2009-11-02_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, November 02, 2009
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
5:00 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber Open to the Public
1.1(a) User Pay Option - Solid Waste Management Service (Tabled on September
14, 2009)
1.1(b) Preliminary Estimates - Implementation of Curbside Recycling
7:00 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom
1.1 Legal Opinion 10.2(4)(f)
1.2 Property Matter 10.2(4)(c,g )
13 Land Matter 10.2(4)(c,d,f)
1.4 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0)
1.5 Litigation 10.2 (4)((-,;)
City of Saint John
Seance du Conseil communal
Le lundi 2 novembre 2009
Comite plenier
1. Ouverture de la seance
De 17 h00 a 19 h Salle du Conseil
1.1(a) Possibilite de faire payer les usagers - Service de gestion des dechets solides
(point reporte a la seance du 14 Septembee, 2009)
1.1(b) Estimations preliminaire - recvclage en bordure de troittoir
19 h Salle de conference, 8e Rage, hotel de ville
1.1 Avis juridique - alinea 10.2(4)f)
1.2 Question relative aux biens-fonds - alineas 10.2(4)c), g)
13 Question relative aux terrains - alineas 10.2(4)c), d), f)
1.4 Question relative a 1'emploi - alinea 10.2(4)j)
1.5 Litiges - alinea 10.2(4)(-,,)
F F J" UN C 11 L
M&C2009-252
September 101h , 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court The City ' F john
And Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: USER PAY OPTION - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE
BACKGROUND
In that the costs associated with the solid waste service have a substantial impact on the
overall property tax rate, a user-pay system has been proposed as the most fair, equitable
and transparent system of cost recovery for that service. At the January 12th2009
meeting of Council, it was proposed to reduce the tax rate by the amount associated with
solid waste and replace the current system with user-pay. A resolution asked for a report
by June 15th for policy implementation of a user-pay system by January 1`t, 2010.
Purpose of Report This report will review the user-pay option for financing the
residential solid waste service and outline an approach for implementation. That approach
needs to be part of a broader community effort to better manage solid waste, fulfill public
health requirements, maximize diversion and reduce tonnages being directed to landfill.
A COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY
Beyond basic collection and disposal of garbage, the solid waste service needs to engage
the community in ensuring Saint John is a clean, healthy and liveable city, one that
minimizes its ecological footprint, optimizes outputs with costs, and strives for long-term
service viability. Establishing a user-pay system for this service could be a key part of
that strategy; designed to achieve higher rates of diversion, equitable allocation of costs
and greater responsibility on the part of those who generate waste.
For best outcomes, the City must work with citizens and other stakeholders towards a
higher standard of waste diversion. Success will also depend on collaboration with the
Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission and, ideally, involve other area municipalities.
Transition to user-pay could be the right thing to do; as long as implementation is well
planned and done right, as part of a broader strategy to reduce the community's impact on
the environment, enhance cleanliness and healthy living, allocate service costs fairly and
equitably (to "cost causers"), and create the solid waste service this community needs.
2
t'ser Pcxv Option - Solid FT"rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'ert'ice September 10th, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -AI & C, 2009-252 P i 12
ANALYSIS
Managing solid waste both effectively from a service perspective and efficiently in terms
of cost impact means embracing the principles of sustainability, as already articulated by
Council; pursuing a broad-based strategy that maximizes resource reuse, recycling and
diversion, minimizes waste generation, and optimizing the service life/cost of landfill
infrastructure. The strategy must incorporate appropriate policies, by-laws, legislation
and resources towards achieving the goals of the community.
A system of `user-pay' could be a key part of such a strategy; based on the understanding
that direct charges for service would have residents taking responsibility for the amount
and types of waste they produce. The tax-based fee stricture does not inherently
encourage waste reduction or diversion goals, as the true costs of solid waste are not
readily apparent to system users. There is no direct financial incentive to reduce waste.
Public Health Obligations
First and foremost, the municipality must be ever mindful of the fundamental reason for a
solid waste (garbage) service: community public health. This is a service every urban
community needs; one that must meet standards required for good public health. It is not
something the municipality or its citizens can realistically chose to opt out of.
