CARRIED

1. IMPLEMENTING RMOC’S 20% CLUB COMMITMENT

TO REDUCE Greenhouse Gas Emissions

- Committee Co-ordinator’s report dated 13 May 98

- Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner’s memorandum
dated 20 Apr 98 (Originally listed as Information Previously Distributed

Councillor Holmes noted the Green Committee that was set up at the Region to work on Corporate greening issues and to go out Region-wide to work on greening matters. She is concerned and felt the report addresses issues Corporately, however, does not address any issues externally. She asked for staff’s comments.

Ms. Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, Planning and Development Approvals Department (PDA) referred to the table on page 3 of the report which indicated a general work program. She noted there is a slightly different emphasis between Phase I and II. She explained staff felt the Corporate effort should be a priority as the Corporation should have its own house in order before going out and advocating to other corporations and agencies. However, she noted it does not preclude starting work on the external strategy at the same time. She added some of the delay was due to waiting for budget approval and staff are now proceeding with a Tory-Smith and Associates contract. In addition, she noted staff are pursuing secondment of some staff from the City of Ottawa who have experience in this area and resources were needed to help the Region get going. Ms. Sweet felt it was important through working with the Green Committee that staff explore internal opportunities for reduction. She further noted the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) have encouraged municipalities to approach this issue in this way and the Region is in line with the FCM’s program.

Councillor Holmes felt this issue has not progressed since the Green Committee came forward five years ago with a report virtually the same as this one. She voiced her opinion that the Corporation take on more of a leadership role and to try to effect change through Regional policies and programs throughout the Region. The Councillor informed the Committee she has a copy of the Executive Summary of a report by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute noting the kinds of changes to be provided to meet the recommendations of the Kyoto Federal Agreement. She indicated there are fifteen practical and effective steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She asked if PDA could obtain a copy of the report and come forward to this Committee with their comments.

Councillor Holmes noted one example: phased increases in gasoline and diesel taxes which is being used throughout Europe as a way to fund public transit, and, another example, actions to increase urban public transit use. She stated that as well as the environmental groups throughout Canada, municipalities have a role to play to try to advocate to the other levels of government, who have the most control over greenhouse gas emissions, the kinds of policies that are needed.

Councillor Beamish understood there is the possibility of obtaining international credits for the Region for emission reductions and asked if a system has been set up. He felt this is an opportunity for the Region to make money off of emission reduction and understood there are commodity markets set up now for emission reduction credits.

Mr. Geoff Noxon, Planning Engineer - Transportation Policy, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, PDA informed the Councillor this is the purpose of the documentation staff are going through with Phase I a) with Tory-Smith & Associates. He noted by quantifying where the Region is right now and then tracking that over time, the Region will be able to claim credits. He indicated staff started with 1990 as the base year and 1997 as a secondary base year, and will then look ahead to 2007 as the target.

Mr. Noxon advised a report will come forward to the Committee in September when this work will be completed. He added he did not think the protocol for trading international credits has been formally set up and he was not sure Canada is participating, however, a number of governments and private corporations are already active in terms of counting credits as they are aware the ability to trade them for money will come in the future.

Committee Chair Hunter read a motion from Councillor Munter that staff prepare a report commenting on the Region’s role in implementing and/or advocating on behalf of the "solutions" document prepared by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute.

There being no further discussion, the Committee considered Councillor Munter’s motion.

Moved by A. Munter

- Director, Solid Waste Division, Environment and Transportation

Department report dated 7 May 98

Councillor van den Ham commented that the staff recommendation of not establishing a permanent east end depot, while confirming retention of the one in the west end, seemed contradictory when the proposal was to educate and pursue the "Take It Back" (TIB) approach. Referring to the charts and graphs showing participation and attendance at the mobile events, and the projected Capital cost of $800,000.00 to establish a permanent east end depot, the Councillor asked how this figure had been determined.

