November 27, 1998
To:Works and Utilities Committee
From:Angelos Bacopoulos
General Manager - Solid Waste Management Services
Subject:Harmonization of Service Levels for Waste and Recycling Collection
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to outline the range of proposed options related to the
harmonization of service levels for waste and recycling collection, to provide, where possible,
a preliminary assessment of the impacts of each option, to identify the additional data
collection and analysis necessary to evaluate the options, and to seek direction from the
Committee with respect to the proposed options and scope of further work.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Where adequate information is presently available, a preliminary estimate of the financial
impact of proposed service level changes is included in this report. A more precise and
complete estimate of the financial impact of service level changes can only be determined by
conducting the surveys and analysis outlined in this report. A complete financial assessment
will be included in a further report which is proposed to be submitted, in approximately six
months.
The financial impact of extending rear and side yard collection service to qualifying disabled
residents across the City is estimated at $50,000.00 per year. The financial impact of charging
$5.00 for replacement recycling boxes is projected to reduce net costs by $120,000.00 per
year. The financial impact of limiting twice per week garbage collection to 10 weeks in the
summer and moving to bi-weekly recycling in North York, is projected to reduce costs by
$1.0 million per year.
Recommendations:
Based on the comments received at an informal meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee
held on November 25, 1998 to review the issues and options discussed in this report, it is
recommended that:
(1)Existing service levels for waste and recycling collection be continued into 1999, except
for harmonization of the following services, which are to be referred to North York
Community Council for comments before consideration by the Works and Utilities
Committee:
(a)Effective April 1, 1999, on an interim basis, the North York Community Council Area be
provided with once a week garbage collection and bi-weekly recycling collection, with twice a
week garbage collection retained from the last week of June to the last week of August at an
estimated annual cost savings of $1.0 million;
(b)Effective April 1, 1999, optional rear and side yard collection service provided at an
additional fee be terminated;
(2)Effective January 2, 1999, rear and sideyard collection service be provided at no direct
charge to all residents in low density properties who, on the basis of a doctor's certificate, lack
sufficient mobility to carry waste materials to curbside, and who do not live in a residence
with a fully able person, at an estimated additional annual cost of $50,000;
(3)Effective April 1, 1999, replacement blue and grey boxes be provided to residents at a
charge of $5.00 per box for pick-up at service yard and Civic Centre locations, and that green
boxes be replaced with grey boxes as required, at an estimated saving of $120,000.00 per
year;
(4)Medium and high density residential buildings receiving municipal bulklift collection
service be required to rent bulklift garbage bins from the City, as a condition of receiving
garbage and recycling collection service from the City, at a rental fee sufficient to offset the
cost of both bulklift garbage bins and recycling containers, subject to a further report on
implementation issues to be submitted within approximately six months.
(5)Staff undertake the evaluation of the options for service harmonization outlined in this
report with respect to:
(a)frequency of garbage, recycling and yard waste collection for low density and medium
density residential properties which receive curbside collection;
(b)the provision of blue bags and other recycling support services to high density residential
properties which receive bulklift collection;
(d)the provision of waste management services to small commercial properties and
institutional properties, including consideration of full cost recovery user fees;
(e)the number of industrial properties where municipal collection is proposed to be
terminated and the method of phase out;
and that a report be brought forward in approximately six months.
Executive Summary:
Many variations exist among the former area municipalities with respect to the provision of
waste and recycling collection services to low and medium density residential properties,
small commercial properties, institutional properties and a small number of industrial
properties. These variations consist mostly of differences in frequency and seasonal duration
of services and, in the particular case of medium density residential, small commercial and
institutional properties, eligibility for services.
This report identifies areas where collection services across the City require harmonization,
proposes harmonization options that should be considered, and provides a preliminary
evaluation of the options, including cost impacts, where feasible. The specific areas
considered in the report are as follows:
A.Residential Collection Service
1.Curbside service for low density properties.
(i)Garbage and recycling collection.
(ii)Yard waste collection.
(iii)Rear and side yard collection.
(iv)Provision of recycling boxes.
2.Curbside services for medium density multi-unit residences.
3.Bulk lift services for high density residences.
(i)Provision of bulk lift bins.
(ii)Recycling program support in apartment buildings.
B.Small Commercial Collection Service
C.Institutional Collection Service
D.Industrial Collection Service
The report makes recommendations in areas that do not require further analysis and provides a
methodology for evaluating options related to frequency of residential waste collection and
eligibility criteria for, and frequency of, commercial and institutional waste collection.
Recommendations are presented with respect to the frequency of curbside garbage and
recycling collection in the North York Community Council Area, provision of replacement
recycling boxes, provision of rear and side yard collection services and rental of bulklift
garbage bins to apartment buildings.