Municipalities Act - Solid Waste User Charges
The New Brunswick Alimicipalities Act authorizes municipalities to implement a system
of user-pay for solid waste services.
where a nzuraicipalith regulates garbage arad refuse collection awl disposal
pitrsuarat to a b1-lair the nmraicipalith mall, recover the cost of the service, or
a111" portiolz thereof; o» a user-charge basis ichich mcv be established o» a»
amortised or air, other basis as the nwi icipaliti shall seerTZ fit. " [s7.1(2)]
`111o»ev recovered shall be used wily foi° the purpose of providing a garbage
arad refuse collection arad disposal service, arad arav sunphts of deficit shall be
carried forhvard the second next eiisiting j,ear. " [s7.1(3
Appendix `A' provides sections 7.1(1) through to 7.1(9) of the Act for reference.
Options for Financing Services (Kitchen-Slack Report)
On June 15th Harry Kitchen (Trent University) and Enid Slack (University of Toronto)
presented a report to Council entitled Options foi° Financing Services and Infrastructure
hi the City of Saint Johii. The report was commissioned by the City of Saint John to
address two major concerns about municipal finances: (1) the City relies too heavily on
the property tax to pay for operating expenditures; and (2) the City needs to finance
infrastructure, not only to address the current infrastructure deficit but also to pay for the
infrastructure that will be required to meet projected growth.
3
t'ser Pav Option - Solid 11'rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 10th, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -AI & C, 2009-232 P i 13
The report spoke of " desig»ing a revelme sil,stem based oil correctly toxing algid pricing
n111rlicipcrl services
Under the "Principles of Municipal Finance" section, the authors point out that user fees
are appropriate to find at least some portion of the costs for services with private good
characteristics, such as water, sewers, garbage collection/disposal, transit and recreation.
"I» gelier°al, user- fees are appropriate ichere there is a clear- relationship betireell
the fees charged algid the beliefits receivedl the tax1)aver° has the choice about the
extent to ii hick he or she uses the service, it is possible to collect the charge at a
reasonable cost, acrd equiti, corrcerlis care be addressed (for example b1, loirering or
waving .fees .for low-income users). Uver fees earl plcrv till in2portc1lit role ill
111211?rcrpal f71?al?ce bV eiisitring that goveriunel?ts do iMcit people ircil?t al?d are
11111ing to pav for. "
It was highlighted, based on the public finance principles discussed, that: "solid irciste is
till obvious cmitlidate for user .fees. The evideiice shows that user .fees would reduce
garbage arid improve fiscal arid elivirolrruelitcrl sustcrirurbilith...
One of four main conclusions of the Kitchen-Slack report was:
"The City should colisider° expalIding its use of user- fees to ilichlde solid irciste
collectioli algid disposal. Not wily could user fees reduce relialice oil local property
taxes, they 11'OZlld 11r?prOVe c ff iciel?ci, al?d relate the costs of the service to the
benefits received User fees also address coruerr2s over er2viror2nzer2tal
sustcrirzabilitl'. "
Finn Report: Regionalization of the Service
As Council is aware, the Finn Report Building Stronger- Local Goverluuews algid Regiolis,
November 2008, was commissioned by the Government of New Brunswick to aid in its
strategy for `Self-Sufficiency'. Although not related directly to the question of user-pay,
the report's recommendation to designate solid waste management as a `supra-municipal'
service, to be handled exclusively on a regional basis, is a consideration to be factored in:
..Res1)oiisibi1iti,,1bi• the plcuming emir mcnicrgeniew gl'the eiitire solid waste strecim,
from collectrol?, to recycling, to thsI)osal trcln#f rred to the reglol?al service
district.
An integrated operating and service delivery approach makes good sense. However,
moving to such a regional system would involve policy change at several levels. It would
be prudent to have clarity on where we might be going on regionalization of this service
before or in conjunction with any major change initiative. Without clarity, there are risks
associated with making significant investments (prematurely) in transitioning the service.
Should the City (and/or region) wish to move in a new direction regardless of the Finn
recommendations, it should do so being aware of their possible implications.
4
t'ser Pav Option - Solid FT"rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 1067, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -AI & C, 2009-2-52 4
Experience with Major Change
When the Fundy Region first introduced the compost system in 2001, we should
remember that the transition to green carts and, with that, bi-weekly collection did not go
smoothly in all neighbourhoods. The lesson that history teaches is to prepare the
community and thoroughly plan implementation well in advance of major change.
Recycling Model in the Fundy Region
The Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) and area municipalities currently
utilize a blue bin (drop off and sorting) system for recycling in this region. Other
jurisdictions in the province and elsewhere approach recycling differently.
Some people will argue that curbside recycling should be a prerequisite of moving to a
user-pay system. While curbside recycling could promote increased diversion, it would
also entail a whole new dimension to the solid waste service in the Greater Saint John
region, with associated operating costs and capital investments. Also, we do not believe
the FRSWC is currently equipped to deal with the resulting mixed stream of recyclables.
