1 / 22

City of Thunder Bay

City of Thunder Bay. Monday , February 3, 2014. Solid Waste Management Strategy – Draft for Discussion. Agenda. Recommended system – Phase 1 Recommended system – Phase 2 Financial considerations Waste diversion implications Administering the strategy Next steps .

brigid
Download Presentation

City of Thunder Bay

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. City of Thunder Bay Monday , February 3, 2014 Solid Waste Management Strategy – Draft for Discussion

  2. Agenda Recommended system – Phase 1 Recommended system – Phase 2 Financial considerations Waste diversion implications Administering the strategy Next steps

  3. Recommended System - Phase 1Enhanced Waste, Reuse, & Recycling Programs & New Recycling Infrastructure • Within the City’s mandate from a regulatory perspective • Includes those that are relatively easy to implement • Programs proposed are strongly supported by residents as indicated through the public consultation process

  4. Phase 1- Enhanced Waste, Reuse, & Recycling Program Highlights • Enhanced leaf & yard waste program • Bulky waste collection • Enhance recycling depots – including access to small commercial generators • Landfill ban on cardboard • Reuse centre and Take-it-Back programs • Additional Household Hazardous Waste collection events

  5. Phase 1- New Recycling Infrastructure • Surveys: • indicated residents have a strong desire for an expanded household recycling program • residents want to recycle more plastics (this option was selected by residents as the first preference the City should consider implementing) • A need for processing capacity to support the collection and processing of Additional Recyclable Materials • Options include: retrofit existing Material Recycling Facility (MRF) or construct a new regional MRF • Transfer option evaluated but not viable by comparison

  6. Phase 1- New Recycling Infrastructure • Focus Groups: • Single stream recycling was identified as the preferred system for multi-family stakeholders who have material handling, segregation and storage issues • Single-stream vs. continued dual–stream recycling: • Convenient - can result in additional material capture • Appropriate for automated cart collection • Greater efficiencies in collection • Accommodates co-collection • Greater participation in multi-residential and commercial sectors • Accommodates a regional recycling system

  7. Phase 1- Enhanced Waste Reuse & Recycling Programs • Clear Garbage Bag Program • Clear bags cost the same as conventional garbage bags and are less expensive than the cost of a bag tag • No limit to the number of bags that can be placed at the curb. This addresses issues raised during consultation with respect to young families (diapers etc.) and larger families who can generate higher volumes of garbage than average • Program is highly complementary to many other programs recommended to be implemented as part of this Solid Waste Management Strategy (SWMS) • Based on the Satisfaction Survey results, 67% supported some kind of enforcement program to provide incentives to reduce garbage set out at the curb. The remaining 33% wanted no reduction in limits from the status quo. The clear garbage bag program achieves both objectives.

  8. Phase 1- Enhanced Waste Reuse & Recycling Programs • Automated Garbage & Recycling Collection • Public support for collection of recyclables in containers • The benefits of a cart-based program outweigh a blue box collection program • Weekly collection of recyclables • Surveys indicate residents have a strong desire for recycling collected in containers or carts • 69% of residents favour either a cart or box for collection as opposed to the current blue bag program

  9. Recommended System - Phase 2Expanded Waste Reduction & Diversion Programs & Additional Infrastructure • Initiatives that raise the bar beyond currently mandated programs • Can be phased in over the lifetime of the SWMS • Require more rigorous planning and funding • Prepares the City for regulatory change

  10. Phase 2 – Expanded Waste Reduction & Diversion Program Highlights • AdditionalLandfill Bans • Differential tipping fees • Expanded multi-residential diversion programs • Construction & demolition waste diversion for IC&I sector • Green Park – entrepreneurial opportunities at landfill

  11. Phase 2 – Additional Infrastructure • Consideration for processing capacity to support a Source Separated Organic (SSO) Waste collection program • Implementation of this program requires investment in collection containers, promotion & education, and processing infrastructure • Takes programming to estimated 68% waste diversion

  12. Financial Considerations • Waste and recycling programs are currently funded by landfill tipping fees, Provincial funding & tax base funding • Implementation of the SWMS will require additional funding: • Tipping fee revenue will decrease with increased waste diversion • Additional capital and operating costs • System Financing Options: • Flat rate per household to support Phase 1 & 2 programs (possible utility based option) • Tax based

  13. Summary of Larger System Cost Impacts New Municipal Regional MRF – Single Stream Capital - $9,388,000; Operating - $2,300,000 annually Retro-fit Existing MRF – Single Stream Capital - $5,000,000; Operating - $1,858,000 annually Transtor System Capital - $2,548,000; Operating - $2,749,000 annually Komar System Capital - $3,238,000; Operating – $2,577,860 annually

  14. Summary of Larger System Cost Impacts Automated Cart Program Carts Garbage ~ $234,000 annually (amortized over 10 years) Recycling ~ $212,500 annually (amortized over 10 years) Collection Garbage ~ ($575,000) annually Recycling ~$1,573,600 annually Revenue Recycling ~ $1,160,000 annually SSO Collection Carts ~ $130,000 annually (amortized over 10 years) Collection ~ $1,640,000 annually Composting Operations ~$1,280,000 annually Processing Facility - $2.5 million capital (~ $300,000 amortized over 15 yrs) Would result in decreased garbage collection costs with move to bi-weekly garbage collection ~ $902,800 annually

  15. Utility Based Model (garbage collection & waste diversion programs only)Equivalent Flat Rate Base Program Costs (2014 draft budget): Recycling Programs = $1,523,600 Garbage Collection = $3,222,800 Recycling Capital = $60,000 Total Programs = $4,806,400 Total Single Family Households = 34,765 Cost per household per year = $138 Equivalent Flat Rate Charge per Single Family Dwellings: $12 per month

  16. Utility Based Model (garbage collection & waste diversion programs only)Equivalent Flat Rate Base Program Costs (2014 draft budget): Single Family Dwellings: $12 per month Addition of Phase 1 programs: Single Family Dwelling: increase $4-10/month Flat fee $16-22/month Addition of Phase 2 programs: Single Family Dwellings: increase $4-22/month Flat fee $16-34/month

  17. Programming Impacts on Residential Diversion

  18. Phase 1 Implementation Schedule

  19. Phase 2 Implementation Schedule

  20. Administering the Strategy

  21. Administering the Strategy Complete waste audits – 2014 as first benchmark Report progress on a regular basis Stakeholder engagement SWMS review and update Proper monitoring & measuring serves a number of functions, including the ability to: • Adhere to currently accepted best practices; • Identify issues with the system & effectively mitigate these issues; • Adjust implementation schedules if necessary; • Secure highest degree of external funding; and, • Identify opportunities for cost savings & increased effectiveness of the system.

  22. Next Steps • City • Engineering assessment of existing MRF • Issue Expression of Interest for processing & collection • Discussion with Waste Diversion Ontario & Continuous Improvement Fund regarding program funding • Stantec • Incorporate comments/feedback from Council, any additional public feedback into final SWMS document for presentation to Council in April 2014

More Related