Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-09 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf District of Maple Ridge 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES –June 18, 2012 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 3.1 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 BC SPCA Presentation – Spay/Neuter Program Presentation by Craig Daniell, Chief Executive Officer and Geoff Urton, Animal Welfare Manager, B.C. SPCA 4.2 Commercial and Industrial Strategy Review Presentation by G.P. Rollo and Associates COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA July 9, 2012 9:00 a.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. REMINDERS July 9, 2012 Closed Council following Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m. Council Workshop July 9, 2012 Page 2 of 4 4.3 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Presentation Verbal report by the Fire Chief, Director of Operations 4.4 Vacant Buildings Update Verbal report by the Fire Chief, Director of Safety 4.5 Consultant Review of Service Delivery Options for Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Staff report dated July 9, 2012 recommending that the 2012 Financial Plan be amended to include funding for consultant services. 4.6 Changes to the Fisheries Act Discussion of a resolution proposed by Councillor Ashlie to establish a panel to provide feedback on changes to the Federal Fisheries Act 4.7 Transportation Resolution Discussion of a resolution proposed by Councillor Ashlie to include within the transportation plan exploration of one-way street viability within the District to maximize “streets as space” concepts 5. CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include: a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be taken. b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter. c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion. d) Other. Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent. Council Workshop July 9, 2012 Page 3 of 4 5.1 Municipal Insurance Association of B.C. (“MIABC”) Board of Directors E-mail dated June 18, 2012 from Tom Barnes, Chief Executive Director and General Counsel, MIABC requesting consideration of a representative from the District of Maple Ridge to be nominated to the MIABC Board of Directors. Recommendation: Nomination of the General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services 5.2 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) Update: Government of Canada LTIP Roundtables E-mail dated June 28, 2012 from Brock Carlton, Chief Executive Officer, FCM providing clarification on the Government of Canada LTIP Roundtables and encouraging endorsement of FCM’s Target 2014 campaign. 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked by: ___________ Date: _________________ Council Workshop July 9, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; (b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; (c) labour relations or employee negotiations; (d) the security of property of the municipality; (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; (f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment; (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; (h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council (i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; (j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ; (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; (l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report] (m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting; (n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of subsection (2) (o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings) should be exercised in relation to a council meeting. (p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations , where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential. District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: E06-017-005 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Consultant Review of Service Delivery Options for Solid Waste and Recycling Collection EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Lower Mainland’s individual member municipalities solid waste and recycling efforts are governed by the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) developed by Metro Vancouver and currently in draft pending approval by the Province. Maple Ridge residents currently have access to residential garbage collection that is not administered by the District. Residents have a number of user pay choices while recycling services in the District are provided by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society. On April 30, 2012 a report on the current solid waste and recycling collection model with in the District along with possible alternative service delivery options was brought to Council Workshop, a copy of which is attached. The report noted that private haulers are responsible for dealing with the ban of organics. Motion R/2012-191 was passed that states: That staff retain the services of a consultant to review options with respect to the collection of organics and other related items in the waste stream; and that the fees for the services of a consultant be financed from surplus. In passing the above resolution it was understood that the scope of work as well as the cost of the review would be provided to Council for consideration prior to any consulting company being retained. This however was not recorded in the resolution so consequently at the following Council Workshop on May 14, 2012 a further motion was passed (Motion R/2012-215): That the Council Matrix be amended to include a staff report in the month of June, 2012 on the scope and cost of a consultant to review options with respect to the collection of organics and other related items in the waste stream. In addition, at the May 14, 2012 Council Workshop reference was made to an upcoming report at Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Committee – that report has since been presented at the June 2012 Zero Waste Committee and is attached in Appendix Two. This report outlines the scope of work that would form part of the project Terms of Reference developed to guide a consultant to be retained through a Request for Proposal process. The estimated cost of the consultant review is in the order of $70,000 to $85,000. With the information provided in this report staff is seeking direction on whether or not to proceed with the selection and retention of a suitably qualified consulting company. To proceed with this work an amendment to the 2012 Financial Plan will be required. RECOMMENDATION: That the 2012 Financial Plan be amended to include $85,000 for consultant services to review the service delivery options for solid waste and recycling collection. 