Garbage Collection Business Plan by vds23001

VIEWS: 486 PAGES: 107

More Info
									Solid Waste Management Services




                                      reduce



                multi-year

            business plan
                      2005
                                  A made-in-Toronto solution
                                                                                                                                SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                         MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Table of Contents


TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................................ 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................ 5

1.0        WHERE WE HAVE COME FROM SINCE 1998 ................................................................................ 11

2.0        CURRENT SITUATION............................................................................................................................ 16
   2.1         MISSION STATEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 16
   2.2         CITY OF TORONTO STRATEGIC DIRECTION ............................................................................................... 16
   2.3         CURRENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................. 17
   2.3         PROGRAM MAP ........................................................................................................................................... 19
   2.4         FACILITY LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 20
   2.5         ASSET INVENTORY...................................................................................................................................... 20
           2.5.1          Vehicles............................................................................................................................................................20
           2.5.2          Facility and Equipment Inventory...................................................................................................................23
   2.6         CLOSED LANDFILLS .................................................................................................................................... 24
3.0        EXISTING OPERATIONS........................................................................................................................ 26
   3.1         PROGRAM SUMMARIES............................................................................................................................... 26
           3.1.1          Collection .........................................................................................................................................................26
           3.1.2          Transfer ............................................................................................................................................................27
           3.1.3          Processing ........................................................................................................................................................29
           3.1.4          Management of Household Hazardous Waste...............................................................................................31
           3.1.5          Disposal............................................................................................................................................................31
           3.1.6          Litter Collection ...............................................................................................................................................31
           3.1.7          By-law Enforcement........................................................................................................................................32
           3.1.8          Policy and Planning .........................................................................................................................................33
   3.2         STAFFING LEVELS ....................................................................................................................................... 33
   3.3         LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE CITY’S SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .................................. 35
   3.4         LINKAGES WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................. 37
           3.4.1          Linkages within the Works and Emergency Services Department...............................................................37
           3.4.2          Linkages with Other City Departments..........................................................................................................38
           3.4.3          Linkages with External Organizations............................................................................................................38
   3.5         WASTE CURRENTLY MANAGED ................................................................................................................ 40
   3.6         PROGRAM BUDGET ..................................................................................................................................... 41
           3.6.1          Approved Capital Budget – 2004 ...................................................................................................................41
           3.6.2          Approved Operating Budget - 2004................................................................................................................43
   3.7         KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................................................................ 46
4.0        DRIVING FACTORS FOR CHANGE.................................................................................................... 54
   4.1         DRIVING FACTORS FOR CHANGE ............................................................................................................... 54
           4.1.1          Task Force 2010 - Achievement of Diversion Goals.....................................................................................54
           4.1.2          Residual Disposal ............................................................................................................................................57
           4.1.3          Ontario Ministry of Environment’s 60% Plan ...............................................................................................59
           4.1.4          Waste Diversion Ontario.................................................................................................................................59
           4.1.5          Amalgamation and Harmonization.................................................................................................................59
   4.2         BARRIERS TO CHANGE ............................................................................................................................... 60
   4.3         LONG TERM VISION .................................................................................................................................... 60
                                                                                                                              SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                       MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



5.0        PROGRAM CHANGES............................................................................................................................. 61
   5.1        PROGRAM CHANGES NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE DIVERSION GOALS......................................................... 61
           5.1.1         Implementation of Source Separated Organics (SSO) Programs in Apartments .........................................63
           5.1.2         SSO Processing Capacity Requirements........................................................................................................66
           5.1.3         Single Stream Recycling and Improved Recycling Capacity........................................................................69
           5.1.4         Additional Materials Added to the Recycling Program.................................................................................72
           5.1.5         Enforcement of Mandatory Diversion Programs and Implementation of Bag Tag Program......................73
           5.1.6         Bag Tag Program.............................................................................................................................................76
           5.1.7         Reuse Centres and Collection of Durables.....................................................................................................82
           5.1.8         New and Emerging Technologies...................................................................................................................83
           5.1.9         Achievement of Diversion Goals....................................................................................................................84
   5.2        LONG TERM DISPOSAL OF WASTE ............................................................................................................. 86
           5.2.1         Michigan Compliance .....................................................................................................................................87
           5.2.2         Recovery of Recyclables at City Transfer Facilities ......................................................................................88
           5.2.3         Republic Contract Renewal.............................................................................................................................89
           5.2.4         Landfill Contingency Disposal Plan ...............................................................................................................90
   5.2        ASSET UTILIZATION.................................................................................................................................... 91
   5.4        HARMONIZATION ISSUES ............................................................................................................................ 91
           5.4.1         Charities and Institutions .................................................................................................................................91
           5.4.2         Bulky Item Collection from Multiple Household Locations.........................................................................93
           5.4.4         Litter Bins.........................................................................................................................................................94
           5.4.5         Bin Rental.........................................................................................................................................................94
           5.4.5         Increased Service to Townhouse Locations ...................................................................................................94
6.0        FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................. 96
   6.1        INCREMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 96
   6.2        NET OPERATING BUDGET REQUIREMENTS 2005 - 2012 .........................................................................102
   6.3        CAPITAL BUDGET REQUIREMENTS 2005 - 2012......................................................................................104