A policy change would be required for the FRSWC and its municipalities.
To enhance the current system, it would be in the best interests of the community and
citizens to locate additional blue bin depots in the community - to make recycling a more
practical option for citizens.
Priority Neighbourhoods
Under a user-pay approach, we believe that service to priority neighbourhoods has to be
brought in line with the level delivered across the community at large. Although this is
the goal for the service generally, the timeline for the transition would be much less.
Transfer of Financial Burden
The current cost of the residential solid waste service (2009 budget) is $4,123,000. With
a user-pay system, the cost burden for the service would be largely transferred from the
broad general tax base to those households serviced. The cost of litter control ($148,000)
and special activities such as bulky items pick-up, white goods drop off, and
neighbourhood clean-ups ($169,000) would likely remain as a general expense.
Under this scenario, over 92% of current service costs would be removed from the tax
burden and the property tax rate could be adjusted accordingly. Based on reduced tax
base funding requirements of $3.8 million, assuming $550,000 per penny of tax rate, the
property tax rate could be reduced by 6.91 cents on $100 of assessed property value.
Assuming other variables remain constant (for example, waste tonnages do not change),
the $3.8 million net cost would be assumed by the 21,900 residential households
currently receiving the service. It is prudent, at this point, to be conservative in estimating
anticipated service costs or potential service cost reductions.
5
t'ser Pav Option - Solid FT"rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 10th, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -AI & C, 2009-2-52 P , r i I S
The table below illustrates the average impact on households in Saint John, assuming all
other variables remain constant. HST does not apply for user-pay solid waste services.
L IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
y
~,~,~,m III III ~ ~ ' ~ ' III uuuuuuuuuuu
$75,000 $51.8 3 $17 3.52 +$121.69
$100,000 $69.10 $173.52 +$104.42
$15 t_),0(t_) $10 3.65 $17 3.52 +$69.87
$200,000
$13820
$17;.52
+$35.32
$250,000
$172.75
$173.52
+$0.77
$251,114
$173.52
$173.52
t)
$3t)t),t)t)t)
$207.30
$17;.52
-$33.78
$11 5t),t)t)t)
$241.85
$17;.52
-$68.33
$400,000
$276.40
$17;.52
4102.88
This illustrative example indicates a break-even point at a property v
alued at $251,114.
With direct costs transferred to households, the challenge for the community and
individual residences will be to reduce waste generation and increase diversion, thereby
lowering community and individual household costs. Where exactly will this take us? At
what point will a "sustainable equilibrium" be reached? And further, how will the amount
and type of waste generated impact the resource levels required to provide the service?
Saint John is expected to generate about 14,750 tonnes of residential solid waste in 2009,
11,530 tonnes of refuse disposed of at a cost of $108 per tonne ($1,452,240 in tipping
fees) and 3,220 tonnes of compost at $35/tonne ($112,700 in compost tipping fees).
These numbers indicate a 78.2% refuse to 21.8% compost split. How much of that refuse
tonnage can be reduced, diverted to recycling or converted to less expensive compost? As
important, what should the timeline be for achieving desired waste diversion targets?
The rate of reduction/diversion/conversion the community is able to achieve will directly
impact the overall cost of the solid waste service and the cost to individual households.
Administrative Costs
Although not detailed herein, there will be administrative costs associated with a user-pay
service, administering and enforcing the Bil-Lane, billing, and collection. Some of these
costs are built into the existing budget amount, but some are not. The billing function, for
one, will add to these costs. Overall, however, administrative costs should not materially
impact a decision to go with a user-pay system or not.
6
t'ser Pcxv Option - Solid FT"rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 1067, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -AI & C, 2009-2-52 6
USER-PAY SYSTEMS
There are many variations of user-pay systems but most include two main components
designed to encourage waste-reduction and increased diversion:
Visibility of cost; and
ca Volume-based pricing.
Solid waste cost recovery systems can fall on a continuum between zero user fees and
complete user-pay. At one end of the spectrum would be systems that include 100% of
the cost of waste collection and disposal through the municipal tax rate, with no
limitations on volume or items placed at the curb. At the other end, residents are charged
directly for the service, based on volume at the curb, with fees covering the frill cost of
collection and disposal. Many systems today fall somewhere in between, although there
has been a discernable shift in recent years towards user-pay.
Appendix `B' provides a sampling of municipalities or districts across Canada, with
summary information on waste management models used. You will note the diversity of
approaches and costs.