4.5 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) developed by Metro Vancouver outlines, amongst other matters the stated goal to increase regional waste diversion from the current 55% to 70% by 2015 through a full organics ban by 2015. A detailed report was prepared for the April 30, 2012 Council Workshop and is appended to this report – Appendix One. The District is considering how best to facilitate the collection of organic waste to achieve the mandated diversion rate as well as evaluate other solid waste service delivery methods that could be considered for the overall solid waste collection. In the District of Maple Ridge the majority of residential garbage collection is undertaken by private haulers in contracts with individual households. Recycling services in the District are provided by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society. The Provincial EPR stewardship model for packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) currently under development could have a significant impact on the management of solid waste but the program is still under development at this time. The June 14, 2012 meeting of the Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee included a report on the implementation of several Zero Waste Challenge initiatives including the organic disposal ban and a copy of the report is appended for reference. Terms of Reference for Consultant Review of Solid Waste Options The scope of work that will formulate the Terms of Reference has been developed to guide the review of the options for organic collection and other related items in the solid waste stream. Whilst the consultant will be encouraged to identify additional areas of investigation the central tasks that would form the basis for the evaluation are as follows:  Collection of information and data associated with the current residential collection system within the District as well as the other 21 municipalities within Metro Vancouver.  Identification of current single and multi-family program and technology best practices, complete with costs, for municipal curbside residential solid waste, recyclables and organics collection systems with a focus on municipalities relevant to the context of the District.  Identification of potential issues and concerns associated with initiating changes to existing residential recyclable fibre material management practices within the District prior to the finalization of MMBC’s PPP stewardship plan noting the impact of other potential external factors that could impact decision-making.  Facilitation of a stakeholder forum(s) focused on the topic of residential curbside collection services within the Municipality. The objective would be to review the current system and to gather opinions on potential modifications and alternative delivery models from a representative group of stakeholders.  Projection of the District’s future residential waste stream (quality and quantity), based on available population and per capita waste generation data.  Development of three to five residential curbside collection scenarios over the planning period. Identify resource requirements and financial commitments for each option for each scenario. Compare against a projection of the ongoing use of the current collection system within the District. A range of cost presentations are to be provided for each scenario.  Review the feasibility of developing local area organic processing facilities and the impact of having to dispose of organics outside of the local area.  Public consultation on proposed scenarios.  Identification of a more rigorous methodology to track future customer satisfaction with collection services within the District, ideally to allow for comparison with results from other Metro Vancouver jurisdictions currently conducting similar surveys.  Preparation of a Draft Report, presenting project methodologies, findings, recommendations and supporting information appendices; presentation to Council; revisions as necessary and finalization of report. b) Desired Outcome: The over-arching goal is to provide an efficient and cost-effective solid waste and recycling collection system for the residents of the District that meets the diversion goals established within the approved ISWRMP. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: A change to the current solid waste service delivery model will likely reduce the flexibility currently afforded to residents as service levels would be set at a level to be applied to all households. d) Interdepartmental Implications: Any municipal solid waste and recycling program requires administration resources. Under the current user pay District model the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society provides the education function for both solid waste and recycling. This would be reviewed in the study scenarios. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: It is anticipated that the development of the service delivery review report will cost between $70,000 and $85,000. The project duration, from selection of the consultant through a RFP process is estimated to be four months but may vary depending upon the project scope and identified tasks. This amount is not currently identified in the Financial Plan and an amendment is required. The future impact on the Financial Plan would depend upon the service delivery model selected. For example, an additional $175 to $250 annual levy would correspond to an additional 10% to 15% tax increase for the average home exclusive of utilities (or 7 % to 10% increase inclusive of utilities). f) Alternatives: The District has chosen to evaluate other service delivery models other than that currently in place, namely a user pay system that reflects the true actual costs to each household. The District can continue with the current solid waste model or it can consider the validity of other models that could provide a municipally operated solid waste collection and recycling service. CONCLUSIONS: Metro Vancouver, through the ISWRMP has mandated that organic waste will be banned from the garbage stream by 2015. In addition, of note is the pending Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Packaging and Printed Paper which is an important point as any consideration to changing the current model must acknowledge that the EPR could radically change the overall solid waste process within the next few years. This report outlines the scope of work that would form part of the project Terms of Reference developed to guide a consultant that would be retained through a Request for Proposal process. The estimated cost of the consultant review is in the order of $70,000 to $85,000. With the information provided in this report staff are seeking direction on whether or not to proceed with the selection and retention of a suitably qualified consulting company. "Original signed by David Pollock" _______________________________________________ Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, PEng., MBA General Manager, PW & DS "Original signed by Jim Rule" _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer DP/dp Attachments: Appendix One – Council Workshop Report dated April 30, 2012 - “Diversion of Organic Waste as Mandated by Metro Vancouver’s ISWRMP” Appendix Two – Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee Report dated June 05, 2012 – “Zero Waste Challenge Implementation Update” Appendix One Council Workshop Report dated April 30, 2012 “Diversion of Organic Waste as Mandated by Metro Vancouver’s ISWRMP” District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: E06-017-005 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Diversion of Organic Waste as