Agenda Item No.: G.1.c. – Attachment 3
Responses to Councillors’ Questions Regarding Financing Waste Management.
Background Information Attached
1. Responses to Councillor’s questions.
Recommendation:
That the following report be received for
information.
Report Summary

This report provides responses to
Councillors’questions submitted after
the Non-Statutory Public Hearing on
paying for Waste Services.
Previous Council/Committee Action



At their March 14 meeting, the
Transportation and Public Works
Committee approved a report titled
“Procedures for the March 22nd, 2000
Special Transportation and Public Works
Committee’s Non-Statutory Public
Hearing on Paying for Waste Services”.
This report gave the following direction:
“(e) Councillors then will have the
opportunity to submit written questions
to the Administration through the Office
of the City Clerk by Noon on Thursday,
March 30th, 2000. These questions will
appendix to the minutes of the March
22nd, 2000 Special Transportation and
Public Works Committee minutes.”
“(f) That the Administration to bring
back a report, at the same time that it
brings its report on Paying for Waste
Services, which responds to the
questions raised by Councillors.”
Report

Responses to Councillors’ questions are
contained in Attachment 1.
Routing:
Delegation:
Written By:
April 13, 2000
File:2000PWW044
Transportation and Public Works Committee
W. D. Burn
Roy Neehall
Asset Management and Public Works
(Page 1 of 1)
Attachment 1
Responses
Councillor B. Anderson:
1.
Could the Administration please provide some analysis of the benefits the
business community receives in the area of waste management (business need
landfills), in relation to:
a)
Availability of landfills and the cost of replacing them.
b)
Proximity of landfills.
i) Short-term – lower fees
ii) Long haul – higher fees
c)
Citizens are paying heavily for the MRF and co-composter which extends
the life of landfills of which businesses are the heaviest users (these
landfills will eventually need to be replaced)
Response:
Businesses are currently enjoying relatively low cost for landfill disposal due to the
availability of ample space in local landfills. When new landfills ultimately have to be
built, the Administration estimates the total siting and development cost for a site in or
near the City at $20 to $40 million depending on costs of land acquisition and legal
challenges. This high cost would be reflected in the fees charged. Similarly, a modern
landfill would require relatively higher operating costs to maintain the infrastructure and
systems involved. It is unlikely that a new landfill will be sited as close as either the
Clover Bar or West Edmonton Landfills. Thus, hauling cost will be an additional factor
in future waste management costs to businesses.
As a result of the City’s efforts in recycling and composting, over the 25 year period
from 1988 (start of Blue Box) to 2013 (approximate date both Edmonton landfills will
now be filled), approximately 2.5 million tonnes of waste would be diverted from
Edmonton landfills. Over the same period, about 10 million tonnes of waste would likely
be landfilled in the two Edmonton landfills. Thus, almost 20% of the potential waste to
landfill would be diverted over this period. At today’s landfill placement rate of about
400,000 tonnes per year, the amount diverted is equivalent to over six years placement.
If this waste were not diverted, Edmonton’s landfill capacity would now be within only a
few years of depletion. In this environment, the price of the remaining landfill space
would be rising. Large volume haulers of commercial waste are likely paying between
$20 and $30 per tonne for disposal at private sites (the price at the Clover Bar Landfill is
$40, but little commercial waste goes there). If the price rose by just $20 per tonne in
the environment of diminishing landfill capacity, the 160,000 tonnes per year currently
landfilled would cost the business sector an additional $3.2 million per year.
Attachment 1 - Page 1 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
Councillor L. Langley:
1.
If the tag-a-bag option was chosen, can you estimate what it might cost to
Administer?
Response:
Total City-wide net impacts are expected to be about $0.9 million. Of this amount,
about $0.5 million in additional resources would be required by the Waste Management
Branch, adding just over 1% to the Branch budget. This reflects the net increase after
adjustments in collection costs due to volume reductions and the elimination of the
current charges for utility billing services. It includes the addition of waste inspectors to
deal with customer problems and concerns, the cost of producing, distributing and
paying vendor commission for tags, public education, general administration and an
enhanced litter basket collection program (as litter baskets would become a preferred
dumping location for some). The balance, approximately $0.4 million, is allowance for
modest increases in areas such as Bylaw Services to add officers to deal with
litter/dumping violations, Community Services requiring additional resources in the area
of parks clean-up and Transportation in the area of road way clean-up.