The remaining harmonization options for residential, small commercial and institutional
properties will be evaluated through additional data collection and analysis as outlined in this
report with a further report to be submitted in approximately six months providing the service,
operational, environmental and financial implications of each option. The further report will
include:
(a)an analysis of options related to the frequency of residential curbside waste, yard waste and
recyclables collection on a City wide basis;
(b)an analysis related to the frequency of an eligibility criteria for commercial and
institutional waste collection;
(c)consideration of service fees for small commercial properties and institutional properties;
(d)an examination of implementation issues related to harmonized services, particularly with
respect to phasing options, collection system redesign requirements and organizational
restructuring implications; and
(e)the number and type of the few industrial properties that would be affected by the
proposed termination of existing service, as well as a proposed method of phasing out service.
It is intended that the further report will provide the basis for consultation with various
stakeholder groups prior to decisions being taken by Committee and Council, and a proposal
for this consultation process will also be included in the report.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Chief Administrative Officer has requested a report to the Works & Utilities Committee
on waste management service harmonization.
An informal meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee was held on November 25, 1998
to review the issues and options discussed in this report, and the recommendations presented
are based on input received at that meeting.
Discussion:
For the purpose of this report and ensuing evaluations, classes of properties are divided into
four principal groups: residential, commercial, institutional and industrial. For reference
purposes, the gross 1998 Solid Waste Management Services Division budget is $135.1 million
and the net budget is $76.3 million.
A.Residential Collection Service Level Variations
Waste and recycling collection services to the residential sector comprise the main activities
of the Solid Waste Management Services Division. There are three categories within the
residential class of properties:
Clow density properties, collected at curbside;
Cmedium density properties, collected at curbside or in rear-bin containers; and,
Cmedium and high density properties, collected in bulklift containers where suitable facilities
exist.
The basic service levels for each of the former area municipalities for these residential
property categories are shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, there have been service level
variations among former area municipalities in the provision of curbside residential collection
with respect to the frequency of collection, the duration of collection during the year for some
types of waste and services provided to particular groups of residences. The most consistent
level of service is provided to highrise apartment buildings, where all former area
municipalities contracted for bulklift collection. Service variations are described in more
detail in the following sections dealing with each category of property.
Table 1
Residential Garbage and Recycling Collection Frequency in the
Former Area Municipalities
| Former Area
Municipality |
Low Density Properties (curbside
service) |
Medium Density Properties
(curbside & rear bin service) |
Medium and High Density
(Bulklift) |
| East York |
Once-a-week garbage;
Bi-weekly recycling |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling, depending
on generation |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling |
| Etobicoke |
Once-a-week garbage;
Bi-weekly recycling |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling for
properties of 3 units and greater |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling |
| North York |
Twice-a-week garbage;
Once-a-week recycling |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling for all
properties |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling |
| Scarborough |
Once-a-week garbage;
Bi-weekly recycling |
Once-a-week garbage;
bi-weekly recycling |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling |
| Toronto |
Once-a-week garbage;
Bi-weekly recycling;
Twice-a-week summer garbage
for 50,000 residences |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling for
properties greater than 7 units |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling |
| York |
Once-a-week garbage;
Bi-weekly recycling |
Once-a-week garbage and
bi-weekly recycling, except for
larger apartments without bulk-lift
facilities which receive
twice-a-week garbage and
once-a-week recycling. |
Twice-a-week garbage,
once-a-week recycling |
A1.Curbside Collection Service for Low Density Residential Properties
Low density residential properties include single family residences and properties with a small
number of units such as townhouses and duplexes fronting on streets. Details of the service for
each former area municipality are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste Service Levels for
Low Density Residential Properties
| Former Area
Municipality |
Approximate No. of Low
Density Residences Collected
Curbside |
Collection Service Level |
Service Provider |
| East York |
32,000
(includes all properties less
than 14 units) |
Weekly Garbage began in 1991
Bi-weekly Recycling
Weekly Yard Waste from April 1 to Nov. 27 |
One-half municipal,
one half contracted |
| Etobicoke |
66,000
(includes all properties less
than 3 units) |
Weekly Garbage began in 1991
Bi-weekly Recycling
Weekly Yard Waste from April 1 - Nov. 30 |
Fully contracted |
| North York |
80,000 |
Twice-a-Week Garbage
Weekly Recycling
Weekly Yard Waste from April 1 to Sept. 30
Bi-weekly Yard Waste from Oct. 1 to Dec. 3 |
Fully municipal |
| Scarborough |
108,000
|
Weekly Garbage began in 1990
Bi-weekly Recycling
Weekly Yard Waste April 1 to May 30 and Oct.
1 to Nov. 30.
Bi-weekly Yard Waste June 1 to Sept. 30. |
Approximately 85%
municipal, and 15%
contracted |
| Toronto |
161,000
(150,000 daytime,
11,000 nighttime - includes
all properties less than 7
units) |
Weekly Garbage began in 1993
Alternating Weekly Paper and Blue Box
Weekly Yard Waste 3rd Week of April to Nov.