Mandated by Metro Vancouver’s ISWRMP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Lower Mainland’s individual municipalities solid waste and recycling efforts are governed by the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) developed by Metro Vancouver in 2010 in conjunction with the member municipalities. The ISWRMP, currently in draft pending approval by the Province lays out a number of goals, strategies, actions and measures under the overriding principle to reduce the volume of waste generated through a waste reduction campaign, recovery of materials for recycling and energy from the waste that remains. Whilst the ISWRMP sets out the targets for solid waste reduction, each municipality determines how best to meet the stated targets as the solid waste and recycling collection model may vary from one jurisdiction to another. To achieve the stated goal within the ISWRMP to reduce regional waste d iversion from the current 55% to 70% Metro Vancouver has mandated a full organics ban. It is understood that this will be fully enforced by 2015 and thus the District is considering how best to facilitate the collection of organic waste to achieve the mandated diversion rate. It is noted that organics (yard waste and food scraps) comprise some 36% of the total solid waste produced within the District and retention of these materials in the garbage stream post 2015 will result in significant fines if the material is contaminated. The District of Maple Ridge currently does not administer the collection of residential garbage; rather, residents have a number of user pay choices ranging from contracting directly with a private hauler to transporting garbage to the Transfer Station themselves that encourages individual responsibility and freedom of choice. Residents who follow a comprehensive recycling and composting regime will generate significantly less garbage than a neighbor who is less committed to waste reduction and who would consequently pay more. Recycling services in the District have been and continue to be provided by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society since 1972 which operates through a partnership agreement with the District. The Recycling Society operates a weekly curbside collection program as well as a Recycling Depot. In addition to the discussion around organics collection there are other factors that will shape how solid waste is managed, notably that of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which is included in both Provincial and Federal regulations, the underlying goal of which is to have producers and consumers cover the costs of the product end-of-life management rather than having taxpayers incur the expenses. Multi-Material BC (MMBC) is a recently established not-for-profit society tasked with the formulation of a stewardship plan for Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) within the Province but at this time what the stewardship model will be is unknown . The plan could range from having a single contractor pick up PPP material throughout the Province through to providing incentives for municipalities. This is an important point as any consideration to changing the current model must acknowledge that the EPR could radically change that model within the next few years. At this juncture it is understood that the user pay system currently in place within the District will remain and that the private contractors will adjust their collection methods to accommodate the upcoming Metro Vancouver ban on organics. As such it is recommended that this report be received for information. Information outlining alternative service delivery models is included in the report for discussion. The District will work with Metro Vancouver, the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society and private solid waste contractors on a public education program to meet the mandated organics diversion. RECOMMENDATION(S): That the report “Diversion of Organic Waste as Mandated by Metro Vancouver’s ISWRMP” dated April 30, 2012 be received for information. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Solid waste and recycling collection within Metro Vancouver is governed by the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) developed by Metro Vancouver in conjunction with the member municipalities. A number of goals, strategies, actions and measures are contained within the ISWRMP under the overriding principle to reduce the volume of waste generated through a waste reduction campaign, recovery of materials for recycling and energy from the waste that remains. How any one municipality meets the stated target for solid waste reduction is determined by that individual municipality as the solid waste and recycling collection model may vary from one jurisdiction to another. To achieve the stated goal within the ISWRMP to reduce regional waste diversion from the current 55% to 70% by 2015 Metro Vancouver has mandated a full organics ban by 2015 and thus the District is considering how best to facilitate the collection of organic waste to achieve the mandated diversion rate as well as evaluate other solid waste service delivery methods that could be considered for the overall solid waste collection. It is noted that organics (yard waste and food scraps) comprise some 36% of the total solid waste produced within the District and retention of these materials in the garbage stream post 2015 will result in significant fines if the material is contaminated. The District of Maple Ridge currently does not administer the collection of residential garbage collection program; rather, residents have a number of user pay choices ranging from directly contracting with a private hauler to transporting garbage to the Transfer Station themselves that encourages individual responsibility and freedom of choice. Residents who follow a comprehensive recycling and composting regime will generate significantly less garbage than a neighbor who is less committed to waste reduction and who would consequently pay more. Recycling services in the District are provided by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society that operate a weekly curbside collection program as well as a Recycling Depot. In addition to the discussion around organics collection there are other factors that will sh ape how solid waste is managed, notably that of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which is included in both Provincial and Federal regulations, the underlying goal of which is to have producers and consumers cover the costs of the product end-of-life management rather than having taxpayers incur the expenses. Multi-Material BC (MMBC) is a recently established not-for-profit society tasked with formulating a stewardship plan for PPP within the Province but at this time what the stewardship model will be is unknown. The plan could range from having a single contractor pick up PPP material throughout the Province through to providing incentives for municipalities. The type of model chosen will have implications on the collection of recyclable materials, although at this time there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the methodology and the impact on municipalities. Organic Waste – Food Scraps and