What are St. Albert’s costs?
Response:
The 2000 Waste Utility Budget & Pay as You Throw Bylaw was presented to St. Albert’s
City Council on March 20, 2000. The report quoted the following:

Actual 1999
Budgeted 2000
Customer Billing
Administration
TOTAL
% of total budget
$64,000
$101,100
$120,000
$112,400
$184,000
12.6%
$213,500
14.2%
At the time of preparing this answer, Administration had not obtained information on any
allowance included in these numbers or elsewhere for dealing with litter and illegal
dumping.
2.
If tag option is not chosen, how do we accommodate those who:
a)
Have one bag/can per month?
Attachment 1 - Page 2 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
b)
c)
d)
Leave the City for an extended period of time? (Six months in Phoenix for
example)
Compost to the extent that there is no garbage pick-up required?
What is fair and equitable?
Response:
a)
Special accommodation is not recommended. Many costs are fixed and the
actual cost of providing the service to low volume generators is not greatly
different than for high volume ones.
b)
No special provision planned. Under the status quo, any home that has its water
service disconnected for a period of time would also not be charged the waste
monthly fee for that period. If the water connection is not terminated, EPCOR’s
fixed monthly base fee for water must be paid as well as the waste fee. In
addition, the cost to affect the change in the billing program to accommodate
stopping and starting of waste service could result in service fees in excess of
the total monthly user fees avoided.
c)
No special accommodation planned. Comments under b) above are relevant.
Administration is not aware of any active household achieving this on an
extended ongoing basis.
d)
What is fair and equitable is a complex question. It depends on one’s
perspective and many factors have to be considered. As discussed in the three
reports currently being considered, there are arguments for sharing of the cost of
community services via tax levy assessment; there are arguments for PAYT;
there are arguments for the other options. How the various factors are weighted
by the individual will determine how that individual perceives their relative
“fairness”.
3.
If non-residential properties paid nothing towards City garbage collection would
$10 per suite per year and/or $30 per average house per year on the property tax
bill cover the associated costs now collected through taxes and monthly fees?
Response:
Yes. An increase to the property tax bill for the multifamily and single family residential sector in
the range of $10 per suite per year and $30 per average house per year respectively, would fund
the amount now contributed by the non-residential sector.
The increases noted above were included in the Chamber of Commerce’s presentation
to the Transportation and Public Works Committee as the increases to the residential
sector required between the Status Quo and Flat Fee Options to offset the elimination of
property tax recovery from the business sector. The increases represented the impact
on typical customers included in the information brochure. The change would be
Attachment 1 - Page 3 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
realized by removing all property tax funding of waste management and replacing it with
a $14.00 monthly flat fee ($6.00 increase to current fee) to single family and a $7.50
monthly flat fee ($2.00 increase) for each multifamily unit.
Councillor D. Thiele:
1.
What about a process of evolving to a volume sensitive operation? Volumes at
each household when new vehicles come on stream could then be set up this
way.
Response:
The Administration assumed that this question refers to a gradual implementation of an
automated, weight-based collection system. This type of system requires that
homeowners be given carts and vehicles be equipped with weighing devices. The
largest capital cost is that of the bins themselves, estimated at $12 to $14 million for all
City homes. The Administration continually monitors developments in the industry with
regard to weighing devices but to date, none have been found to be reliable and
compatible with our operating environment.
2.
Some people have the impression that the City should pay them for providing
recyclables. Please provide a cost breakdown of recyclables and compost (cost
to City and revenue).