Mr. Pat McNally, Director, Solid Waste Division, Environment and Transportation Department (ETD), said the cost as identified in the report was a preliminary cost based on cost records from the construction of the permanent depot at Trail Road. He further explained the cost estimate was solely for the construction of the facility, exclusive of land costs.

Councillor van den Ham indicated he had no problem with the recommendation not to provide a permanent east end depot. He felt the mobile events had worked well, and that as long as the Region continued to provide the mobile locations, the situation was being addressed.

Councillor Legendre felt the report’s logic was flawed in recommending against the introduction of a new depot in the east end because it would be seen to counter the strategy the Region was trying to encourage with TIB.

Mr. McNally outlined the thrust of the report was to continue with a three-pronged approach; the first and most significant was continued expansion of the TIB program, which initially focused on automotive type materials and then added pharmacies with used and expired medicines. Mr. McNally said the Region was currently working to see if an infrastructure for paints could be put into place. He also noted there were many questions about fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides at this time of year. Mr. McNally emphasized the report’s recommendation that the Region try to get out of the position of middleman in the Household Special Waste (HSW) program and try to make linkages between consumers and retailers. He felt that although this was not yet in place, the Region was moving in this direction, and therefore, it did not seem wise to suggest investing in the area of a million dollars to build a permanent facility in the east end.
Mr. McNally said this was why the report recommended continuing operation of the existing permanent depot, while supplementing the east and centre areas with mobile depots, which together with the TIB program made up the main strategy for dealing with HSW in the Region.

Councillor Legendre said he was surprized to see little difference between the cost per vehicle at both the permanent and mobile sites, feeling the mobile sites would have had higher costs associated with them. He offered that if the Region operated the mobile sites for a longer period of time, perhaps the costs per vehicle would eventually be closer, noting the per-vehicle cost at a mobile depot at the R.O. Pickard Centre in 1996 was below the cost at Trail Road. The Councillor said he received phone calls regarding HSW, and when he explained to callers they would have to drive out to Trail Road, he felt they lost interest, and he was left wondering what happened to these materials afterward.

There being no further discussion, Committee considered the staff recommendation.

CARRIED

3. RECYCLING COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

DRAFT CONSULTATION REPORT ON BLUE BOX FUNDING

- Committee Co-ordinator’s report dated 13 May 98

- Director, Solid Waste Division, Environment and Transportation
Department memorandum dated 7 Apr 98 (Originally listed as
Information Previously Distributed on 28 Apr 98 P&EC Agenda)
(Request from Councillor Holmes to list as regular item for discussion.)

Councillor Holmes noted she has been following the City of Toronto and their blue box discussions with interest, and in particular, their attempt to convince the Province that wine and liquor bottles should be returned the same way as beer bottles. She asked if staff had been talking with the City of Toronto or the Province about the fact that recycling of glass could be converted to a return solution rather than a recycling solution.

Mr. McNally explained the report was an overview of the summary comments that staff submitted to the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) in response to their initiative responding to the Ministry of the Environment’s request for input, as the Ministry reviews blue box funding and recycling in the Province of Ontario. He added staff have not recently had any discussions with the City of Toronto, however, they did monitor quite closely some of the activities in North York in the Fall of 1997. He advised North York was proceeding with trying to put a deposit/return system on Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) bottles, which was eventually struck down. He noted it is staff’s understanding that the Ministry has been seeking input. He further added there are a number of different points of view on this issue and at this point in time, staff have monitored the situation and are hoping the Province will lead the way in moving towards some solution in the near future.

Mr. Sheflin explained the net effect of what the City of Toronto is trying to do is to force the government, through public pressure, to recycle, through a return system, the wine and liquor bottles by banning them from the blue box and the landfill.

Councillor Holmes suggested the Region join with the City of Toronto to put pressure on the Province to have a return system rather than a recycling system for their own bottles. She felt that although the various industries have many different points of view, she believed a system of returning the bottles rather than paying for recycling would be preferable for the Region’s taxpayers and waste reduction system.