Yard Waste The diversion of organic waste from the overall solid waste stream is seen as an essential component for the District to meet the 70% diversion rate by 2015. Organics represent 36% of the total solid waste stream and of that amount it is estimated that some 13% is food that is simply thrown out unused whether it has rotted or exceeds the best-by date. A number of municipalities throughout Metro Vancouver have implemented organic collection or at least have undertaken organic waste pilot programs which have been overwhelmingly supported. Municipalities that have implemented organic waste collection programs are typically implemented on the basis of weekly organic and recycling pickup and bi-weekly garbage pickup utilizing an automated cart-based pickup system. Acceptable materials for food scraps collection generally include all raw and cooked food, coffee grinds and paper towels but does not include any plastics, coated paper containers, metal, pet waste, lumber or construction materials or styrofoam. Implementation of an organics collection program meets the waste reduction goals of the ISWMRP but there is also a financial incentive for solid waste purveyors in the current tipping fee for organics is $56 per ton as opposed to the $101 per ton for garbage (with the gap in tipping fees expected to increase in the future). The District currently does not have provision for regularly scheduled yard waste collection but there is a drop-off location at the Transfer Station. Current Solid Waste Collection Practices Within District of Maple Ridge Residents of the District of Maple Ridge do not rely on a municipal garbage collection program as the District has chosen to allow for a user-pay system that encourages individual responsibility and choice. Residents have the choice to contract with a private contractor to provide a level of service (one, two or three cans) on an agreed schedule – weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. Alternatively they can choose to take their garbage down to the Transfer Station as needed or coordinate with family, friends or neighbours on a collegial system that lessens costs further. Residents who follow a comprehensive recycling and composting regime will generate significantly less garbage than a neighbour who is less committed to waste reduction and who would consequently pay more. Approximately 66% of properties in Maple Ridge stated in 2010 that they had scheduled garbage pickup at their properties by one of a number of private contractors. Recycling services in the urban area of the District are provided by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society that operates a weekly curbside collection program for 23,356 (2011 figures) properties as well as a Recycling Depot in Albion. The following table illustrates the typical annual costs to a Maple Ridge residence based upon different service levels for a selection of private garbage contractors: Contractor Monthly - 1 can Bi-Weekly - 1 cans Bi-Weekly - 2 cans Weekly - 1 can Weekly - 2 cans Weekly - 3 cans AJM Disposal $72 $96 $144 Litterbug $150 $216 $300 Progressive Waste (BFI) $156 Waste Management $125 $174 $183 Residents choosing to drop off their garbage at the Transfer Station pay by weight but there is a minimum fee of $10 per load. The annual cost in 2012 of providing weekly recycling to individual residences within the urban service area is $68.16 and included in the annual property taxes. Introduction of Organic Waste Collection Within the District of Maple Ridge As previously noted the Metro Vancouver ISWRMP mandates the elimination of organic waste from the garbage stream by 2015. A number of municipalities that contract solid waste collection services have, or are in the process of introducing organic waste collection as there is a financial benefit to the municipality through lower tipping fees for organic waste – approximately 55% that of current garbage tipping fees. Given that residents in Maple Ridge individually contract with private garbage haulers (or take the garbage to the Transfer Station themselves) there is no financial benefit to the District through lower tipping fees for organics; rather the lower organic tipping fee will allow the contractors to offer organic collection at no or little extra cost when compared to current garbage col lection costs. Discussions with private contractors indicate that the cost to a residence for regular weekly garbage pickup is approximately the same as the proposed collection of schedule of weekly organic pickup and biweekly garbage pickup. As noted, some 66% of residences in Maple Ridge have their garbage picked up by private contractors. The remaining residents who currently deliver their garbage to the Transfer Station will be able to drop off yard waste only – not organic waste as there is no facility at the Transfer Station to collect or process organics. There are private organic processing facilities under consideration in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows that may be in full operation by 2015, but not at this time. Residents would still have the option to compost organic waste on their own property. Public education on the components of solid waste is key to achieving the required diversion rate of 70% by 2015, a large part of which is the organic waste. The District will work with the vari ous stakeholders (Metro Vancouver, Ridge Meadows Recycling Society and the private contractors) to promote awareness of how best for residents to ensure that the required organic waste diversion is met through a comprehensive public education process. b) Desired Outcome(s): The over-arching goal is to provide an efficient and cost-effective solid waste and recycling collection system for the residents of the District that meets the diversion goals established within the approved ISWRMP. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: For residents using private contractors the solid waste collection process will stay largely the same except that a separate container for food scraps will be required. Those residents taking garbage to the Transfer Station individually will not be able to drop off organic waste at this time but there will be no fines levied until the ban comes into effect in 2015. The introduction of private organic processing facilities should alleviate this limitation as they come on stream but the timeline is unknown at this time. d) Interdepartmental Implications: Any municipal solid waste and recycling program requires administration resources. Under the current user pay District model the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society provides the education function for both solid waste and recycling. