussion and required decision point is which model is best suited to the services (both current and future) of the Solid Waste Program. There are several base models available, and from each of these base models numerous hybrid models can be developed. In each case, there are advantages and disadvantages in terms of ease of collection, legislative hurdles, practical barriers to implementation and promotion of environmental stewardship. The balance of this discussion presents the potential base models and hybrids against these criteria.

Base Model 1 – Assessment Based (Current Model or Altered Model)

As indicated in the Background section of this report, the City’s current funding model apportions the annual cost of the Solid Waste Program against the assessed value of all rateable properties, irrespective of tax class. This provides predictable base funding and very low administrative requirements for collection on the tax bill. There are no legislative or practical impediments to this model. However, there is no link to provision of service, or quantity of service consumed and no transparency of the costs of the program to the end user. With no link to quantity of service consumed, there is no incentive to alter behaviour and thereby increase diversion rates.

A possible revision to the current assessment based taxation model is to apportion the costs of the Solid Waste Program to only the residential and multi-residential class of property tax payers. This would provide a greater link to the provision of service, as commercial and industrial ratepayers currently receive no waste collection services. Based on the 2005 levy, this would shift approximately $8.7 million in commercial and industrial tax levy to the residential tax requirement. This would have the effect of increasing the average residential cost from approximately $79.00 to approximately $92.00 per year.

Legislatively, Municipal Act s326 allows for the determination of a “prescribed special service” and designation of the area receiving benefit. However as this service is currently provided across the City it would not meet the definition of a special area. Exempting specified rateable property (i.e. commercial and industrial ratepayer) requires approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, by regulation.

Base Model 2 – Flat Fee

If the City moves away from an assessment-based levy for Solid Waste Services, an option is a flat fee charged to the users of the service, both residential and multi-residential. The flat fee model allows for direct billing to the end user of the service, and provides transparency as to the average annual cost. Based on 2005 information, this would remove $29.6 million from the City-wide tax levy requirement, to be collected through a non-assessment based methodology as outlined below. For analysis purposes, the flat fee is based on total annual cost divided by the number of households anticipated to receive benefit from the service. With a flat fee there is still no link to the quantity of service consumed, and therefore no incentive to alter behaviour and increase diversion rates. Further, the flat fee approach allocates the same fee to all users, regardless of actual usage or value of property, which under an assessment-based approach is considered a measure of ability to pay. Based on 2005 full costing, the flat residential fee would be approximately $109.00 per year.

It should be noted that the primary reason for the increased cost to the average resident from the flat fee approach as opposed to the assessment-based approach, is to compensate for the loss of share of corporate revenues such as payments-in-lieu of taxes. Once costs are removed from the tax bill, and therefore the tax rate, there is a corresponding reduction in payment-in-lieu of taxes collectable from the public sector. As indicated in Appendix D, the 2005 allocation to the Solid Waste Program of tax supported net corporate revenues is approximately $5.6 million.

Options for collection of the flat fee include the following:

i. Flat Fee on Tax Bill: The Municipal Act allows for such charges to be placed on the tax bill. However, there is risk in the ability to appropriately apply the flat fee to multi-residential properties, as the granularity of data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) on property code or unit code may not be sufficient. That is, all properties with greater than six units are considered multi-residential, but data on exact number of active units may not be current or readily available. Billing on this basis will require additional resources in the Revenue Division to handle manual investigation and problem resolution; and

ii. Flat Fee on Existing Utility Bill: Another option is the addition of the fee to the City’s current water and sewer billing system. Further analysis is required to determine if this option is feasible within the current system infrastructure. At the very least, properties that currently do not receive a water bill would need to be added to the system. It may not be possible to adapt the current system infrastructure to perform the additional functionality, and therefore a new billing system may be required. Quantification of capital costs and feasibility of timing for implementation of a new system requires further analysis. Decisions would need to be made on the frequency of billing, monthly or annually or somewhere in between. Most notably, if the charge is removed from the tax bill, the collection process is negatively impacted. This would result in greater administrative effort and increased risk of non-collection. A more detailed review is required to define the necessary administrative resources required for the customer support and collection efforts associated with this model.