Response:
The City does not make money on either program. Operating costs far outweigh
revenue. In any case, any revenue to the City goes towards reducing the amounts that
must be financed through taxes and user fees benefiting all citizens. The following
figures are per tonne of material:
Processing Fee
Cost of residue disposal
Total Cost to City
Revenue
Net cost to City
Composting
Recycling
$62
$10
$72
$96
$10
$106
$0
$50
$72
$66
Attachment 1 - Page 4 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
The current Waste Management Branch budget anticipates no net revenue from sale of
compost, after costs of marketing and haul. When net revenue is realized, it would
reduce the overall net cost of composting and be reflected in lower costs to all citizens.
The figure of $50 per tonne is an average for all materials recycled through the MRF
and reflects the City’s 75% share of revenue. Market values do fluctuate and, at times
in the past year, some of the paper products have been priced high enough to reach
about the break even point – i.e. revenue to the City of just over $100 per tonne.
Certain materials like plastic milk jugs are currently quite high value, reaching over $400
per tonne. However, these higher value materials help “pay the way” for the handling of
the lower value ones.
3.
Could a seasonal grace period apply for large volumes of waste (leaves, spring
clean-up) if a volume sensitive system was applied?
Response:
The survey of 13 North American communities attached to the companion Report
entitled Volume-Sensitive Waste Collection revealed that amnesty periods were often
implemented after a Pay-As-You-Throw program (PAYT) was introduced, if it were not
part of the original program. The Administration evaluated the options involving tags
with three-week amnesty periods in both spring and fall. As the purpose of these
amnesty periods is to allow homeowners to dispose of seasonal yard and garden
wastes, leaves from public boulevard trees etc. the additional material set out for
collection without tags during this time would be required to be tied and bundled or
placed in clear bags. By doing so, collection staff can easily identify the material as
yard and garden wastes.
4.
What would it take to have businesses recycle and become a part of Edmonton’s
waste stream as well?
Response:
Historically, the City has relied on the private sector waste contractors to provide waste
collection and recycling services to businesses. If the City were to enter the business, it
would be as a competitor to the private sector haulers, and service fees would likely be
structured similarly to the way businesses now pay contractors for service. However,
Edmonton businesses do recycle even without direct City service.
Edmonton businesses can use the community recycling depots located throughout the
city. Small and medium sized businesses can deliver their recyclables to the depots but
large generators of recyclables are encouraged to go directly to market. It is also in the
large generators’ best interest to receive the financial benefit from selling this material
directly to local brokers. Most large generators of recyclable materials with value (paper,
Attachment 1 - Page 5 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
cardboard, metals) already have recycling contracts in place. Savings to the business
sector come in the form of decreased servicing of waste bins and revenue received
from the sale of recyclables.
Once the Compost Facility is completely commissioned, there may be opportunity to
make it available to businesses generating high organic waste streams. This prospect
is being monitored by the Administration.
Councillor A. Bolstad:
1.
I would like to see clarified, as best as possible, the cost increases the
Administration envisions we will experience in the provision of waste
management services over the next few years and the impact this will have on
whatever rate scheme is adopted by City Council.
Response:
The cost increases in providing waste management services over the next few years
result from full operation of the EWMC facilities, growth in the service area, and
inflationary increases. This is expected to result in increased expenditures of
approximately $1 million per year.
The single family user fee requirements under the Status Quo Option have been
estimated at $8.00, $9.00 and $10.00 respectively over the next three years (2001 –
2003). The exact user fee requirements will be confirmed through the Long Range
Financial Plan and 2001 operating budget exercises. The user fee calculations have
assumed an increase in tax levy funding in the range of 2% – 2.5% over the next three
years.
The Flat Fee Option results in user fees for single family at $14.00, $16.04 and $17.52
for the next three years (2001 – 2003). The corresponding multifamily rates are $7.51,
$8.75 and $9.76 respectively.
2.
With respect to the tag-a-bag option, I would like the potential waste reduction
(as estimated) translated into cost savings, so we can get a feel for the amount of
money taxpayers might save if we adopted this method of billing for waste
collection.
Attachment 1 - Page 6 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
Response:
Please refer to companion Report entitled Volume-Sensitive Waste Collection. It
provides estimates of the various cost impacts of going to the tag system, both positive
and negative. As the figures show, the Administration projects a net increase in cost.
3.