Mr. Sheflin explained that an environmental audit would determine the most cost effective use of the wine and liquor bottles. He indicated there are industries that use glass, including the fibreglass industry, which through an environmental audit, may prove to be more cost effective.

Councillor Holmes asked why the Region is not at the point of being able to answer what is best for the Region, and then advocate that to the Province.

Mr. McNally explained staff have been back to Committee a couple of times to advocate a broader product stewardship and have implemented product stewardship with respect to household special waste. He noted staff continue to stress that this is a better route to solve these problems, and to get a Province-wide solution. He added an analysis Province-wide to determine what is the best way to resolve the issue has not been done and he indicated if the Committee wanted staff to have a further look at some of the specifics of the RMOC , that could be undertaken.

Councillor Holmes commented the Province would not come forward with changes if the Region does not ask for them. She indicated the Region needs to look at the soft drink industry also and determine the best solution for the residents and then advocate to the Province what kind of changes are needed.

Councillor Stewart indicated her support of this issue. She related her work at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) where she was appointed to the role and responsibility of the Financing Committee. She urged the Committee to look beyond the large cities like Toronto and regions like Ottawa-Carleton as many of the smaller municipalities are going to have to abandon the blue box because of the sunsetting of the subsidies from the Province. She noted the Region is in pretty good condition compared to the rest of Ontario, however, she is concerned with what will happen in rural landfills if this issue is not resolved. The Councillor believed the Province is going to make some decisions on this issue rather quickly, but any direction that the Region can put forward to the Minister of the Environment at this time will be helpful.

Committee Chair Hunter asked how large a volume the collection of glass and pop bottles is and how do they compare to aluminum cans, etc.

Mr. McNally explained when looking at materials collected in the blue box by different weight, the glass makes up about 15% and the revenue only yields about 7%. He noted in all the major categories, with the exception of aluminum, the return on the material is less than the offsetting percentage of the weight. He commented the blue box program the Region put in place when implementing the first Regional collection contract, was intended to accomplish a number of different goals including the diversion of material from landfill. He added the residents of this municipality have been quite successful in significantly increasing the amount of material diverted from landfill.

Committee Chair Hunter inquired where aluminum ranked compared to cardboard, fine paper, and newsprint, in terms of percentage of the box as compared to a percentage of revenue.

Mr. McNally noted newsprint and aluminum rate between 30 and 40 % each; other papers are slightly more than 10%, and glass is 7 or 8% in terms of revenues.

Mr. McNally stated it is still cheaper to pick it up in the blue box, with its extra cost, minus the revenue, than not having the blue box and putting everything in the green garbage bag.

Councillor Holmes agreed, however, she noted it would be even less expensive to have LCBO and soft drink bottles returned.

Councillor Stewart put forward the following motion, that staff report back with a recommendation on how glass bottles and soft drink containers can be returned instead of recycled.

Councillor Holmes clarified this is a request to the Province to set up a return system for both LCBO bottles and soft drink containers.

Mr. Sheflin recommended the motion be amended to add "LCBO" before "bottles" to be more specific. Councillor Stewart agreed.

There being no further discussion, Committee considered Councillor Stewart’s motion.

Moved by Councillor Stewart:

CARRIED as amended

4. RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES AND MOTION NO. 1-98 - SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT - COMPETITIVE ELEMENTS REPORT

- Director, Solid Waste Division, Environment and Transportation

Department memorandum dated 19 May 98

Moved by Councillor Legendre

CARRIED

Councillor Beamish felt the examples in the memorandum were in fact not where the public sector was taking back business from the private sector, but rather where the public sector thought they could introduce competition by allowing the private sector to start bidding on some of their garbage business. He noted the same municipalities were referred to in the staff report as in this memorandum, although the memorandum also refers to Cicero, Illinois. The Councillor requested staff provide examples of municipalities who have used managed competition.

Mr. Sheflin explained the municipalities noted in the memorandum are the most proactive in cost effective provision of services, which is why there are noted. He indicated the trend is towards competitive bidding between the public and private sectors and the three municipalities mentioned are noted, in the industry, as the most progressive.