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The current annual charge for households receiving recycling collection is $68.16 and the organic collection will not affect that rate which will continued to be reviewed on an annual basis through the Business Plan deliberations. f) Policy Implications: Increased diversion of solid waste and recycling will ensure that the District meets its obligations through the ISWRMP. The District’s Corporate Strategic Plan, under the area of Environment speaks to the “support of community waste reduction activities”. g) Alternatives: As the earlier sections of this report have stated the District currently implements a user pay system that reflects the true actual costs to each household. The District can continue with the current solid waste model or it can consider the validity of other models that could provide a municipally operated solid waste collection and recycling service. Practices in Other Municipalities A survey around Metro Vancouver municipalities found that of the twenty contacted, ten used external contractors, nine used in-house municipal staff and one used a combination of internal staff and external contractors. Appendix One of this report lists published annual charges for a number of municipalities throughout Metro Vancouver but comparing true costs of various municipal solid waste collection programs that includes garbage, organics and recycling is not easy as there are a number of different practices in the various municipalities that make a direct comparison quite difficult, including:  Program costs may not have migrated from General Revenue funding to a utility while some have multiple services bundled into a single annual charge along with sewer and/or water. o Does the stated cost include the tipping fee? o Is the recycling processing fee included? Are there revenues coming back through commodity processing? o Is staff time included? Municipalities similar in size to the District have four to five staff to administer the program. o Are contamination fines included or not? o Is the supply of materials – garbage totes, bags, boxes – included?  Programs vary in complexity – all municipalities have garbage and recycling programs (some more wide-ranging than others) but not all have organic collection while others have a depot.  Some municipalities provide more comprehensive education initiatives than others and may implement other programs such as hazardous waste events.  Level of service – different standards exist for collection frequency but generally organics should be picked up weekly. Garbage and recycling however may be weekly or bi-weekly.  Methodology - some municipalities have manual pickup, others fully automated.  Recycling can be single-stream or multi-stream which will affect revenues. ISSUES TO CONSIDER Government Provision of Service versus Private Provision of Service The trend over the past decades is for governments at all levels to review the services they provide and question whether these services can be better provided by somebody else. In the case of garbage collection in Maple Ridge the user has the option to deal directly with the private hauler. There is no middleman (the municipality) imposing administrative costs. All municipalities that provide the administration of garbage collection have specific staff assigned to this role. The Township of Langley which is slightly larger than the District in population but similar in composition of urban / rural employs four full time and two temporary staff to manage their solid waste and recycling contracts. Additional staff would need to be hired by the District to administer the contract(s) and experience shows that garbage collection can be one of the thornier issues that municipalities deal with in terms of customer expectations. Currently in Maple Ridge if a resident has a service issue with the private hauler they have contracted with they call the hauler directly. In addition they have alternative haulers should they wish to change. Municipal contracts are typically 5 to 10 years. If a resident has an issue with the municipal-contracted hauler it typically falls to the municipal staff to resolve the issue. There are currently four private haulers in competition within Maple Ridge and they range in organizational size. As stated above residents can change haulers depending on their satisfaction level and typically contracts are on a month-by-month basis. Role and Status of the Recycling Society Council recently worked with the Provincial Government to ensure that the Community Living BC program for people with developmental disabilities to work with the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society was not eliminated at the expense of financial bottom line. The Recycling Society prides itself on providing cost effective and efficient services. It is also acknowledged that the societal benefits provided by the Recycling Society also must factor into bottom line accounting. Choice of user system versus mandated taxed service It can be argued that Maple Ridge citizens have the ability to determine the true actual cost of solid waste services. In addition Maple ridge residents have a menu of choices from which to choose. Depending on their level of desire for recycling they can choose to minimize their costs. In addition families or neighbours can choose to “pool” their garbage to be dropped off at the transfer station. Expansion of Services to the whole municipality Municipal garbage collection typically occurs only in urban areas where the density is higher and collection is more cost-effective. Costs rise substantially when rural garbage collection is contemplated given the increased travel distances and low number of customers. Citizen Survey The recent citizen survey asked participants for suggestions for services currently not offered by the District and 41% of residents surveyed the service listed was garbage collection. This is probably not surprising as this service is traditionally provided by municipalities and an obvious one that Maple Ridge does not administer. Nonetheless it is important to acknowledge that the issue has profile among citizens. Having said that the majority of residents in the survey (59%) did not raise garbage collection as a service that the municipality should provide. Truck Trip Reduction Currently there are four separate garbage collection companies operating in Maple Ridge. Municipal administered garbage collection typically only has one firm. Through a District-wide single contract a reduction in the overall number of truck trips could be anticipated. This may represent an environmental enhancement through lower fuel usage and emissions. No Going Back It is important to acknowledge that should the District decide to opt for administering garbage collection it would be very difficult if not impossible to return to the current model. Local Organics Facility One other area of uncertainty is the availability of a local organics processing facility. There are a number of private companies looking at siting organic processing facilities in the Pitt Meadows / Maple Ridge area but if such facilities are not available then the organics would have to be trucked to the closest available facility, thereby increasing the overall costs as well as increasing the environmental impact. POSSIBLE SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS FOR CONSIDERATION The priority issue is to facilitate the removal of organic waste from the waste stream by 2015. In considering the service delivery models that could be pursued the following alternative approaches have been identified. However in each case the recycling component has some uncertainty given the implementation of the EPR for PPP through MMBC. Packaging and Paper is a reliable