A user-pay service model, if that decision is taken by Council, must allocate service costs
fairly and equitably among service customers, while at the same time continuing to meet
the overall service needs of the community.
A change to user-pay, if and when made, should be made directly to the system that will
be most effective for Saint John over the long term. An approach needs to be developed,
its implementation well planned and carefully scheduled, and a dialogue undertaken to
prepare the community. The City needs to get it right - the first time.
Given past experience, not all affected citizens will take readily to major change in the
solid waste service. There will be costs (implementation, administrative, community
goodwill, and time) associated with introducing a new system, such that citizens
understand its elements, appreciate the rationale for it and, ideally, embrace its
implementation.
There are basically two options for user-pay: a Bag Tag orlllechw i, et1 C'cirt system
Although there are variations, a Bag Tag system typically incorporates two components:
a limit on the number of bags picked up (however the service is funded) and additional
bags collected only if affixed with a proper tag (sold by the municipality).
A -A-lechtmized C'cirt approach for collection has eligible residents billed for a cart (by
size) into which they must place all their refuse. These carts are similar to those currently
used to collect compost in the Fundy Region and can be picked up by a mechanical lift
attached to the garbage trick. Carts come in a number of different sizes, with billing rates
based on container capacity.
7
t'ser Pay Option - Solid FT"rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 1067, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -AI & C, 2009-2-52 P , R i 17
A comparison of benefits and drawbacks of the Bag Tag and the Alechcmi,:ed ('a1°t
systems are summarized in the table below.
• Visibility of cost
• Limits on volume
• Funding outside of tax bill
• Incentive to reduce
A
• Visibility of cost
• Limits on volume
• Funding outside of tax bill
• Incentive to reduce
• Increased collection efficiency
due to mechanization and
standardization of operations
• Reduction in cost due to injuries
• Increase in service reliability
• Better staff retention and ease of
hiring
• Cleaner neighbourhoods and
streets
• Storage capacity and better
control of rodents, birds and other
scavengers
• Greater by-law enforcement
effort necessary
• Residents or business can pile
up their garbage on someone
else's frontage for pickup
x.
A
• Increased tendency to overfill
resulting in higher
bags
,
potential for worker injuries
• Capital costs to initially purchase
carts (and convert collection
vehicles where a remote pick-up
arm is used)
A Bag Tag approach would continue to present many of the challenges that currently
exist in managing solid waste. As it is difficult to determine the source of bagged refuse,
8
t'ser Pav Option - Solid FT"rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 1067, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -AI & C, 2009-2-52 P , R i 18
some of the existing issues with illegal dumping or placement of garbage will continue.
Alternatively, a _A-lechw i, et1 C tint system could significantly reduce such occurrences:
ca Bagged refuse not in a cart will be clearly differentiated
ca Violators will not be readily able to mask their garbage because there will
be no piles of bagged refuse at curbside
ca It will be easier to isolate and identify illegally placed bags
The Bag Tag method would also do nothing to address some of the significant challenges
facing solid waste service delivery, including relatively high rates of (repetitive strain)
injuries and lost time, along with poor retention and attraction of personnel.
Current household practices see a variety of packages placed for collection - from small
plastic shopping bags to varying sizes and shapes of containers to loose and awkward
refuse. We expect that residents would come to embrace a standardized cart system. With
adequate public information, ongoing dialogue and carefully planned implementation,
citizens will see advantages - easier refuse handling and tidier neighbourhoods.
Neither system will stop violators who dump their garbage on back roads or in out of the
way places; this will remain an enforcement challenge regardless of the fee system.
Capital costs associated with a AlechcuiLed CC11-t system of collection include the cost of
the carts and the cost of modifications to improve fleet effectiveness. These are estimated
at $2,150,000 and $480,000 respectively. The latter, although initially optional, reflects
conversion to a remote pick-up "helping hand" arm on collection vehicles.
A _A-lechw i, et1 C tint user-pay system, supported by a solid implementation plan, an
ongoing dialogue in the community and clear diversion expectations, can achieve:
ca Lower overall tipping fees as a result of increased waste diversion
ca Reduced labour and maintenance costs due to more efficient collection
ca Reduced labour and overtime costs due to a reduction in lost-time injuries
ca More cost-effective enforcement of illegal placement of garbage
To help prepare for broad implementation across the city, we believe a pilot project for
two representative routes would be very useful; one of those in a priority neighbourhood.
It would help determine anticipated efficiency improvements, a likely distribution of cart
sizes, capital cost estimates and appropriate yearly charges.