Does it cost city taxpayers anything to run the Clover Bar landfill, or do we cover
all costs through tipping charges at the gate? Furthermore, is there any money
left after operational expenses to finance reclamation of this site and the
development of a new landfill?
Response:
There is a net cost above tipping fees of approximately $1 million in recent years.
Under the status quo, this difference is financed through the monthly fees paid by
residents. Thus, tip fees are not available to finance final reclamation on closure of the
landfill and development of a new landfill. Administration is currently budgeting a
contribution of $1 million towards a Post Closure Reserve Fund to finance final
reclamation and closure costs, some of which will be incurred after the site is no longer
in use. It is intended to continue this contribution each year until the site closes. There
is no similar reserve funding for development of a new site. This will be funded as a
capital project.
Councillor R. Rosenberger:
1.
If the City were to go to tag-a-bag, does that mean that citizens would have to
purchase plastic garbage bags (on top of the blue bags), or would they be able to
use their existing metal trashcans? A particular senior has always put yard
waste out in cardboard boxes that her son brings her (for free). She does not feel
she could afford to buy blue bags as well as other trash bags. Could trash be set
out in boxes, and would those boxes have to be of a certain size?
Response:
If the tag option were approved by Council, the details would need to be evaluated to
come up with a fair and practical program. Other jurisdictions with some type of tag
system, (such as St. Albert) allow bags or cans. If Edmonton were to adopt this option,
it would most likely allow residents to continue using both bags and cans.
Garbage set out in boxes is generally not considered appropriate. They are awkward for
collectors to pick up and they can break if wet or frozen to the ground. However, our
collectors generally will pick up boxes, if they can do so safely without the boxes falling
apart. In a tag-based system, an additional difficulty would be in determining what box
Attachment 1 - Page 7 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
size is equivalent to one bag or can. We have not yet arrived at the point of fixing
criteria for containers if a tag system were implemented.
The resident's questions point to the fact that there are many potential issues involved
in the implementation of any tag system. All of these issues, including whether residents
could use boxes, would need to be assessed carefully if Council chose to explore this
option further.
Councillor M. Phair:
1.
Is recyclable material mingled with garbage separated by the co-composter and
then diverted to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) or is it sent to the landfill?
Response:
Currently, ferrous metal is the only material separated and marketed from the
Composter residual waste stream. In future, as the plant is fully commissioned and
reaches a steady state, there may be opportunities to use other material from the
residual stream, primarily plastic. However, the residual stream is not suitable for
processing at the MRF and will not be processed there.
2.
Are other cities able to accommodate multifamily recycling programs? (eg.
Seattle) If so, how and what impact would this have on fees and costs?
Response:
Yes, with varying success. Seattle is one of the successful examples in North America.
In Edmonton, approximately 115,000 households are considered multifamily in terms of
waste management services, meaning they are billed on their utility bills at the
multifamily rate. Waste from approximately 90,000 multifamily residential units is
collected from bins supplied and serviced by the contractors administered by the City.
The remaining 25,000 multifamily units are collected manually by either City or contract
forces from the individual residence’s set-out points or from joint use can stands or
sheds.
At present, only about 10,000 multifamily units with individual set-out receive direct Blue
Bag collection. The remainder have access to recycling service by way of the
neighbourhood recycling depots. At present there are 21 active recycling depot sites
(including the EcoStations and the Edmonton Waste Management Centre). The
amount of depot material collected in 1998 totalled 3600 tonnes. A preliminary survey of
Attachment 1 - Page 8 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
multifamily residents in 1999 revealed that: less than 40% actually use the depots; 72%
said that if a curbside program were available to them, they would use it; and over half
said that they would be willing to pay up to $2.00 per month more to have access to
curbside recycling.
Many communities have made efforts to deliver curbside recycling to multifamily
residents with mixed success. This is difficult with traditional Blue Box type curbside
sorted systems, as Edmonton had until 1999. Difficulties include the required space for
bins for each material, having residents sort correctly, and required multiple collection
visits for each material. The new MRF now allows the materials to be collected
commingled in one container. This greatly simplifies the process.