Base Model 3 – User Pay

The final base model for consideration is full user pay. Implementation of a “pay-as-you-throw” program provides incentive to the end user to reduce consumption of the service. Assuming the recycling program is not subject to specific user pay, incentive to divert products from the garbage bag is provided. It should be noted however that in a full user pay model, the costs of the diversion and landfill programs would need to be burdened into the per bag garbage collection cost. This constitutes one of the disadvantages of this model, in that fixed costs need to be covered through a variable funding mechanism. Further, the revenue stream is the least predictable, as increased diversion efforts reduce incremental revenue. This model can also encourage illegal behaviour (dumping) and is the most difficult to administer, budget and manage. For these reasons, an across the board residential full user pay model is not considered practical for a municipality the size of Ottawa. However, as indicated in this report a limited scale "yellow bag" option for designated non-residential establishments is considered feasible.

Hybrid Model - Recommended Approach

There are a myriad of possible hybrids to the three base models. The following model is recommended for consideration as an option intended to satisfy the strategic directions of the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan:

1) Waste Diversion/Recycling Costs Assessed on Tax Bills: This option recommends that the City continue to assess the current full annual costs of the Waste Diversion Programs to all classes of ratepayers. While commercial and industrial classes may not receive direct benefit of current recycling services, it is suggested they continue to be charged for the environmental benefit of a community with a strong Waste Diversion Program. This is status quo for funding of this cost stream;

2) Garbage Collection and Landfill Costs Applied as Flat Fee to Residential and Multi-Residential Properties Only: Apply the full annual costs of the garbage collection and landfill to only the ratepayers who consume the service, as a flat fee. The vehicle for collection, either flat fee on tax bill or utility bill as discussed above. As diversion rates increase, the costs of garbage collection will decrease, thereby providing incentive to the residential class to increase diversion efforts; and

3) "Yellow Bag" user pay model for designated non residential establishments.

Under this hybrid model, the projected annual cost to an average residence, including taxation and flat fee charges, is estimated to be approximately $88.00.

This hybrid model provides one example of a funding strategy that may satisfy the perceived inequity of levying the commercial and industrial classes a share of the cost for residential waste collection, while providing an incentive to the residential classes to increase diversion efforts. It also provides transparency to the end user as to the costs of garbage collection and landfill. As such, this is the recommended funding model to facilitate the strategic directions of the IWMMP.

A summary of estimated average 2005 costs per household for each of these models is presented in the following table:

Estimated Annual Costs for Residence Assessed at $247,000	2005 Full Costing

Base Model 1 - Assessment based charges applied to all tax classes (Current Model)	79.00
Base Model 1 - Assessment based charges applied to residential classes only	92.00
Base Model 2 - Flat fee applied to residential classes only	109.00
Base Model 3 - Full user pay	NA
Hybrid Model - Assessment based for Diversion/Recycling, Flat Fee for Garbage Collection/Landfill	88.00

Variables not yet factored into the current financial analysis include:

· The potential for differential services for the urban/suburban and rural village residents; and

· The costs of new programs to be implemented in the future.

Further analysis and costing is required to ensure the feasibility of any change to the current assessment-based model. Subject to Committee and Council direction provided with this report, staff will undertake further research, confirm all legislative requirements, and further quantify the additional administrative costs as applicable.

It is recommended that the City investigate establishing a waste management utility that would provide services in return for appropriate fees, similar to hydro and water utilities. The funding mechanism envisioned in the utility model would consider the movement of the garbage collection and proposed organics program from the tax bill to a utilities bill, similar to water and wastewater charges for the urban/suburban areas of the City. A further option may be to include the rural village areas that would obtain a similar service to the urban area, at a similar cost.