A suitable pilot would also help the larger community, citizens, service providers and the
Council gain a better appreciation for the challenges associated with the new approach.
t'ser Pcxv Option - Solid 11'rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 10th, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -1I & C, 2009-2-52 P , R 19
POSSIBLE USER-PAY SERVICE MODEL
Eligible residential `customers' would be billed for the cost of their solid waste service -
probably through the water utility bill. The rate for a household would be dependent on
the capacity of the bin involved; something like the charges (estimates) noted below. In
addition, each household could be provided up to five `free' bag tags per year to be used
for occasional increases in waste volume (i.e. Christmas time or other holidays).
360 -4.5 $220
240 ; $180
120 1.j $1110
The fee structure would be designed to collect the frill cost of providing the residential
solid waste service, excluding litter and special activities. Currently, those costs would
amount to about $3.8 million distributed across 21,900 households. The costs of
purchasing and distributing the carts would have to be appropriately amortized through
the fee structure. There would be no separate charge for waste diversion services such as
the compost cart or blue bin recycling facilities operated by the FRSWC. Costs would be
recouped entirely through the charges for refuse containers.
A service model based on this approach would recognize and benefit those citizens with
good solid waste practices. With fair and equitable cost allocation, people who are
responsible about their garbage would not be subsidizing those who are not. Residents
would be able to see the cost of refuse collection and disposal, and would have a level of
control over those costs. Households setting out more waste would pay more, those
setting out less would pay less. Combined with a good communications plan and ongoing
community consultation, this approach could create a powerful incentive to reduce waste
and make better use of the green cart and recycling facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Common Council consider the merits of a user-pay funding
option for the residential solid waste service and, if it opts for such an approach, direct
that a detailed solid waste service strategy and implementation plan be prepared based on
the required dialogue with stakeholders and other considerations outlined herein.
Respectfully submitted,
J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA
Commissioner, Acting City Manager
Municipal Operations & Engineering
10
t'ser Pav Option - Solid 11'rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 1067, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -1I & C, 2009-2-52 , i 110
Appendix `A'
Municipalities Act - Solid Waste User Charges
The New Brunswick Municipalities Act authorizes municipalities to implement a system
of user-pay for solid waste services.
7.1(1) Without restricting the gelieraliti of paragraph 7(3) (c), a immicipaliti lriav
iii a by-lcnj, respecting garbage alId rcfiuse collectiol) alId disposal
(a) prescribe garbage algid refuse that irill be collected algid that irill riot be
collected,
(b) prohibit the disposal of certain garbage awl refuse,
(c) prescribe sorting awI packaging requirenierlts,
(d) prescribe the terms aml collectiolls of collectioll am/ c-111.1" restrictiolls oil
collectiol?, am/
(e) restrict garbage algid refuse collectiol) alId disposal to certain classes of real
proper't1'.
7.1(2) Notirithstaw1hig paragraph 7(3) (b), where a immieipaliti, regulates garbage
awl refuse collection awl disposal pursliarlt to a b~,-Icnv awl the hi,-law
iiicorporates the elemews set out iii paragraphs(1)(a) to (d), the lriullicipaliti" Inav
recover the cost of the service, or al?V portiol? thereof' oii a user-charge basis wider
this sectioii, ichich lriav be established oii alp aluortLed or alw other basis as the
immieipaliti,shall seem fit.
7.10 -).loner, recovered under subsection (2) shall be used oidy.for the purpose of
providing a garbage arld refuse collection awl disposal service, awl cm-1, surphis or
deficit reah°ed iii al?1' Vear from the inipositioii of user-charges for the service shall
be Ca17"led f0111'ard al?d credited to or debited from the currew. itmI for" that service
for" the secoml iieY t eiisitiiig Vear.
7.1(4) Where used hi this section, ..user-charge " includes
(a) a rate or charge calculated hi, nieasurhig the units of garbage awl refuse
being disposed cif bey a user of the service,
(b) a flat rate or charge iniposed oii oiie or more differ°elit classes of user°s of the
service, provided that the flat rate or charge is wi form irithiii each class, or
(c) al?v combiliatioii of the rates or charges described iii paragraphs (a) algid (b),
but does riot hichide
11
t'ser Pav Option - Solid FT"rite JIaruzgemerzt,S'erl'ice September 1067, 2009
Report to C,ommorz Council, -1I & C, 2009-2-52 , i 111
(d) a rate or charge calculated by reference to the value of the real properti" in
respect cif which the service is being supplied
7.1(5) A council may b1, b1-Irnv prescribe the terms and coylditioyls for pavnrerit of
user-charges established under this sectioli ill respect to
(a) collection al?d recover',
(b) discounts,
(c) prepavrnelit and instalment pavinent,
(d) impositioii of pewt/ties for nonhavnzent, and
(e) proceedings to be taken in default of pavnzent.