Councillor Bellemare, referring to page 3, paragraph 1, under Collection Schedule, the statement: "Saturday collection requires the contractor to pay overtime, which represents an estimated cost to the Region of approximately $50,000." inquired if staff checked with all potential contractors who might bid on this tender to see if they have collective agreements or employment contracts that provide for overtime pay for statutory holidays and/or Saturdays.

Mr. Sheflin explained the contractors staff are aware of in the garbage collection business currently do have collective agreements, however, it is impossible to know what other contractors might make a bid and if they have collective agreements.

Councillor Bellemare asked for clarification regarding the rolling collection schedule savings of $50,000 net of communication and inspection costs.

Mr. McNally referred the Councillor to Annex C of the memorandum where costs for all schedules have been summarized. He advised the rolling schedule, which does away with getting caught up when there is a holiday, reduces the number of collection days per year from 260 to 250 accounting for the savings. He noted the numbers on Annex C are estimates based on staff’s knowledge of collective agreement rates.

Regarding the permanent Monday to Friday schedule, Councillor Bellemare noted staff indicate in the memorandum that this option would be cost neutral. He commented that previously staff had indicated there would be substantial advertising costs with this schedule. Mr. McNally explained, although advertising was not factored in in this memorandum, there would be costs associated with advertising the schedule for approximately the first six statutory holidays, therefore, there would be one-time advertising costs associated with this schedule.

Councillor Bellemare cited the current problem which exists for mislaid set outs on Friday or Saturday, which are often not picked up until Monday. He noted staff is proposing for the next collection contract the Region have a Friday/Saturday late collection service and contractors would have to have a truck on standby until 8:00 p.m. to collect missed calls.

Mr. McNally explained staff would like all those calls to be handled on Friday night, however, it may be necessary to go into Saturday morning. He said staff’s intention was this could be handled with a pick-up truck and one person. In response to Councillor Bellemare’s question, Mr. McNally expected the estimated cost to be approximately $400-500 per statutory holiday to cover off the Friday night and Saturday morning pick-ups.

In response to Councillor Legendre requesting clarification on Annex A, Mr. McNally explained the Annex A Sample Bid Sheet was from the previous five year contract. He noted in the first couple of years the old municipal contracts were ending and each year new municipalities were coming on. There was not a bid sheet available yet for the new contract.

Councillor Legendre, referring to page 2, felt an additional pro should be included, namely, that the RMOC would be in a better position with more zones in the event that a supplier failed. It was also his opinion, some of the cons were the same point, however, written differently. The Councillor felt staff were attempting to list more cons than pros and he noted his disappointment with the bias he felt staff had with respect to this issue.

Councillor Hume disagreed and felt staff were supporting their original recommendation of five zones.

Councillor Munter noted this item was an information memorandum in response to Committee’s questions at the 28 April 98 meeting in which the Committee requested the information be provided prior to the item going before Council. He felt that since this item will be debated at the Council meeting of 27 May 98, he put forward a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Moved by A. Munter

Councillor Munter referred to a clipping from the Toronto Star on 25 April 98 entitled "New housing hinges on schools." He noted according to this story, "In a major provincial policy change, municipalities have been quietly given the power to block housing developments until schools are built to serve the new residents...", quoted from the Mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion. He stated the article further quotes from a letter to Mayor McCallion received from Doug Barnes of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), that "A municipality, after consulting the various agencies including the school boards, has the discretionary power to decide if a new residential development should proceed or not, based on the adequate provision and distribution of educational facilities...". Councillor Munter asked, based on this, could staff get clarification from the Regional Legal and PDA Departments on whether or not the Region has the power to block residential housing development based on an inadequate supply of school facilities. He noted in many parts of the Region, there is a very significant lack of primary and secondary schools.

Ms. Sweet will investigate and report back to the Committee.