The rural area residents, many of whom already exercise on-site composting or may not require this service, would retain existing solid waste collection and recycling services. The organics program would be encouraged through on-site composting and would not require curbside service, yielding a differential service at a reduced cost. The funding mechanism for the rural residential option may be retained on the current tax bill, with consideration for recalculation at a fixed cost per residential service versus the current assessment based cost calculation. This would provide for a fairer system of fee for service across the rural community.

Communication/Social Marketing Strategy

The Integrated Waste Management Master Plan Strategy requires a communication/social marketing effort that is designed to affect customer habits, reinforce the 3Rs - Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, and the promotion of recycling and waste diversion through a source separated organics program.

The goal of the strategy is to communicate with the citizens of Ottawa in an effective and cost efficient manner about the importance of waste reduction and diversion that will conserve local landfill capacity and push the future expanded Trail Road Landfill site lifespan into the 2040’s. A first step in achieving this goal is to engage the public in a consultation initiative for the purpose of determining and analyzing household practices, attitude, awareness and preference for how the City should achieve the goals of 40% and 60% waste diversion (i.e. through education/ awareness campaigns and/or a regulatory approach).

The communications/social marketing strategy will be designed to increase public education and awareness and understanding of the goals of the IWMMP Strategy, by including the following components:

· a series of public meetings, focus group sessions, stakeholder group meetings, and provision of a mechanism for receiving written comments on the IWMMP;

· a campaign launch that speaks to the City’s waste diversion targets which would involve citizens;

· advertisements (radio and published) and posters;

· interview pitches with City experts and external, objective champions within the community;

· distribution of fact sheets on a range of topics related to the 3Rs, and most particularly composting, serving as the base information for all messages and materials;

· canned articles in magazines and newspapers;

· revamping of the City website, and

· the establishment of a hotline message through the Client Service Centres.

Further details of the communications strategy will be provided with the Service Level and Organics Implementation Report scheduled for the Fall 2005.

Green Funds

With Council’s approval, staff will make application this fall for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Enabling Funds. The FCM pays for 50% of the accepted project costs (they contribute to consulting costs, but not staff time) up to $250,000 per project. A project that can demonstrate verifiable improvements in the area of solid waste management, demonstrate cost-effectiveness, innovativeness, a procedure and lessons learned that can be adopted for other municipalities and demonstration of a positive environmental and economic benefit to the community, may be eligible for funding.

A Short-term Implementation and Contract Negotiations

Should Council support the strategic direction of these Integrated Waste Management Master Plan concepts, several short-term contract negotiations must be implemented as follows:

1. Negotiate an extension to all existing curbside collection contracts by one year, to be extended to March 2007. This will allow sufficient time for the full implementation plans of the enclosed options for Council consideration, the initiation of the strategic communications plan to improve the information, education, goals and objectives of the waste diversion process and allow for the timely acquisition of organic green carts for distribution and the development of collection contracts that contemplate organics curbside pick-up;

1.a Develop detailed program service levels including organics implementation/rollout plan with a report to Committee in the fall of 2005 prior to tendering for next Collection Contracts. Contracts must be awarded by April 2006 to meet an April 2007 contract start-up;

2. Develop the RFP/RFQ process for securing a regional organics processing facility~~or capacity in the City of Ottawa. P3 opportunities will considered in this process~~;

3. Tender the containerization collection services for multi-residential pick-up;

4. Report back to Council on effectiveness of the communications plan, diversion results and provide further recommendations for additional diversion incentives; and

5. Fully develop the financial funding models under the tax base and/or utility-based funding concepts, based on Council direction.

The City of Ottawa is embarking on a progressive and environmentally sustainable solid waste, organics and recycling program of solid waste services. The various areas of the 3Rs of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, our Blue and Black Box Recycling Program, the proposed organics program and consideration for rural, urban, suburban, rural villages and “non-residential customers” provides a balance of appropriate service levels, funding vehicles and fairness in the delivery of an overall solid waste program in the City of Ottawa.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Annex A~~Tables 1.2~~ Summary of Current Food Waste Management Programs for Organics;

Annex BA Table C.1: Summary of Baseline With 4-Bag Limit System Costs;