30
Summer Twice-a-Week Garbage for
approximately 50,000 residences June 24 to
Aug. 30 |
Fully municipal |
| York |
33,000
|
Weekly Garbage began in 1992
Bi-weekly Recycling
Weekly Yard Waste from May 4 - Nov. 20 |
Fully contracted |
(i)Garbage and Recycling Collection Services
As shown in Table 2, the predominant service level is year-round once-a-week garbage
collection and alternating weekly or bi-weekly recycling collection. The exceptions are the
former City of North York which has provided year-round twice-a-week garbage collection
and weekly recycling collection, and approximately 50,000 residences in the former City of
Toronto which receive summer twice-a-week garbage collection from the last full week of
June to August 31. Generally, these residences in the former City of Toronto are in areas with
the highest concentration of generation of garbage.
Based on the range of existing service levels, the harmonized service options for garbage and
recycling collection to low density residential properties include:
(1) year-round once-a-week garbage collection and alternating weekly or every other week
recycling collection with;
(a)no summer twice-a-week garbage collection (estimated cost saving of $1.8 million per
year);
(b) summer twice-a-week garbage collection in areas of high generation throughout the new
City (cost impact to be determined);
(c)summer twice per week collection retained in areas that currently receive this service and
in the York Community Council Area (estimated cost saving of $1.0 million per year);
(d)City wide summer twice-a-week garbage collection for all areas of the new City
(estimated cost increase of $1.4 million, net of the savings from ending year-round
twice-a-week collection in North York); or
(2) year round twice-a-week garbage collection and weekly recycling collection (estimated
cost increase of $7.0 million per year).
Service and Operational Impacts of Options:
The former area municipalities and Metropolitan Toronto introduced recycling programs in
the late 1980's. As a result, garbage quantities were reduced, but costs also increased
significantly. In response, all former municipalities, with the exception of North York,
introduced once-a-week collection and alternating weekly or bi-weekly recycling collection in
order to reduce costs. In most areas residents have adjusted with minimal complaint to the
provision of once-a-week garbage collection.
After changing to once-a-week collection, the former City of Toronto adopted a policy of
twice-a-week summer garbage collection in neighbourhoods where houses are closer together
and lack space for garbage storage. The greater density results in greater concentrations of
garbage which can generate unpleasant odours during the summer months. Approximately
one-third of residences in the former City of Toronto are eligible for this service which is
provided from the last full week of June to August 31. The additional service is based on
defined need criteria. As a result of the introduction of this summer service, it was possible to
retain once-a-week collection for the balance of the year with cost savings relative to the
former year round twice-a-week collection.
To determine the need for this summer service, the former City of Toronto conducted an
analysis of the garbage generation in collection areas in relation to net lot area, street frontage,
and the number of properties in the collection area. A ranking of the collection areas according
to the concentration of garbage was provided from this analysis and the former Toronto City
Council used this information to decide on the areas of the former City where this service
should be provided. Twice-a-week summer collection began in the former City of Toronto in
1996.
Summer twice-a-week collection was evaluated after the first summer of operation. The
results of statistically valid surveys indicated that participation rates, defined as the frequency
with which residents used both collection days of the week, averaged 47 percent. As well, for
reasons that are not apparent, areas that generated the highest amount of garbage were less
likely to participate on both collection days.
If summer twice-a-week collection is retained, there are a number of factors that will affect the
cost. First, the cost will depend on the number of collection areas provided with this service
and whether the collection areas are clustered or scattered. Another consideration will be the
number of additional trucks which will have to be purchased to provide summer twice-a-week
collection. It would be necessary to incur a large capital expenditure in the year in which it is
decided to extend this service to a large area of the City (the preliminary estimate of an
additional $1.4 million to extend this service City wide includes the amortization of these
capital costs). Furthermore, in the former City of Toronto, where in effect option (1.b) has
been adopted, it has been necessary to print an additional summer collection calendar to
reduce confusion by residents concerning the correct collection day for different materials. As
well, some former area municipalities such as Scarborough are experimenting with the use of
a four-day work week, which may result in reduced collection costs for once-a-week garbage
collection. If summer twice-a-week collection is adopted in these areas, it will be necessary to
return to a five-day work week during the summer months. Finally, if the service is extended
to areas of the City where curbside collection is contracted, there would be additional cost
implications if there is a need to negotiate with contractors during the term of these contracts.
The current regulation under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requires that recycling
collection occur at one half the frequency of garbage collection. In the former City of Toronto,
when summer twice-a-week garbage collection is provided, recycling collection continues to
be provided on an alternating weekly basis, or at one-fourth rather than at one-half of the
frequency of garbage collection service. Ministry of Environment staff and the former
Solicitor for the City of Toronto have both confirmed that this practice does not appear to
conflict with the EPA regulation.