Table of Figures


Figure 1 – City of Toronto Diversion Rates Since 1997............................................................................................ 11
Map 1 – SWMS Facility Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2 - SWMS 2004 Equipment Inventory ........................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3 - Equipment Replacement Reserve.............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 4 - Vehicles Beyond Their Life Expectancy as of December 2003 .............................................................. 22
Figure 5 – Replacement Costs of SWMS Facilities................................................................................................... 23
Figure 6 - Perpetual Care Contributions and Costs.................................................................................................... 25
Figure 7 - Perpetual Care Cash Flow Requirements with Additional Contribution from Operating Budget ......... 25
Figure 8 - Collection Service and Frequency ............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 9 – 2003 Tonnages Collected by Customer Type .......................................................................................... 27
Figure 10 - Aerial View of the Disco Transfer Station .............................................................................................. 28
Figure 11 - Transfer Station Customers...................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 12 - Material Tonnage Processed in 2003 by Type........................................................................................ 29
Figure 13 - Breakdown of Revenue Received by Recyclable Material.................................................................... 30
Figure 14 - By-law Enforcement Activity Between 1999 and 2003......................................................................... 32
Figure 15 - Budgeted Gross Expenditures ($Millions) and Number of Approved Positions from 1997 to 2004 .. 34
Figure 16 - Acts Passed by Michigan on March 29, 2004, Regarding Prohibition of Materials from Landfill and
other Acts regarding Solid Waste Imports.................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 17 - Waste Managed in 2003 (Approximately 1,453,000 tonnes)................................................................. 40
Figure 18 - 2004 Capital Budget - Cash Flow by Project ($53.6M) ......................................................................... 41
Figure 19 - 2004 Capital Budget - Cash Flow By Category ($53.6M).................................................................... 42
Figure 20 - 2004 Capital Budget - Cash Flow By Financing Source....................................................................... 42