~~Table~~ Annex C Table C.9: Summary of Alternative 12 (Food ~~Plus Paper~~) System Costs With 3-Bag Limit Scenario; and ~~(these tables need to be changed)~~

~~Table C10: Summary of Alternative~~ 12 ~~(Food~~ ~~Plus Paper) System Costs With 2-Bag Limit Scenario~~ ~~(these tables need to be changed)~~

Annex D~~ppendix A~~ Solid Waste Management 2005 Budget.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

An extensive public consultation program was developed and implemented in April and May of 2003 with respect to the Integrated Waste Management Master Plan with specific input from Ottawa residents on waste diversion goals, program options, as well as to gauge their willingness to participate relative to new options. A list of consultation elements was outlined in the report “Solid Waste – Integrated Waste Management Master Plan - Phase Two Design Options (Report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0019).

A Public Liaison Committee was established at the start of the IWMMP process and has provided input on waste diversion, program design and resident participation. This Committee is available and looking forward to providing input on communications and program implementation elements.

The Environmental Advisory Committee forwarded the following motion at the time of the “Solid Waste – Integrated Waste Management Master Plan - Phase Two Design Options (Report ACS2003-TUP-UTL-0019):

That the Environmental Advisory Committee provide the following initial input for the City of Ottawa’s Integrated Waste Management Master Plan:

1. Move towards a user pay system that reflects the true cost of solid waste management (for example, residential users are not subsidized by business);

2. Raise awareness (for example, benefits, true cost) and ease (especially for multi-residential sector) of solid waste;

3. Increase solid waste diversion to 70 percent even if it means increased cost for users; and

Better enforcement of solid waste diversion by-law (for example, monitor and address non-compliance).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Recommendation 2: Funds for the Diversion Program communication initiative are available in the approved Capital Budget, Account 900352 Solid Waste Long Term Planning.

Recommendation 6: Full quantification of costs for the implementation of the organics collection program, including securing access to a processing facility, are subject to completion of the RFP/RFQ process, including investigation of P3 opportunities. At this time, the full year Operating Budget requirement is estimated to be approximately $10 million. Annex C – Table C9, provides a summary of the estimated annual costs, cost per household and cost per tonne, together with the estimated diversion associated with the recommended program.

Recommendation 7: As indicated in the body of the report, subject to Committee and Council direction, recommended changes to the funding model will be further researched and financial implications quantified in a future report or budget document, for implementation no earlier than 2007.

Recommendation 8: Costs associated with the provision of solid waste services to non- residential establishments will be fully recovered through sale of yellow bags. Costs are currently estimated to be approximately $1.0 million, requiring an estimated bag sale price of approximately $2.82. Subject to Committee and Council approval, program details and further quantification of costs will be reported back in September 2005, for consideration in the 2006 Operating Budget.

Arising from Disposition: Incremental funding requirements arising from the extension of the existing curbside collection programs, if any, will be reported to City Council for approval in the 2006 Operating Budget.

DISPOSITION:

Following an approval of this Report, a subsequent report will be brought to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee with the terms and conditions of an 8^th year extension to solid waste curbside collection contracts.

SUBJECT:	Integrated Waste management master plan - STRATEGIC SERVICE delivery - update