With respect to Option (2), in which garbage collection is provided twice-a-week year-round,
the existing regulation would require provision of once-a-week recycling year-round.
However, the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) recent consultation paper dated June 2,
1998 entitled "Draft Regulation - General - Waste Management", promulgated under the EPA,
proposes that only bi-weekly recycling collection will be required under provincial regulations
regardless of the frequency of garbage collection. If this regulation is adopted it would permit
provision of bi-weekly or alternating weekly recycling collection in conjunction with
year-round twice-a-week garbage collection.
Environmental and Waste Diversion Impacts of Options:
The environmental impacts associated with the operation of waste collection vehicles include:
the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from vehicle operation; the human health
impacts associated with smog resulting from vehicle emissions; the impacts of these
emissions on other animals and plants; the health and safety impacts on the public from the
operation of collection vehicles on City streets; and the health and safety impacts on workers
collecting waste materials. Generally these impacts will be reduced if the frequency of
collection is reduced as a result of reduced travel distance and vehicle operating time. Table 3
shows a comparison of the environmental and cost impacts of Options (1.a), (1.d) and (2)
described above.
Table 3
Environmental and Cost Impacts of Alternative Garbage Collection Systems
| Estimated Change in Environmental
Factor/
Cost Per Year |
City-Wide Once-a-Week
Garbage Collection
(Option 1.a) |
City-Wide Summer
Twice-a-Week Garbage
Collection (10 weeks per
year)
(Option 1.d) |
City-Wide Year Round
Twice-a-Week Garbage
Collection
(Option 2) |
| Increased (Decreased) Annual
Travel in Kilometres |
(250,000) |
450,000 |
1,300,000 |
| Increased (Decreased) Fuel
Consumption in Litres |
(200,000) |
350,000 |
1,050,000 |
| Increased (Decreased) Equivalent
CO2 Emissions in Tonnes |
(1,150) |
2,000 |
5,800 |
| Increased (Decreased) Nitrogen
Oxide Emissions in Tonnes |
(2,000) |
3,500 |
10,000 |
| Percent Achievement of City's
20%* GHG Reduction Goal by 2005 |
0.02% progress** |
0.04% regression** |
0.1% regression** |
*Goal established by the former City of Toronto.
**Percentages are proportions of the City's 20% reduction goal.
Travel distance, fuel consumption, and GHG emissions are indicators of environmental
impact. Table 3 shows that City-wide once-a-week garbage collection results in the lowest
environmental impacts compared to the existing waste collection operation. The reduced
environmental impacts shown in Table 3 are only those associated with reduced vehicle
operation.
Summer twice-a-week garbage collection does reduce odours from the decomposition of
organic waste between collections and is particularly beneficial to residents with small lots
and/or those residents who set out garbage containing a high proportion of organic material.
The Medical Officer of Health advises that the odours associated with organic decomposition,
although unpleasant, are not known to have negative public health impacts provided garbage
is stored between collections in sealed rodent-proof containers. Year round twice-a-week
garbage collection does not yield reduced odour generation from garbage stored outdoors
because temperatures from September to June are generally insufficient to generate enough
anaerobic bacterial action to result in noticeable odours. If it is decided that summer
twice-a-week garbage collection should be provided to areas of the City which have the
highest concentration of generation, there may be some reduction in recycling diversion
during the summer months in these areas, because garbage collection frequency would be
doubled in relation to recycling collection frequency during this period. This effect was
observed in the former City of Toronto in the area which is provided with summer
twice-a-week service.
Table 4 below provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the options
discussed above.
Table 4
Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Collection Service Options
To Low Density Residential Properties
| Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| (1.a) Year-round once-a-week
garbage and bi-weekly recycling.
|
- saving of approximately $1.8
million per year compared to
existing service provision.
- lowest environmental impacts.
-potential decrease in garbage
generation. |
- approximately 80,000 residences in the former
City of North York will lose twice-a-week
year-round garbage collection.
- approximately 50,000 residences in the former
City of Toronto will lose twice-a-week summer
collection. |
| (1.b) Same as (1.a), plus
twice-a-week summer garbage
collection to areas of the City
where it is deemed necessary,
based on the concentration of
generation.
(Cost and environmental impacts
more than (1.a), but less than
(1.c). |
- twice-a-week service provision is
based upon objective criteria. |
-reduces financial savings and environmental
benefits compared to year-round once-a-week
collection.
- possible perception that neighbourhoods are
rewarded for higher garbage generation.
- may reduce recycling diversion during summer
months. |
(1.c) Same as (1.a) plus twice-a-week summer collection to areas currently receiving this service, and to the North
York Area.
| (1.d) Same as (1.a), plus City-wide
summer twice-a-week collection. |
- increased service provided to all residences.
|
- environmental impacts
greater than for (1.a) and
(1.b).
- increased costs of
approximately $1.4 million
compared to existing service
. |
| 2) Twice-a-week year round garbage
and once-a-week recycling. |
- increased level of service compared to all other
options. |
- increased costs of
approximately $7.0 million
compared to existing service.