financial commodity and the removal of PPP out of the recycling stream may well impact the overall operation and cost of municipal solid waste and recycling programs. At this time the impact – both financially and operationally - is unknown. One other area of uncertainty is the availability of a local organics processing facility. There are a number of private companies looking at siting organic processing facilities in the Pitt Meadows / Maple Ridge area but if such facilities are not available then the organics would have to be trucked to the closest available facility, thereby increasing the overall costs as well as increasing the environmental impact. The possible approaches to solid waste service delivery may be summarized thus: Expand User Pay Garbage Collection System to Include Organics Collection Private contractors expand their services with individual residences to include organics as well as residential garbage with Ridge Meadows Recycling Society continuing to collect recycling through a partnership agreement with the District. The collection frequency for garbage and organics would be determined by each residence and reflected in the costs to each customer, while the recycling costs would be standardized as per the current situation. Fully Contracted Collection for Garbage, Organics and Recycling The third service delivery model would see the issuance tenders for open and competitive bids for all collection services – garbage, organics and recycling. This would effectively eliminate the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society except perhaps as a depot function. The administration of the contract(s) as well as public education could be overseen by either the District or the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society in a partnership agreement. Municipalities of a similar size to the District employ four to five staff dedicated to the administration of a solid waste and recycling contract, including the education component. Retain User Pay Garbage Collection System but Expand Recycling Society Role to Include Organics Collection Private contractors continue to collect garbage from individual residences Ridge Meadows Recycling Society expand their operations to include the collection of organics and recycling through a modified partnership agreement. This may require re-tooling the Recycling Society vehicle fleet as the current vehicles are not able to adapt to collecting organic waste. A single, municipally controlled service delivery model could in theory reduce the number of vehicles, both haulers and residents, transporting garbage and thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions but this would be hard to quantify as residents could well combine a trip to the Transfer Station with other errands. As previously noted Appendix One lists a number of published municipal annual utility charges. It is believed that when accounting for the full costs of providing a municipally operated solid waste program - garbage, organics and recycling - in Maple Ridge the estimated annual costs would range from $275 to $350. CONCLUSIONS: Metro Vancouver, through the ISWRMP has mandated that organic waste will be banned from the garbage stream by 2015. In addition, of note is the pending Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Packaging and Printed Paper, which is included in both Provincial and Federal regulations, the underlying goal of which is to have producers and consumers cover the costs of the product end -of- life management rather than having taxpayers incur the expenses. The plan could range from having a single contractor pick up PPP material throughout the Province through to providing incentives for municipalities. This is an important point as any consideration to changing the current model must acknowledge that the EPR could radically change that model within the next few years. The current user pay delivery model in the District provides options to residents in that they can individualize their service levels to reflect their own regime of recycling and composting and correspondingly control their costs. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: David Pollock PEng, Municipal Engineer _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Kim Day, Director, Ridge Meadows Recycling Society _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn PEng., MBA, General Manager,. PW & DS _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer DP/dp "Original signed by David Pollock" "Original signed by Kim Day" "Original signed by Frank Quinn" "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" PROPERTY TAX OR UTILITY CHARGES COMPARISON BY MUNICIPALITY Function: Garbage(G); Recycling(R); Organics(O); Depot(D); Other Programs(P) MUNICIPALITY METHOD OF OPERATION Property Tax - Utility Function Included VANCOUVER MUNICIPAL $195.00 G-R PITT MEADOWS CONTRACT - WASTE MANAGEMENT $235.00 G-R RICHMOND CONTRACT - SIERRA $241.96 G-R-D-P SURREY CONTRACT - PROGRESSIVE (BFI) $281.00 G-R-D-P LANGLEY CITY CONTRACT - EMTERRA $226.00 G-R-O CITY OF NEW WEST. MUNICIPAL $320.50 G-R-O PORT COQUITLAM MUNICIPAL $176.30 G-R-O-D-P ABBOTSFORD/MATSQUI CONTRACT - BFI / CITY (Partner ACL) $245.00 G-R-O-D-P MISSION CONTRACT - REMPLE $284.00 G-R-O-D-P COQUITLAM CONTRACT - SMITHRITE $342.00 G-R-O-D-P NORTH SHORE CONTRACT - WASTE MANAGEMENT $365.50 G-R-O-D-P BURNABY MUNICIPAL $955.52 G-R-O-D-P DELTA CONTRACT - REMPLE $170.00** G-R-O-P LANGLEY Township CONTRACT-EMTERA $260.00 G-R-O-P PORT MOODY MUNICIPAL $323.00 G-R-O-P MAPLE RIDGE Recycling + estimate weekly @$144 $212.16 R-D-P Recycling + estimate monthly @$72 $140.16 R-D-P ** Does not include a tipping fee as their garbage is dumped in the Vancouver Landfill located in Burns Bog, in Delta. Appendix Two Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee Report dated June 05, 2012 “Zero Waste Challenge Implementation Update” Zero W aste Committee Meeting Date: June 14, 2012 To: Zero Waste Committee From: Andrew Marr, Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Department Date: June 5, 2012 Subject: Zero Waste Challenge Implementation Update Recommendation: That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated June 5, 2012, titled “Zero Waste Challenge Implementation Update” for information. 1. PURPOSE To update the Committee on the implementation of several key Zero Waste Challenge initiatives. 