OBJET :	PLAN DIRECTEUR DE LA GESTION INTÉGRÉE DES DÉCHETS – LE POINT SUR L’EXÉCUTION STRATÉGIQUE

	Date Implemented	Current # of HHs in SSO program; Tonnes Collected in 2003	Materials Collected		Collection System	Processing System	Future Quantities Expected
Toronto	2002 (final implementation in 2005)	415,000 HHs; 26,416 tonnes	· Organics + without yard waste		· Co-collected weekly w/ Alternating Week Garbage Recyclables · Food in 42 litre cart · The City spent $1.6 million for 70,000 organics containers for Etobicoke launch	· Current processing system: anaerobic digestor (in Newmarket)	· 40,000 tonnes collected Etobicoke Scarborough in 2003 · diversion of 140,000 tonnes per year when fully implemented
City of Ottawa	Pilot started in 2001; Final implementation in 2006/2007	5,000 HHs (pilot); 2,015 tonnes	· Organics		· Various methods tried · Some with L&Y · Future collection system still undetermined	· Composted with the leaf and yard wastes at the landfill site · Future processing technology still undetermined	· When all 300,000 HHs are onboard, 70,000 tpy recovery
Durham	2003 (Region-wide in 2006)	45,000 HHs; 2,519 tonnes		· Organics without yard waste	· Co-collected weekly with Garbage in part of Region · Co-collected weekly with alternating recycling · Food in 35 litre container	· open windrow composting · cost of $75/tonne · Moving to in-vessel system in the future · Limited processing capacity prevents further expansion	· The Region expects to divert 30,000 to 35,000 tonnes per year when the program is fully implemented
County of Simcoe	Information not available	3,900 Proposed expansion 445 tonnes		· Organics without yard waste		· open windrow composting at Miller Waste · Future processing capacity: proposed integrated waste management facility	· Future expected quantities not available

Table C.1 Current Program - 2004 - 2005
Summary of Baseline With 4-Bag Limit System Costs

		Annual 2005 Costs	Costs Per Household	% Diversion	Tonnes Managed	Cost/tonne
	SINGLE FAMILY SECTOR COSTS

Collection: Single Family Sector
	Recyclables	7,516,510	32.32		58,813	127.80
	Organics: Leaf & Yard Wastes	2,533,517	10.89		25,468	99.48
	Garbage	11,224,702	48.26		172,229	65.17
	Sub-Total Single Family Collection	21,274,729	91.47		256,510	82.94
Processing: Single Family Sector
	Recyclables	-951,006	-4.09	23%	58,813	(18.14)
	Organics: Leaf & Yard	1,273,400	5.48	10%	25,468	50.00
	Subtotal Single Family Processing	322,394	1.39	33%	84,281	3.83
Disposal: Single Family Sector
	Garbage (SF)	5,817,896	25.01		172,229	33.78

	MULTI-FAMILY SECTOR COSTS

Collection: Multi-family Sector
	Recyclables	1,158,852	13.32		8,828	131.27
	Organics: Leaf & Yard Wastes	0			0
	Garbage	1,247,707	14.34		31,716	39.34
	Sub-Total Multi-family Collection	2,406,559	27.66		40,544	59.36
Processing: Multi-family Sector
	Recyclables	-160,140	-1.84	22%	8,828	(18.14)
	Mixed Waste Processing			0%		-
	Sub-Total Multi-family Processing	-160,140	-2	22%	8,828	(18.14)

Total Net Recycling Cost		7,564,215
	WDO Funding at 38%	-2,874,402

Disposal: Multi-family Sector
	Garbage (MF))	1,071,366	12.31		31,716	33.78

	OVERHEADS (All Households, SF + MF)

	Household Hazardous Wastes	686,226	2.09
	Education & Promotion	341,472	1.04
	Planning & Administration	1,129,483	3.44
	Sub-Total Other Costs	2,157,181	6.57
Annual Cost Per Single Family Household			124.44
Annual Cost Per Multi-family Household			44.71
Total System Cost, Diversion, $/t		30,015,583	91.42	31%	297,054	101.04

Table C.9						ANNEX C
Summary of Alternative 2 (Food Plus Paper) System Costs With 3-Bag Limit Scenario

		Annual 2005 Costs	Costs Per Household	% Diversion	Tonnes Managed	Cost/tonne
	SINGLE FAMILY SECTOR COSTS

Collection: Single Family Sector
	Recyclables	7,516,510	32.32		64,159	117.15
	Organics: Food, Paper + LYW	8,190,558	35.22		53,132	154.15
	Leaf and Yard Waste Peaks	1,411,577	6.07		9,304	151.72
	Garbage	10,663,974	45.85		129,917	82.08
	Sub-Total Single Family Collection	27,782,619	119.45		256,512	108.31
Processing: Single Family Sector
	Recyclables	-1,037,451	(4.46)	25%	64,159	(18.14)
	Organics: Enclosed Food, Paper +LYW	5,578,860	23.99	21%	53,132	105.00
	Open Windrow LYW	465,200	2.00	4%	9,304	50.00
	Subtotal Single Family Processing	5,006,609	21.53	49%	126,595	39.55