- greater environmental
impacts than all other
options. |
Method to Evaluate Options for Garbage and Recycling Collection
The most difficult service to evaluate and cost is twice-a-week summer collection. If Council
decides that Option (1.b) should be explored further, the proposed method for determining the
need for twice-a-week summer collection would be based on the one developed by the former
City of Toronto. The process involves ranking collection areas by yearly garbage generation
based upon three factors: kilograms of generation per property; kilograms of generation per
metre of frontage; and, kilograms of generation per net square metre of lot area (the net lot
area of the properties in the collection area is determined by subtracting the footprint area of
structures on the property from the total residential lot area in the collection area). Collection
areas would receive a combined rank from these three criteria. Where garbage generation data
is unavailable, as it may be for certain areas of the City, other means may be employed for
assessing need. The City's Land Information System and existing data bases containing
information about waste generation from the City's collection areas will be used in preparing
this report. More analysis and discussion is necessary to determine which areas should receive
service on the basis of the ranking.
It is proposed that a report be brought forward in approximately 6 months which contains an
evaluation of the options outlined above. The report will also review potential incentive
programs for residents, to facilitate the transition to different service levels.
In the interim, it is recommended that Option (1.c) be implemented effective April 1, 1999
(i.e. change once-a-week garbage collection and bi-weekly recycling collection in North York,
with summer twice-a-week garbage collection retained from the last week of June to the last
week of August.
(ii)Yard Waste Collection Services
Table 2 shows the levels of service in the former area municipalities for yard waste collection,
which includes leaves, brush and plant clippings. This material is composted at the Avondale
composting facility at the Keele Valley Landfill site and the Centennial Park Composting site
in Etobicoke. Based on the current range of service levels, the harmonized service level
options for yard waste collection to residential low density properties include:
(1) Once-a-week yard waste collection beginning May 4 (latest start) and ending November
20 (earliest ending) with bi-weekly service occurring during the months of June, July, August
and September;
(2)Once-a-week yard waste collection beginning April 1 (earliest start) and ending December
3 (latest ending) with bi-weekly service occurring during the months of June, July, August and
September; or
(3)Once-a-week yard waste collection beginning in April 1 (earliest beginning) and ending
on December 3 (latest finish).
Service and Operational Impacts of Options:
The largest amount of eligible organic yard waste is generated in the Spring when residents
are pruning and preparing their gardens, and in the Fall when pruning also occurs in
conjunction with Fall leaf collection. Much of the organic waste generation during the
summer months comprises grass clippings which are not permitted to be set out for yard waste
collection and which residents are encouraged to mulch for their lawns. Option (2), which
provides the earliest start and latest finish with reduced service during the summer months,
most closely corresponds to the Spring and Fall periods of peak generation of eligible yard
waste generation. However, this option will be difficult to implement in North York after
October 1 if the City continues to provide the North York area year-round twice-a-week
garbage collection because of the limitation of resources.
Environmental and Waste Diversion Impacts of Options:
Option (1) would result in the fewest impacts with respect to the emissions from collection
vehicles but may result in more eligible yard waste being set out as garbage during the early
Spring and late Fall, which would decrease diversion resulting from yard waste programs.
Option (2) results in more vehicle emissions than Option (1) but less than Option (3). Option
(2) is most likely to increase the capture of eligible yard waste material, and is also preferred
because service is reduced during the summer months when most (ineligible) grass clippings
are generated. Option (3) results in the highest level of vehicle emissions and a higher level of
service than may be required during the summer months.
Evaluation of Service Level Options:
It is proposed that staff evaluate the service options described above in relation to quantity and
duration of yard waste generation, cost, and environmental impacts, and report in
approximately six months.
(iii) Rear and Side Yard Collection
Rear and side yard collection services, whereby workers collect waste from the porch, side, or
rear of the house, is provided to residents living in the former Village of Forest Hill who were
on the former City of Toronto sidewalk snow and ice removal list (a service provided to senior
citizens) as of April 13, 1993, and to disabled residents in households in the former Cities of
North York and Toronto where no able-bodied person resides. Currently there are
approximately 240 residences which receive rear and side yard collection services under these
policies, and the number of households receiving this service has remained fairly constant
over the past three years, with residences being added and deleted on a continuing basis
depending on the circumstances of the eligible households.
A similar service is also provided to 32 residences in the Bridle Path area for a service fee of
$100 per year. In this area the homes are very deeply set back from the road allowance, and a
collection vehicle is driven up the driveway to the residence.
It is proposed that harmonized options for this service include:
(1) termination of all current services (negligible saving per year); or
(2) provision of service City-wide to low density residential properties where only disabled
persons reside as well as continuing with the arrangement in Forest Hill until the list of
"grandparented" names is eliminated (estimated $50,000 per year increase in cost).