2. CONTEXT The Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) identifies over 100 actions and implementation steps for Metro Vancouver, member municipalities, and senior levels of government, specifically relating to the Zero Waste Challenge. Progress on the implementation of several key initiatives is outlined below. a) Organics Disposal Bans Organics banned from disposal would include food scraps, food-soiled papers and yard trimmings (yard trimmings have been banned from disposal since January 1, 2008). Within the Regional Organics Strategy in September 2011, the Board considered the possibility of phasing in the new organic disposal bans in advance of the target date in the ISWRMP, potentially starting as early as 2012, and incrementally increasing to take full effect by the end of 2015. By the end of 2012, almost all single family households in Metro Vancouver will have some form of mixed organics collection in place (see Attachment). Several different options have been identified through consultations with municipal staff, waste haulers and other stakeholders to date. The options currently identified for Single Family Residential (SFR) and Multi-Family/Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (MFR/ICI) organics bans include: SFR Organics Ban: • Randomly inspect all SFR loads received, levy a full tipping fee surcharge on loads in excess of an allowable threshold level. • As above, but municipalities with SFR organics collection programs in place would be exempt from inspections. These municipalities would be required to 5.2 ZWC-10 gradually increase the scope of organics program implementation and would report out regularly on their diversion levels. MFR/ICI Organics Ban: • Randomly inspect all MF/ICI loads received, use a low allowable threshold level, and levy a percentage surcharge on the tipping fee that would start at a low level and increase as we approach the end of 2015. • Randomly inspect all MF/ICI loads received, levy a higher percentage surcharge on the tipping fee for violations, and use a higher allowable threshold level that decreases as we approach the end of 2015. • Develop a strategy to conduct inspection of wastes at the source (i.e. at ICI or MFR building sites), supported by appropriate regulations. Metro Vancouver plans to conduct broad consultation on the options and the timing for ban implementation, and continue to work with facility operators and service providers to ensure systems and facilities are in place to support the bans. Staff has developed a consultation process to engage key stakeholders including workshops, individual meetings, and online feedback. Staff is also developing a communication and education strategy to support businesses generating large amounts of organic waste. Staff intends to continue consulting with municipalities and other stakeholders to further refine the proposed options, and to better understand the associated challenges. Staff expects that consultation on the options will begin late in 2012 with final recommendations presented to the Zero Waste Committee in early 2013. b) Construction and Demolition Material Recycling Regulatory Mechanisms While the majority of Construction and Demolition (C&D) wastes are recycled, over 300,000 tonnes of C&D wastes are still landfilled each year. Since the ISWRMP was approved, staff has been working with municipalities, C&D waste management facilities, and the building industry to develop an approach to increase recycling of construction and demolition materials. Staff researched C&D regulatory approaches in other North American locations and consulted extensively with municipalities, regulatory agencies, the Urban Development Institute, and other key construction and demolition stakeholders. Based on considerable feedback from the comprehensive consultation process, the proposed approach is to: • provide a model bylaw that municipalities can tailor and implement to suit the needs of their specific municipality, • focus the model bylaw on demolition projects, which are the major source of C&D wastes that are being hauled directly to landfills for disposal, • through demolition permit conditions, direct all recyclable materials to authorized (licensed) facilities without requiring on-site sorting, • include hazardous materials reporting, • in parallel, enhance the regulatory framework for private transfer stations to encourage recycling, and increase recycling at Metro Vancouver facilities through additional disposal bans and provision of new recycling services. ZWC-11 Metro Vancouver staff will finalize the model bylaw and expect to present it to the Zero Waste Committee later this year. Metro Vancouver staff will assist municipalities with implementation of the model bylaw. c) Storage Space and Access for Recycling in Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Developments Two of the biggest barriers to increased diversion in multi-family and commercial buildings are a lack of sufficient recycling storage space, and poor access to this space by building occupants and collection crews. Over the past two years Metro Vancouver has worked with municipal staff, residential and business associations, developers, construction contractors, waste haulers, and property managers to develop a recommended approach to address the barriers to increased diversion in these sectors. The objective of the recommended municipal approach is to provide sample technical specifications for municipal guidelines or bylaw amendments resulting in the design and construction of buildings with accessible, appropriately sized storage space to accommodate greater participation in recycling. The specifications are intended to apply to both new developments and larger scale building additions and renovations. In the past seven months, Metro Vancouver has consulted extensively with municipalities, regulatory agencies, the Urban Development Institute, haulers and other key stakeholders to obtain feedback and to ensure that the initiative is well understood. Based on considerable feedback from this consultation process, Metro Vancouver staff has developed specifications for municipal recycling space and access, including: • minimum size, location, and design of building recycling storage space, • collection day storage area, • collection vehicle access route, • loading area, • occupant access. Municipalities can tailor and implement the technical specifications to suit their specific needs. Metro Vancouver will support municipal implementation by assisting in local consultation and hosting introductory workshops for municipal staff. Metro Vancouver staff will finalize the recommended approach over the coming months and expect to present it to the Zero Waste Committee later in 2012. d) Recycling Market Study and Used Building Material Market Study Increases in diversion can only be achieved if there is surplus market demand for materials or if new markets are created. Strategy 2.3 of the ISWRMP outlines opportunities to increase reuse, recycling and local processing capacity. The first step in increasing market demand and local processing is to understand the reuse and recycling markets that exist. A recycling market study and used building material study that have recently been completed assess the current markets and opportunities for development. Work on these ZWC-12 studies was initiated in 2010 and through the use of six consultants and over 70 market experts has developed a comprehensive understanding of existing markets, the barriers to expansion, and recommended solutions to stimulate market development. Next steps for this work is to evaluate recommendations and determine mechanisms for stimulating market development for the specific material markets, including assessment of whether this should be done by the public sector, private sector or through the establishment of non- profit organization. 3. ALTERNATIVES None provided. 