It may be viable to decrease the number of operating recycling depots by 60% and
implement a modified curbside recycling service for the multifamily sector. The savings
in reducing the number of depots can be applied towards delivering some type of
multifamily curbside program. Such a service could increase total recycled volumes in
Edmonton from about 30,000 tonnes to 40,000 tonnes annually. Administration
estimates that the service could be provided with an increase in the Branch budget of
about $2 million, which includes collection and processing at the MRF, net of revenue.
Based on 115,000 households, this equates to approximately $1.50 per unit per month.
In keeping with feedback received from the multifamily sector in 1999, the
Administration will complete a detailed review of the service scenario described above,
including a more detailed survey of multifamily residents and building owners and
managers, and report to the Transportation and Public Works Committee.
3.
Is commercial sewage (sludge) going to be processed by the co-composter?
Response:
Yes. Sludge produced from commercial as well as residential wastewater will be
processed with municipal solid waste to produce compost. Both residential and
commercial customers pay for drainage services on their monthly utility bills. The
Drainage Branch pays TransAlta a processing fee for accepting sludge at the
Composter. There is no extra fee specific to commercial customers for composting the
sludge produced from their wastewater.
4.
Do other cities that have a tag-a-bag system have “amnesty” weeks during spring
clean-up or fall leaf collection to account for ‘garbage’ that no one has clear
responsibility for?
Attachment 1 - Page 9 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
Response:
The survey of 13 North American communities attached to the companion Report
entitled Volume-Sensitive Waste Collection revealed that Amnesty periods were almost
always implemented after a Pay-As–You-Throw program (PAYT) was introduced if it
were not part of the original program. The Administration modelled the Tag Option with
three-week amnesty periods in both spring and fall. As the purpose of these amnesty
periods is to allow homeowners to dispose of seasonal yard and garden wastes, leaves
from public boulevard trees etc. the additional material set-out for collection without tags
during this time would be required to be tied and bundled or placed in clear bags. By
doing so, collection staff can easily identify the material as yard and garden wastes.
5.
Under the tag-a-bag option have other cities offered subsidies or coupons for the
elderly low-income residents?
Response:
Yes, some do. The City of Seattle indicates that they offer a 50% discount to low
income residents. Some others offer similar reductions. Generally, residents must
qualify under the same criteria used for other social assistance or seniors program. If
the tag option were selected, the Administration could report back on subsidy options if
Council so directs.
6.
Some citizens have suggested that under a tag-a-bag system, people will throw
their bags in ravines or put them with the garbage of neighbours. How much of
an issue has this been with cities that use tag-a-bag? Is it a long-term issue?
Response:
Illegal dumping is a problem of varying degree to each city. Some report little problem
and others significant problems. However, based on our surveys and on literature
review, it appears that litter and illegal dumping is often a significant problem when the
program is introduced, but diminishes with time. The time varies and the problem is
generally manageable with some measure of committed additional resources.
Use of commercial and apartment bins is an ongoing issue and in many PAYT
communities the bins must be locked or somehow secured to resolve the problem.
Attachment 1 - Page 10 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
Councillor J. Taylor:
1.
What information does the Waste Management Branch (WMB) have about the
recycling activities of the Commercial Sector?
Response:
In the early 1990’s, the Mayor’s Task Force on Commercial Waste Reduction was
formed. One major recommendation of this Task Force was to assist businesses in
reducing and recycling waste by developing a waste audit service. The Commercial
Waste Reduction Program (CWRP) was established by the City to provide businesses
with a no fee consultation service to meet this need. As part of this program, a survey
was conducted in 1995 and 48% of the 662 respondents indicated that they recycled
paper products. In 1996, the CWRP was disbanded on the recommendation of the
Mayor’s Task Force. The Mayor’s Task Force concluded that the private sector was
now providing adequate recycling services to businesses and there was no need for
further City involvement. The 1995 survey is the most current quantified information on
recycling activity in the business sector. The Administration is aware that there is
ongoing recycling and waste minimization effort in the commercial sector.
Understandably, for most it is a greater priority when it results in cost savings.
2.