Service and Operational Impacts of Options:
In the former Cities of North York and Toronto, applicants must submit a letter confirming
that no able-bodied person lives in the dwelling and a doctor's certificate advising that the
resident has restricted mobility. The service is valuable to the relatively small number of
eligible people. The distribution of the service is more restrictive than the distribution of the
snow clearing service because only residents with restricted mobility are eligible.
Based on the current number of service recipients of approximately 240 residences out of a
total of 240,000 residences in the former Cities of Toronto and North York, the cost impact
for the provision of this service is insignificant. If Option (2) is implemented it is estimated
that up to approximately 1000 residences could be expected to use this service. The provision
of the service could be accommodated within existing service arrangements and budgets for
areas of the City where service is provided by municipal staff. However, there may be some
small cost impact if a decision is made to provide this service in areas of the City where
collection occurs by contract. If this service were extended across the new City, the additional
cost is estimated at $50,000.00 per year.
With respect to the service provided in the former City of North York to residents in the
Bridle Path area, staff drive a 15 cubic metre collection vehicle up the residents' driveways to
access garbage containers. This collection vehicle is smaller than the 24 cubic metre vehicle
used by staff in other areas of North York, and is required because the heavier vehicle would
damage residents' driveways. Two issues of concern are whether the fee is sufficient in
relation to the additional work and reduced efficiencies resulting from the use of a smaller
collection vehicle; and whether it is appropriate for the municipality to provide supplementary
services to residents on a fee-for service basis.
Environmental and Waste Diversion Impacts of Options:
There are no or insignificant environmental impacts and impacts on diversion associated with
either option.
Evaluation of Service Level Options:
No additional information is required to decide whether the service of rear and sideyard
collection should be extended across the City to residents with certified restricted mobility.
Given the minimal additional cost, it would seem appropriate to extend this service (i.e.
Option 2) as soon as possible.
In view of the issues raised above, it is also recommended that the optional rear and side yard
collection service in the Bridle Path Area be terminated.
(iv) Provision of Curbside Recycling Boxes
All former area municipalities have been providing the first blue, grey or green box to new
residents at no direct charge. Green boxes were provided for fibre collection in the former City
of North York. Replacement or additional boxes must be picked up from service yards with
charges varying from no charge to $5.00 per box. Approximately 50,000 blue, grey and green
boxes are distributed in the new City of Toronto each year, at a total cost of $210,000.00,
which is offset by an estimated $50,000.00 in revenue.
The service options proposed for this service are:
(1) provide residents with new and replacement recycling boxes for a charge of $5.00 per
box, at an estimated reduced cost of $125,000.00 per year.
(2)provide new residents with free recycling boxes and provide replacement boxes at a charge
of $5.00 per box, at an estimated reduced cost of $120,000.00 per year.
(3) provide all residents with new and replacement recycling boxes at no charge, at an
estimated increased cost of $80,000.00 per year.
In all the above options, residents would be required to pick-up recycling boxes at service
yards and Civic Centres.
Operational and Service Impacts of Options:
Providing free replacement recycling boxes gives an incentive to residents to participate in
recycling, but can lead to higher than necessary demand. Municipalities that have introduced
charges have seen the number of replacement boxes drop significantly. There are additional
administrative costs associated with selling the boxes, but these can be minimized by using
existing clerical staff.
Environmental and Waste Diversion Impacts
Charging for new and/or replacement boxes (Options (1) and (2)) may discourage some
residents from recycling.
No further analysis is proposed with respect to this issue. It is recommended that effective
April 1, 1999, all replacement recycling boxes be provided at a charge of $5.00 per box (to
cover the cost of the box and associated administrative costs). Residents would continue to be
required to pick the boxes up at service yards and Civic Centres and provide proof of
residency.
Under this policy, new residents could continue to be provided with free boxes, with proof of
new residency. It is also proposed that, in the North York Community Area, both new
residents and residents requesting replacement boxes for paper material be provided with grey
boxes instead of green boxes.
A.2 Curbside Collection Services for Medium Density Multi-Unit Residences
Service levels to this class of residential properties by the former area municipalities are
shown on Table 5 below. These are multi-unit residential properties that are too small for
bulklift collection or are larger apartments built prior to the provision of bulklift facilities or
compacting equipment in apartment buildings. This category includes low-rise apartment
buildings and townhouse complexes which have a central curbside collection point on site.
The majority of low-rise apartment buildings are located in the former Cities of Toronto, York
and East York. All former area municipalities collect garbage from some of these properties
twice-a-week with weekly recycling collection with the exception of Scarborough where
garbage is collected once-a-week with bi-weekly recycling for all properties. However, the
eligibility criteria for twice-a-week garbage collection varies between properties of three units
and greater in Etobicoke to larger low-rise apartment buildings without bulklift facilities in
York.