7.1(6) Where a municipalith provides a garbage acid refuse collection and disposal
service for which user-charges are imposed the municipaliti lmav by by-Jcn~(a) compel the owiier° of a building, the owiier° of a mobile home used as a
temporary, or permanent residence or the oiviier° of a trailer used as a temporary, or
permanent residence to use the service, or
(b) make a charge to the owner of the land oii which a building, mobile home or
trailer referred to in paragraph (a) is locateu' if the service is not used
7.1(7) M deternln?n?g the charge to be made ni subsectioi? (6), the immicipalitl'
shall make its assessment as near as possible to irhat the user-charge irould be if
the owiier° used the service.
7.1(y) A user-charge and cmv peiialti, levied under this section is a debt to the
municipaliti, and may be recovered b1, the municipaliti, in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
7.1(9) A mimicipaliti that makes a by-law respecting garbage and refuse collection
and disposal lmav, by by-Icm, and for such purposes, define al?v ivord or expression
used ni this Act but not defined ni this Act.
12
Solid 11 caste Alanagement Service
User PaY, Report to Common Council, Al & C 2009-252
Appendix `B'
Collection
Curbside
S-rvices
User
Household
Budget
Cost per
Tipping
Separate
Separate
2009
Municipality
Pay
City Contract
Units
(Millions
Household
Fees (per
System Type
Limits
Compost
Recycle
Projected
unit
tonne)
Tonnage
Moncton
No
Yes
22,000
$2.985M
$135.67
$54.10
Wet/Dry Bags
No
No
No
17,891
Fredericton
No
Yes
18,300
$2.215M
$116.44
$66.00
bags, cans
No
No
Yes
13,400
Edmunston
No
Yes
6,000
$1.585M
$264.17
$55.00
1 Cart only
1 cart
No
No
11,000
Miramichi
No
yes
7260 in
$1.203M
$165 (used
$64.00
bags, cans
5 bags
No
no
9,100
2006
7300)
$70 comp;
bags/compost
Halifax
No
Yes
135,000
$11.800M
$180
$115 garb.
carts, blue
6 bags
Yes
yes
114,710
bins
Toronto
Yes
Yes yes
1,030,000
$320.OM
$ 271
$38 - 48 &
cart system,
1 cart
Yes
yes
$94
some bags
approx
$193-296/
Own
bags/
No, only
Vancouver
yes
yes
single unit
landfill
recyclable
3 bags
yard waste
yes
bags
$215M?
$
x
Yes/
300,000
collection
base no
Calgary
yes
single/ up
and
$75
bags/blue box
limits
No
yes
210,000
No
to 4
$14.5M`
tipping +
$144-$576
disposal
59027 units
1 cart
PEI
Yes
yes
+8152
$12.225M
$195
$115 own
Cart
& 2
Yes
Yes
120,000
collection
landfill
small
cottages
cans
$90
$85 single;
residential
Ottawa yes Yes yes 365,000 $30.OM $38 per apt
$125
3 bags Starts Jan yes
unit
Comm;
2010
own
landfill
$50/tonne
$75
By
Saskatoon No Yes No 60,000 $4.5M Tipping
Comm;
Cart 1 Cart subscrip'n: No
fees excl.
own
$40/year
la
ndfill
September I (f, 2009
12
Comments
Looking at bag limits
Looking at cart system;
admin costs not included
Public had to buy cart@
$75.00 ea
Budget only collection
services not tipping fees,
education or admin
$209 basic fee + 62 for
diversion costs/year/unit
Cost recovery program
User pay for recyclables,
garbage disposal own
landfills
$195 on tax bill per unit
separate line item
Charge on tax bill;
330,000 week refuse/ week blue box
Jan starts 2 bag limit for
refuse
Moving towards a user-pay
system for solid waste pickup
13
i.
M & C 2009 - 329
October 15th, ')009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court llie C11, d F 1,ohfl
And Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: Preliminarv Estimates - Implementation of Curbside Recvclin2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to outline (order-of-magnitude) estimated costs for a
curbside recycling program to service approximately 21,900 households in Saint John.
BACKGROUND
The related goals of waste reduction and increased waste diversion are key aspects of this
community's drive towards sustainability, as reflected in the Sustainability Principles
adopted by Council for the City of Saint John.