What are the exact figures the WMB has for the total volume of waste produced
in the City each year and how much is commercial and how much is residential?
Response:
The following summary of 1999 is accurate in respect to commercial/industrial/MF
waste to within 10%:
Edmonton’s SF Residential Waste to Edmonton Landfills
Edmonton’s MF Residential Waste to Edmonton Landfills (est’d.)
Edmonton Area SF Residential Waste to Edmonton Landfills
Residential Self Haul to Edmonton Landfills (City and area)
Residential (SF and MF via depots) to Recycling
Commercial/Industrial to Edmonton Landfills
Total
3.
155,000 tonnes
40,000 tonnes
20,000 tonnes
50,000 tonnes
30,000 tonnes
160,000 tonnes
455,000 tonnes
Can the WMB quantify the benefit it has indicated is received by the commercial
sector resulting from the life of the west end landfill being extended by the
composting and recycling of residential waste?
Attachment 1 - Page 11 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
Response:
No. It is difficult to quantify this with any certainty. However, to give some feel for the
value, consider the following. First, as background, at the time Edmonton solicited
proposals for long-term waste management in 1994, proposals for landfill capacity in the
Edmonton area started at about $30 per tonne (1994 dollars). This was based on the
City committing to a long-term large volume contract. Generally, this would be the
“preferred” rate. Others would pay more.
As a result of the City’s efforts in recycling and composting, over the 25 year period
from 1988 (start of Blue Box) to 2013 (approximate date both Edmonton landfills will
now be filled), approximately 2.5 million tonnes of waste would be diverted from
Edmonton landfills. Over the same period, about 10 million tonnes of waste would be
landfilled in the two Edmonton landfills. Thus, almost 20% of the potential waste to
landfill would be diverted over this period. At today’s landfill placement rate of about
400,000 tonnes per year, the amount diverted is equivalent to over six years placement.
If this waste were not diverted, Edmonton’s landfill capacity would now be within only a
few years of depletion. In this environment, the price of the remaining landfill space
would be rising. Large volume haulers of commercial waste are likely paying between
$20 and $30 per tonne for disposal at private sites (the price at the Clover Bar Landfill is
$40, but little commercial waste goes there). If the price rose by just $20 per tonne in
the environment of diminishing landfill capacity, the 160,000 tonnes per year currently
landfilled would cost the business sector an additional $3.2 million per year.
The diversion of waste by the residential sector does impact the rate of filling of the
private landfills in the area. There is a relatively constant waste generation rate in the
Edmonton area. By diverting a significant percentage of that waste, the life of landfills
must be extended.
Councillor W. Kinsella:
1.
Can year round weekly waste collection be re-introduced and what are the
budget impacts of doing so?
Response:
In 1994, the City of Edmonton changed the frequency of residential curbside collection
to bi-weekly in winter, with summer collection remaining weekly. The change in
collection frequency resulted in a total of 42 collection dates per year. Under the current
system, collection days fall back whenever there is a statutory holiday not worked by
collectors. Residents are informed of their collection dates through the annual
distribution of collection calendars.
Attachment 1 - Page 12 of 13
Attachment 1
Responses
Some residents find bi-weekly collection inconvenient. The Administration estimates
that savings from bi-weekly collection over year-round weekly collection are now in the
range of $300,000 to $400,000 per year. This would be the budget increase required if
bi-weekly was phased out.
The Administration has examined operating on a six-business day cycle, with residents’
collection day falling back one day each week. This results in collection on an “almost
weekly” basis year round. The Administration projects that such a system could be
operated with no Branch budget impact. It results in the same 42 collections per year
as the current system, but with the pattern remaining constant year-round, and with no
periods between collection greater than 12 days (the Christmas/Boxing day week) and
the norm being eight days. Residents are now used to the shifting collection dates due
to the existing system of falling back after Statutory holidays.
The Administration plans to complete the study of this change, solicit public input and
report to the Transportation and Public Works Committee. If this change is approved,
implementation would be May of 2001, after the current collection calendar expires and
to allow changes to collection contracts.
Attachment 1 - Page 13 of 13