Councillor Stewart told staff she is receiving calls indicating that the National Capital Commission (NCC) is draining part of the Mer Bleue. She asked staff if the Region has any jurisdiction there and could the NCC drain the wetland.

Ms. Sweet informed the Councillor the majority of the Mer Bleue is owned by the NCC and the purpose of the NCC owning the area is to protect the wetland. She will contact the NCC and report back to Councillor Stewart.

Councillor Hume noted a newspaper article about a recent trip to Buenos Aires by the City of Ottawa concerning the Geographical Information System (GIS) partnership. He indicated City of Ottawa staff were there to promote the program the Region pays 50% of and he understood there was no Regional involvement in this trip. He voiced his concern that the Region was not involved, being the lead agency and the lead funder for the program. He asked what the marketing relationship for the program is, and if it is related at all to the funds the Region puts into it. He believed the Regional Chair should have been there promoting the Region of Ottawa-Carleton and the funds allocated to the partnership and was concerned the partnership was being promoted as the City of Ottawa’s GIS. Staff will look into this and report back to Councillor Hume.

Councillor Stewart recounted the recent accidental release of 180,000 litres of liquid manure into the Jock River as a result of a groundhog burrowing through the clay liner of a farmer’s liquid manure storage facility between Ashton and Munster. She asked staff to report back to the Committee on opportunities for the Region to prevent this sort of thing from happening again and ways to encourage the retrofit of existing facilities to promote good stewardship on private land holdings in the watershed.

Mr. Sheflin indicated there used to be a Provincial program, however, it unfortunately has been cancelled by the Province. He informed the Councillor that staff are looking at a program with an annual expenditure in the order of $250,000.00, possibly as a part of the 1999 budget.

Councillor Stewart felt it would be a good investment if the Region could promote or help with the funding to assist rural landowners with manure storage, milk house waste and other programs, including septic systems that are close to surface water.

Councillor Legendre brought to the attention of the Committee an article by Mr. Tom van Dusen appearing in the Saturday Ottawa Sun, 23 May 98 entitled "Trash talk dumps on landfill plan". He noted it is a proposed expansion of a landfill operated by the Township of Osgoode. The Councillor asked if this proposed expansion will eventually come to this Committee and Council for approval. He understood from the story that it is part of the economics of the expansion they accept waste from outside the Region. He asked what the RMOC’s policy is with respect to landfill sites accepting imported waste.

Mr. Marc informed the Committee the Osgoode Springhill Landfill presently has a consent from this Region limited to the present geographical site of the landfill, therefore, if they wish to expand it, it will require an approval from Regional Council. He added there may also be planning approvals required.

Mr. McNally explained the existing Springhill Landfill Site in their Certificate of Approval (C of A) has a service area of the Township of Osgoode and if they wished to expand the service area, they would have to have the Ministry amend their C of A. He added the Region would be circulated through the amendment process.

With respect to importing waste to the site from outside the Region, Mr. Sheflin explained as a result of the negotiated agreement with the other private landfill operators in the Region, there is a 10% good neighbour zone that is allowed in the Region. He stated the Region’s policy says we would accept 10% of the waste from outside the Region until 1 May 2000. He noted the Minutes of Settlement are silent after that date on that point.

Councillor Legendre asked if the Region could develop a policy that the Region would not import waste from outside its boundaries and asked what would be involved in developing such a policy. Mr. Marc felt staff would need to investigate the issue. Councillor Legendre asked that staff report back in time with their thoughts on the issue.

Councillor Hunter, referring to the issue of the assumption of the East Barrhaven Trunk Sanitary Sewer, referred to a letter from the Acting Mayor of the City of Nepean indicating Nepean Council’s disappointment with the action taken by the Planning and Environment Committee. He asked if the Corporation received a similar letter and would be responding to it. Mr. Marc noted a letter has been received and a response drafted for Mr. Cameron, Regional Solicitor, Legal Department’s signature.

1. Response to Inquiries and Motion No. 1-98

- Director, Solid Waste Division, Environment and Transportation

Department memorandum dated 19 May 98