Currently, in the Greater Saint John region, the recycling service is provided by the
Fundy Regional Solid Waste Commission (FRSWC) in partnership with area
municipalities. The service is based upon strategically located Blue Bin depots to which
citizens voluntarily bring their paper, cardboard, plastics and other recyclables. There are
13 such sites within the boundaries of the City of Saint John.
A 1998 waste diversion pilot project study' undertaken on behalf of the FRSWC
concluded that the following system should be adopted for the region:
ca Collection of selected recyclables with a Region-wide depot system, and
ca Collection of organics in aerated carts and landfill waste in bags on alternating
weeks.
The report also stated "this system would be irideh, accepted b1, residents aril collection
a»d processing operators as the most suitable. It allotrs for prilate sector iiii,olvemew
aml caii be applietl wi (fi)rmly across the ei?tire F1,mt1v Regioi?. Iii atk itioi?, this system
cal? attaill sat4kictor1' dlPersioii rates at reasol?able cost.
i1" rite Diversiorz Pilot Project, Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission, Acres & Associated, December
24t"1998, page 21
14
Pr°eliminan, Estimates Imhlemeeitatiori of ('nr bside Recycling October" I i'h, 2009
Report to (brrnnori (brmcil, -11 K C 2009 - 329 Page
The conclusions of that study (page 21) also projected the percentage of material from the
Region's residential stream that would be handled by each component of the proposed
system (based on a 1997 estimate): landfill disposal (refuse) 60%, organics (compost)
25%, and recycling 15%.
It has been projected that this community's residential solid waste stream will produce
the following tonnages in 2009:
ca Landfill Disposal 66% 11,5;0 tonnes
ca Organics 19% 3,220 tonnes
ca Recycling (Blue Bins) 15% 2,610 tonnes
Total 100% 17,360 tonnes
Many citizens have demonstrated the willingness to recycle and have the ability to
transport their recyclables to Blue Bin locations. On the other hand, many others have
asked about curbside collection of recyclable materials. There is the reality that some
people are unable to participate because they may not have the means to bring their
recyclables to the Blue Bin depot closest to their home.
Municipalities across Canada employ different approaches to recycling; in New
Brunswick, models differ from one jurisdiction to the next.
ANALYSIS
The FRSWC presently provides and maintains Blue Bin facilities, and collects, processes
and markets recycled product for resale. The value of this recycled product varies with
market conditions and can produce a level of revenue for the program. However, these
revenues are small in comparison to collection and processing costs. The recycling
program, as is generally the case, is subsidized by tipping fees for solid waste refuse.
Currently, FRSWC representatives indicated that amounts to $7.54 of the $108/tonne
refuse tipping fee. The subsidy for compost is $3.20.
The introduction of Curbside Recycling would eliminate the requirement for the FRSWC
to collect recyclables and maintain Blue Bin facilities in Saint John. In comparison to the
Blue Bin model, it is expected the curbside service would generate a somewhat higher
volume of recyclables. Cost recovery potential from this additional product, however,
would fall far short of the added cost of operating a Curbside Recycling model. Given the
unpredictability and limited value of potential revenues, we have not tried to build these
into the estimates. Benefits of higher volumes of diverted recyclable materials would be
lower refuse tipping costs (for added amounts) and reduced pressure on the landfill.
The FRSWC has very recently installed a material recovery facility (sorting conveyor,
with baler and warehousing) that can handle additional volumes of recyclables collected
at curbside. Corn-wated cardboard, however, would be collected as a separate stream.
15
Pr°elimirzan, Estimates Imhlemeeitatiuri ol*Cu bside Recycling October I i'h, 2009
Report to (brrzrrwri Coulicil, -1I K C 2009 - 329 Page 3
It is noteworthy that recyclables cannot be compacted to the same extent as refuse and
compost; hence, in recycling sanitation trucks would carry comparatively less tonnage.
Blue Cart Curbside Recvcling
The cost of a mechanized blue cart (closed top) collection system has been estimated;
consistent with the mechanized cart approach being contemplated for all solid waste
collection. The cart would be similar to the existing green compost containers and would
be collected in the same manner.
Estimates reflect collection of recyclables on a biweekly basis for all neighbourhoods,
using the existing combination of municipal and contracted collectors.
It is difficult to project the increased volume of waste diversion that Curbside Recycling
would bring about. For each additional 1,000 tonnes diverted from the refuse stream,
above the 2,610 tonnes currently recycled, tipping fee costs would be reduced by about
$80,000. The City is currently incurring no additional direct costs for the 2,610 tonnes of
recyclables expected to be delivered through the Blue Bin system in 2009.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The cost of implementing and operating a Curbside Recycling program would lie solely
with the municipality; the FRSWC has no plans to implement such a program on a
regional basis. While the FRSWC would realize cost savings in terms of no longer having
to maintain and collect from the Blue Bin depots located in the city, those would be
relatively small in comparison to the expense of providing Curbside Recycling.