Table 5
Garbage and Recycling Service Levels
to Residential Medium Density Properties
which Receive Curbside Collection
| Former Area Municipality |
Approximate No.
of Properties |
Approximate No. Of
Units |
Collection Service Level |
| East York |
6 |
200 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and weekly
recycling collection, depending on generation. |
| Etobicoke |
800 |
5,000 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and weekly
recycling collection to all properties 3 units and
greater |
| North York |
200 |
20,000 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and weekly
recycling collection to all properties. |
| Scarborough |
152 |
9,790 |
Once-a-week garbage collection and bi-weekly
recycling collection to all curbside non-bulklift
properties. |
| Toronto |
2,500 |
31,000 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection; and either
alternating weekly blue and grey box recycling;
or, weekly collection of recycling carts, to all
properties greater than 7 units. |
| York |
40 |
2,000 |
Once-a-week garbage and bi-weekly recycling,
except for larger apartments without bulk-lift
facilities, which receive twice-a-week garbage
and once-a-week recycling. |
Based on the current range of service levels, it is proposed that harmonized service options for
these properties include:
(1)Year-round once-a-week garbage collection and bi-weekly or alternating weekly recycling
collection;
(2)Year-round twice-a-week garbage and weekly recycling collection; or
(3)Same as (1), but with year-round twice-a-week garbage and once-a-week recycling
collection to specific properties where conditions warrant this higher level of service.
Service and Operational Impacts of Options:
With Option (1), approximately 3,500 apartment buildings and townhouse complexes with
approximately 56,000 units would have garbage and recycling collection frequency reduced
by one-half. Many of the properties currently receiving twice-a-week service are as
intensively developed as highrise apartment projects, which receive twice-a-week bulklift
collection. In addition, many of these older apartments have a larger building footprint in
relation to total lot area than do newer highrise buildings. As a result, these buildings often
have insufficient areas for the storage of garbage.
For Option (2), it would be necessary to establish a uniform definition for this category of
properties since, as shown in Table 5, the existing definitions vary significantly.
Option (3) would involve providing twice-a-week garbage collection to specific medium
density properties in order to address storage difficulties related to mixed commercial and
residential "Main Streets" projects. Eligibility criteria for properties that would receive
twice-a-week service would have to be established.
Environmental and Waste Diversion Impacts of Options:
Twice-a-week collection compared to once-a-week collection results in greater environmental
impacts largely due to the additional travel of collection vehicles. However, the impacts are
much smaller in scale than the impacts associated with year-round twice-a-week collection of
garbage from low density residences. This is because most of these small apartment and
townhouse projects are collected on a "point-to-point" basis that does not require travelling
down all residential streets. Furthermore, twice-a-week garbage collection would assist in
addressing the issue of unpleasant odours, particularly in summer months.
Option (3) would reduce the environmental impacts resulting from the provision of
twice-a-week garbage collection to all medium density projects. In this case, service provision
is more likely to be provided to properties which are located on arterial or "Main Streets", in
the central area, or to areas where these types of properties are clustered. The greater
proximity of these types of properties in these areas would result in reduced travel in relation
to the quantity of waste collected.
Evaluation of Service Level Options:
The evaluation would involve developing a uniform definition of medium density properties,
determining where these types of properties are located and clustered, and determining the
operational issues associated with providing once-a-week or twice-a-week garbage collection.
It is proposed that staff conduct an evaluation of the impacts of providing once-a-week or
twice-a-week service to the this group of properties and report back by in approximately 6
months.
A.3 Bulklift Collection Service to Medium and High Density Residences
Table 6 shows the number of medium density properties (eg. townhouses) and apartment
buildings to which bulklift service is provided in each of the former area municipalities.
Table 6
Garbage and Recycling Service Levels
to Residential Medium and High Density Properties
Which Receive Bulklift Collection
| Former Area
Municipality |
Approximate
No. of
Properties |
Approximate No.
Of Units |
Collection Service Level |
| East York |
219 |
19,524 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and
weekly recycling collection |
| Etobicoke |
800 |
50,000 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and
weekly recycling collection |
| North York |
866 |
122,000 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and
weekly recycling collection. |
| Scarborough |
538 |
73,134 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and
weekly recycling collection. |
| Toronto |
617 |
101,600 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and
weekly recycling collection |
| York |
214 |
22,133 |
Twice-a-week garbage collection, and
weekly recycling collection |
As noted above, the frequency of collection service provided to multi-unit residences
receiving bulklift collection is essentially harmonized, since all these buildings receive
twice-a-week garbage and once-a-week recycling collection. However, variations do exist
regarding the provision of bulklift containers and certain other services, as described below.