Disposal: Single Family Sector		4,410,682	18.96		129,917	33.95
	MULTI-FAMILY SECTOR COSTS

Collection: Multi-family Sector
	Recyclables	1,158,852	13.32		8,828	131.27
	Organics: Leaf & Yard Wastes	0			0
	Garbage	1,247,707	14.34		31,716	39.34
	Sub-Total Multi-family Collection	2,406,559	27.66		40,544	59.36
Processing: Multi-family Sector
	Recyclables	-160,140	(1.84)	22%	8,828	(18.14)
	Mixed Waste Processing					-
	Sub-Total Multi-family Processing	-160,140	(1.84)	22%	8,828	(18.14)

Total Net Recycling Cost		7,477,771
	WDO Funding at 38%	-2,841,553

Disposal: Multi-family Sector
	Garbage (MF))	1,076,441	12.37		31,716	33.94

	OVERHEADS (All Households, SF + MF)

	Household Hazardous Wastes	820,845	2.50
	Education & Promotion	998,148	3.04
	Planning & Administration	1,457,821	4.44
	Sub-Total Other Costs	3,276,813	9.98
Annual Cost Per Single Family Household			169.92
Annual Cost Per Multi-family Household			48.17
	Total System Costs, Diversion, $/t	40,958,031	124.74	46%	297,056	137.88

~~Appendix A~~				ANNEX D

	Recommended Utility Bill		Tax Levy
Solid Waste Management 2005 Budget	WASTE DISPOSAL / LANDFILL	WASTE COLLECTION	WASTE DIVERSION/ RECYCLING	Total Solid Waste Management
	($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)

CURRENT FUNDING FROM CITY WIDE TAX LEVY
Direct Operating Costs	5,553	14,842	18,398	38,793
Less: External Revenues	(2,573)	-	(8,520)	(11,093)
Net Public Works Operating Costs	2,980	14,842	9,878	27,700

Contributions to Capital	625	-	561	1,186
Debt Servicing		554		554
Allocated Share of Corporate Costs & Revenue (inc. PIL)	(1,441)	-	(4,171)	(5,612)
Total Taxable Net Requirements (Current Costing)	2,164	15,396	6,268	23,828

ADDITIONAL COSTS UNDER FULL COSTING APPROACH
Indirect Program Support Costs	368	367	338	1,073
Full Costing Contribution to Capital	1,554	-	1,394	2,948
Landfill Closure/Post Closure Liability (avg 10 yrs)	1,783	-	-	1,783

Total Additional Costs	3,705	367	1,732	5,804

Total Net Taxable Requirements (Full Costing)	5,869	15,763	8,000	29,632



Current Taxation by Property Class			Full Costing
			Levy ($000)	%
Residential Classes			20,931	70%
Commercial Classes			7,617	26%
Industrial Classes			1,084	4%
			29,632


Estimated Annual Costs to Average Residence Assessed at $247,000		Utility Bill	Tax Levy	Total
Current Assessment Based Model		NA	$79.00	$79.00
Recommended Hybrid Model		$71.00	$17.00	$88.00

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Council Direction 2004 - 2005

Small Business Services Chronology

Plastics Recycling

Leaf and Yard Waste Collection

Trail Waste Facility Optimization / Environmental Assessment

“Compost Plus” + Processing Capacity

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

ANNEX A

Table 1.2: Summary of Current Food Waste Management Programs for Organics

HH: Households

Table 1.2 ANNEX A

(cont’d): Summary of Current Food Waste Management Programs for Organics

ANNEX A

Table 1.2 (cont’d): Summary of Current Food Waste Management Programs for Organics

ANNEX A

Table 1.2 (cont’d): Summary of Current Food Waste Management Programs for Organics