Appendix "A" provides preliminary estimates for the implementation and operation of a
Curbside Recycling program for the City of Saint John's 21,900 residential households.
The annual operating cost of providing Curbside Recycling is estimated at various levels
of diversion of new recyclables attained from the current refuse stream (2009 tonnage). A
$28/tonne tipping fee for recyclables has been assumed; that amount could go lower.
Efficiencies could reduce the costs somewhat further. Significant changes in the waste
stream could also bring about some change in number of collection trucks required.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report.
Respectfully submitted,
J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng.
Commissioner,
Municipal Operations & Engineering
J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A.
Acting City Manager
16
Pr°elilnirial-v Estimates ImlVemeeitatiori o1Vu1-bs0e Recycling
Repot°t to ('olinn Sri ('oztrzcil, -1I K 2009 - 329
Octohel- I?t/' 2009
Page -l
Appendix "A" - Curbside Recycling Expense Estimates (Blue Cart System)
Capital Investment
Blue Carts $2,486,000 1 @ $100/cart, plus HST; $113.50 per household
Annual Operating Expenses
Labour $184,200 13 staff
Overtime 1 $20,820 1 11 statutory holidays and extended shifts
Equipment Lease 1 $199,400 1 3 packer units
Equipment Fuel 1 $60,000 1 3 packer units
Tipping Fee (Current Recyclables) 1 $73,080 1 2,610 tonnes @ $28.00 per tonne
Public Education $30,000 Public education and advertising
Contracted Routes Fee 1 $523,800 1 9,089 household units @ $57.63 per year
Insurance 1 $3,300 1 $982 + HST per packer unit
Administrative Support 1 $17,400 1 1/3 administrative staff salary
Cart Administration 1 $20,000 1 Maintenance, retrieval and administration
Total 1 $1,132,000
Operational Cost Reductions (Net Refuse Tonnage Diverted to Recycling)
Tipping Fee Reduction $80,000 Per 1,000 tonnes @ $80.00 per tonne*
* $108/tonne for refuse - $28/tonne for recyclables = $80/tonne difference
Net Annual Operating Costs (Order-of-magnitude)
At current level of diversion
I $1,132,000 12,610 tonnes recycled or - 15% of waste stream
At 1,000 more tonnes diverted
I $1,052,000 I $48.04 annually per household; - 21%
(possible)
At 2,000 more tonnes diverted
I $972,000 I $44.38 annually per household; - 27%
(aggressive)
At 2,610 more tonnes diverted
I $923,200 I $42.16 annually per household; - 30%
(optimistic)
At 3,000 more tonnes diverted
I $892,000 I $40.73 annually per household; - 32%
At 4,000 more tonnes diverted
I $812,000 I $37.08 annually per household; - 38%
17
Li a_i.1
October 30, 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council,
Subject: Committee of the Whole Closed Session
The Common Council meeting of November 2nd, 2009 contains the following items on the
agenda: 1.1 Legal Opinion 10.2(4)(f); 1.2 Property Matter 10.2(4)(c,g); 1.3 Land Matter
10.2(4)(c,d,f); 1.4 Employment Matter 10.2(4)(j); 1.5 Litigation 10.2(4)(g)
Section 10.2(4) of the Municipalities Act states: "If it is necessary at a meeting of council, or
committee of council, to discuss any of the following matters, the public may be excluded from
the meeting for the duration of the discussion":
(c) "information that could cause financial loss or gain to a person or the municipality or could
jeopardize negotiations leading to an agreement or contract"
(d) "the proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for a municipal purpose
(f) "information concerning legal opinions or advice provided to the municipality by a municipal
solicitor, or privileged communications as between solicitor and client in a matter of municipal
business".
(g) "litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality or any of its agencies, boards or
commissions, including a matter before an administrative tribunal"
(j) "labour and employment matters, including the negotiating of collective agreements".
inerely,
Jonathan Taylor
Assuslant, Common Clerk
f
,'CAI "rdT I~4N-1 P.O. Box 19171 S airil ~"c,hn, N8 Can na U4L1 G -,""Ww.:salint~oI'Yn,ca C R'. 19 111 Safta Jbhn, '.-8, C~ranada EA 4L:1:
18