4. CONCLUSION The Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan identifies over 100 actions and implementation steps for Metro Vancouver, member municipalities, and senior levels of government, specifically relating to the Zero Waste Challenge. This report outlines progress on the implementation of several key initiatives including: expansion of material disposal bans for organics to include food scraps and food soiled paper, implementation of regulatory mechanisms to increase recycling from construction and demolition wastes, introduction of technical specifications for building developments to ensure sufficient space and access is provided for recycling, and the results of the recycling and used building material market studies. ATTACHMENT: Status of Residential Organics Collection (Orbit #6190984) ZWC-13 Status of Residential Organics Collection Actual/ Estimated Start Date for Municipal Collection of Food Scraps / Food-soiled Paper Municipality Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Anmore * Belcarra * Bowen Island July 2012 * Burnaby June 2010 November 2011 Coquitlam October 2010 ** Delta April 2012 ** Langley City * Langley Township May 2011 ** Lions Bay * Maple Ridge * New Westminster October 2010 Late 2012 or early 2013 North Vancouver - City May 2012 ** North Vancouver - District May 2012 ** West Vancouver May 2012 * Pitt Meadows June 2012 June 2012 Port Coquitlam November 2009 April 2010 Port Moody January 2010 January 2011 Richmond April 2010 ** Surrey October 2012 ** Vancouver Apr 2011 (Fruits & Veg.) 2012/13 (Full Food Scraps) ** White Rock January 2010 * UEL (part of Electoral Area A) * * Collection services provided by the private sector ** Collection provided by the private sector, but municipally-provided collection being considered ZWC-14 From: Tom Barnes [mailto:tbarnes@miabc.org] Sent: June-18-12 4:36 PM To: Ron Riach Subject: MIABC Board of Directors Tony Chong, the Group D (large local governments) representative on the MIABC Board has left his position as CAO in Port Coquitlam to take on an executive position in the private sector. Consequently, a vacancy will be created on the Board. We will be holding an election to fill it at our Annual General Meeting in Victoria in September. As we have no longer have a representative from Maple Ridge on our Board this presents a good opportunity for the District to consider nominating a representative to serve on it. It is important for us to have people with risk management, insurance or financial backgrounds participate in the governance of our organization. I would appreciate if you would give the matter some thought and let me know whether you, a financial official, other senior member of the management team, or an elected official would be interested in the position. If so, I will ensure that the candidate is brought to the attention of the Board’s Nominating Committee. Regards, Tom Barnes Chief Executive Officer & General Counsel Municipal Insurance Association of B.C. 5.1 From: FCM Communiqué [communique@fcm.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:25 PM To: Cheryl Ashlie Subject: FCM Update: Government of Canada LTIP Roundtables/ Mise à jour de la FCM – Tables rondes sur le PIALT organisées par le gouvernement du Canada La version française se trouve à la suite du texte anglais. Dear members, On Tuesday, June 26, FCM sent an alert to our members to inform you about a series of regional roundtables to collect municipal input for the federal government’s initiative to develop a new long-term infrastructure plan. Since then, a number of members have been in contact with FCM staff with inquiries about the roundtables, which begin today and will run until July 30. We would like to clarify some of the details about these roundtables. The roundtables are being planned and implemented by the federal government and not by FCM. Participation in the roundtables is by invitation only. The invitations will come from the office of Denis Lebel, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Municipal representation is limited to Provincial/Territorial Municipal Association presidents, the host- city mayor for each roundtable and one FCM representative. While you may not have an opportunity to provide comments directly to these roundtables, there are a number of ways your community can get involved in FCM’s Target 2014 campaign in support of the long-term infrastructure plan:  Pass a local resolution that endorses Target 2014 and calls on the government to ensure that the new long-term plan is fully in place before existing programs expire in 2014; and  Stay tuned for information from FCM on how you can make your voice heard as we prepare our formal, national submission to Minister Lebel this fall. We apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from our previous member alert about the roundtables, and we encourage your community to support Target 2014. Sincerely, Brock Carlton Chief Executive Officer 5.2 CITY OF FORT ST. JOHN COUNCIL RESOLUTION JUNE 29,2012 FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING Fonr srJoHN Development of a new long-term federal plan for municipal infrastructure funding WHEREAS, The Building Canada Plan and a number of important federal-provincial transfer agreements vital to Canada's cities and communities, will expire in March 2014', WHEREAS, Federal investments over the last few years have helped to slow the decline of our cities and communities, and the Government of Canada has committed to develop a new long-term plan for municipal infrastructure funding in consultation with municipal and provincial/territorial governments; WHEREAS, a seamless transition from the Building Canada Plan to a new long term plan is necessary to ensure that municipalities can continue planning their capital spending effectively; WHEREAS, The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has launched a campaign to ensure the new plan reflects municipal priorities across the country and asks its member municipalities to pass a Council resolution supporting the campaign; AND WHEREAS, Fort St. John has continuing infrastructure needs, such as:. Capacity upgrades for our liquid waste management system. A new water treatment plant facility. Storm sewer upgrades and the road works required for same. Road works throughout the community. Securing a secondary water supply THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED that Fort St. John City Council endorses the FCM campaign and urges the Minister of Transport, lnfrastructure and Communities to work with FCM to ensure the new long{erm infrastructure plan meets the core infrastructure needs of cities and communities; BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that Fort St. John Council urges the Minister of Transport, lnfrastructure and Communities to ensure thatthe new long-term plan is fully in place when existing programs expire in 2014', and BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Minister of Transport, lnfrastructure and Communities, to the provincial Minister of Community, Sportand Cultural Development, to Bob Zimmer, Memberof Parliament for Prince George Peace River, to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned at dburton@fortstiohn.ca or at (250) 787-5796. Sincerely, Diana Burton Deputy City Clerk Tbe Energetic Citl City of Fort St John 10631-100th Street Fort St. John, BC Canada V1j 325 (2sol 787 -81.s0 City Hall (250\ 787 -81,81, Facsimile www fortstjohn ca