(i)Provision of Bulklift Bins
All former area municipalities other than the former City of Toronto require multi-unit
residences which receive bulklift collection service to make their own arrangements to
provide suitable garbage and recycling containers. The former City of Toronto requires
building owners to rent bulklift garbage bins from the City, or to pay the City a fee equivalent
to the City's rental charge even if owners provide their own containers, as a condition of
receiving City garbage and recycling collection service at no direct charge. Recycling
collection containers are provided by the former City of Toronto at no direct charge to
building owners. The total revenue from the rental of the garbage bins in the former City of
Toronto is greater than the cost of providing the garbage and recycling bins.
It is proposed that harmonized service options include the following:
(1)require building owners to rent bulklift garbage bins from the City, at a rental fee sufficient
to offset the cost of both garbage bins and recycling containers;
(2)require that building owners rent from the City both bulklift garbage bins and recycling
containers, with rental fees sufficient to offset the costs of garbage bins and recycling
containers;
(3)allow building owners the option of either renting bulklift garbage bins and recycling
containers from the City or providing their own; or
(4) require that building owners provide their own bulklift garbage bins and recycling
containers to the City's specification.
Service and Operational Impacts of Options:
Option (1) was adopted by the former City of Toronto because it ensured that bulklift garbage
bins are compatible with municipal equipment, reduced conflicts with building owners
concerning damage to bins, and increased participation in recycling programs because owners
attempt to reduce garbage bin rental costs by increasing recycling diversion. Options (1) and
(2) both ensure that, if the new City is to provide the bin leasing service, there is a sufficient
base of customers to support this service provision, but Option (2) provides less stimulus to
participate in recycling programs than Option (1). Option (3) is considered to be least
desirable because the City must maintain facilities to repair and store bins without the
assurance that owners will lease bins from the City and disputes can also arise with respect to
damage to bins and containers. Option (4) is considered more desirable than Option (3) but
disputes can still arise concerning damages to bins and containers. Prior to the adoption of any
of the options, consultation with building owners will be required.
Environmental and Waste Diversion Impacts of Options:
Option (1) is the only option that would provide a stimulus for recycling. There are no other
significant environmental impacts associated with the various options.
Evaluation of Options:
Based on the above impacts, it is recommended that Option (1) be adopted across the City.
Implementation will require an assessment of the number of buildings affected, the number of
bins which would be required, determination of full cost recovery rental charges, and
timelines for the transition to rental bins. It is proposed that a report be submitted in
approximately 6 months concerning rental fee levels, implementation issues and timing.
(ii)Recycling Program Support in Apartment Buildings:
All former area municipalities have been working actively to include all eligible highrise
apartment buildings in municipal recycling programs. Highrise buildings where programs
have been established are provided with once-a-week fibre and container collection. There are
some differences among former area municipalities concerning the promotion of apartment
recycling programs, the provision of "blue bags", the resources available to attend tenant
meetings to explain and promote apartment recycling programs, and the provision of "Junk
Mail" diversion containers in apartment lobbies. Some of these differences relate to
availability of staff resources in the former area municipalities. It is recommended that a
report be submitted to Committee in approximately six months concerning harmonized
services for apartment recycling program support.
B.Small Commercial Properties
For the purpose of this report, commercial premises are defined as the location where a
business is conducted, whereas a property consists of land and buildings which can contain
one or more business premises. All former area municipalities have not charged for collection
from smaller commercial properties, however, the eligibility criteria for collection varies
among the former municipalities. The private sector waste industry services those small
businesses that do not meet the current eligibility criteria. For large commercial properties, it
has been the policy of all former area municipalities not to provide service except in the case
of the former City of Toronto, where some business premises or properties were
"grandparented" as part of its commercial service rationalization.
Service levels provided by the former area municipalities to small commercial properties are
summarized in Table 7. As can be seen from Table 7, the former City of Toronto provides the
most extensive service to small commercial properties and provides service to the greatest
number of these properties. In 1997 the former City of Toronto collected approximately
85,000 tonnes of garbage and recycling waste from the small commercial sector, or
approximately 70 percent of commercial waste collected by all the former local
municipalities. The eligibility criteria shown on Appendix A were adopted by the former City
of Toronto in 1995 as part of a process of service rationalization, and are provided for
reference.
The introduction of full cost recovery service fees to commercial properties which receive
municipal collection service is included in the options proposed below. The institution of such
service fees to the commercial sector will have the effect of reducing the total net waste
management budget by $7.5 million per year, increasing to approximately $10 million to $15
million after closure of the Keele Valley Landfill.
As shown on Table 7, there are significant differences in commercial collection service levels
among the former area municipalities. The lowest level of service is currently provided by the
former City of North York , which provides twice-a-week garbage collection of housekeeping
waste only, and no recycling collection service. The highest level of service is currently
provided by the former City of Toronto , which provides twice-a-week garbage collection for
all commercial premises located in small commercial properties, five- and six-night-a-week
garbage collection to restaurants in these properties, twice-a-week old corrugated cardboard
collection and blue box collection, and bi-weekly paper collection.
Table 7
Existing Municipal Garbage and Recycling Collection Service Levels
for Small Commercial Properties