                                                                                                       2
                                                                                                                             SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                      MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 21 – Revenue Sources of 2004 Operating Budget ($216.1M)....................................................................... 43
Figure 22 - 2004 Budgeted Sources of Operating Revenue ($58.0M Gross).......................................................... 44
Figure 23 – 2004 Operating Budget Expenditures by Activity ($216.1 Gross)......................................................44
Figure 24 - Total 2004 Budgeted Program by Expenditure Category ($216.1M Gross) ....................................... 45
Figure 25 – 2004 Budget Gross Expenditures ($216.1M)........................................................................................ 45
Figure 26 – Toronto’s Annual Operating Costs per Tonne for Garbage Collection ................................................ 46
Figure 27 - Annual Operating Costs per Tonne in 2003 for Garbage Collection in Comparison with other OMBI
Municipalities............................................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 28 – Toronto’s Annual Operating Costs per Tonne for Transfer and Disposal of Garbage......................... 48
Figure 29 - Annual Operating Costs per Tonne in 2003 for Transfer and Disposal of Garbage for OMBI
Municipalities............................................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 30 – Toronto’s Annual Operating Costs per Tonne for Diversion Programs ............................................... 49
Figure 31 - Annual Operating Cost per Tonne in 2003 for Diversion Programs for OMBI Municipalities........... 50
Figure 32 – Toronto’s Annual Average Operating Costs per Tonne for the Solid Waste Management System ... 50
Figure 33 – Total Average Operating Cost per Tonne in 2003 for the Solid Waste Management System for
OMBI Municipalities................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 34 - Number of Complaints Received Annually............................................................................................ 51
Figure 35 - Percentage of Residential Solid Waste Diverted..................................................................................... 52
Figure 36 – Toronto’s Percentage of Residential Solid Waste Diverted.................................................................. 53
Figure 37 – Residential Diversion Rate in 2003 for OMBI Municipalities.............................................................. 53
Figure 38 – Task Force 2010- Residential Diversion Rate from Landfill Targets .................................................. 55
Figure 39 – Toronto’s Pledge...................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 40 - 2003 Residential Waste Stream ............................................................................................................... 56
Figure 41 – Estimated 2003 Ontario Waste Shipments to Michigan........................................................................ 58
Figure 42 - Composition of Overall Residential Waste Generation and Projected 40% Residue ........................... 61
Figure 43 - Recovery Rate Explained......................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 44 – Projected Recovery Rates for Recyclables............................................................................................. 62
Figure 45 – Estimated Net Incremental Operating Costs for Source Separated Organics Programs in Apartments
 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 46 - Estimated Capital Costs Associated with the Implementation of Source Separated Organics Programs
in Apartments............................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 47 - Source Separated Organic Material Collection Rates for Existing Programs ....................................... 66
Figure 48 – Toronto SSO Generation and Interim and Long-Term Processing Capacity ....................................... 68
Figure 49 - Estimated Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with Implementing Single Family Cart
Recycling(1)................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 50 - Estimated Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with Implementing Once per Week Recycling
at Locations that Cannot be Serviced With Carts(2).................................................................................................... 71
Figure 51 - Estimated Annual Incremental Operating Costs for Increased By-law Enforcement for Single Family
Homes........................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 52 - Estimated Annual Net Incremental Operating and Capital Costs Associated with Enforcement at
Multiple Household Locations.................................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 53 - Estimated Annual Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with the Implementation of a Pay-As-
You-Throw Program in Single Family Households .................................................................................................. 80
Figure 54 - Estimated Annual Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with the Implementation of a Pay-As-
You-Throw Program at Multi-Unit Locations ........................................................................................................... 81
Figure 55 - Estimated Capital Costs Associated with Pay-as-You Throw at Multi-Unit Locations ....................... 81
Figure 56 - Estimated Annual Incremental Operating Costs and Capital Expenditures Associated with the Full
Implementation of Six (6) Reuse Centres................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 57 - Estimated Annual Incremental Operating and Capital Costs Associated with the Curbside Collection
of Durable Goods......................................................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 58 – Tonnage Captured by Proposed Initiatives to Achieve 100% Diversion from Landfill ...................... 85
Figure 59 - Incremental New Operating Costs of Diversion..................................................................................... 86
Figure 60 – Estimated Annual Operating Costs Associated with Legislative Compliance with the State of
Michigan....................................................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 61 - Estimated Diversion and Costs Associated with Recovering Recyclables from the Waste Stream at
City Transfer Facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 89

                                                                                                       3
                                                                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 62 – Estimated Annual Operating Budget Impact of the Implementation of Option C ............................... 93
Figure 63 – Projected Net Operating Budget Requirements and Associated Projected Diversion Rates ............... 97
Figure 64 - Operating Budget Impact by Proposed Programs................................................................................... 98
Figure 65 - FTE Impact with Implementation of New Programs 2005 - 2012 ........................................................ 99
Figure 66 - Solid Waste Management Services Estimated Capital Requirements and Associated Diversion Rates
2005 - 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................100
Figure 67 – 2005 – 2012 Impact on Capital Budget by Proposed Programs..........................................................101
Figure 68 - Solid Waste Management Services: Projected Net Operating Budget Requirements 2005 - 2012 ...103
Figure 69 - Solid Waste Management Services: Projected Capital Budget Requirements 2005 – 2012..............105




                                                                                                 4
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Executive Summary


The search for a 'Made in Toronto Solution' for managing the City’s waste has been ongoing since
amalgamation. Amalgamation combined 6 collection operations and one transfer, processing and
disposal operation into one Division with common goals. Since 1998 Solid Waste Management
Services (SWMS) has been able to take advantage of efficiencies and a collective spirit that has
resulted in the implementation of service improvements and policies that have successfully contributed
to the City’s waste diversion goals.

The Division continues to build on these accomplishments in its goal to provide cost effective services,
maintain a clean city and minimize the impact of waste on the environment.

Since amalgamation, Solid Waste Management Services (SWMS) has harmonized collection policies,
increased its diversion rate from 25% to 32%, implemented a source separated organics program for
single family residents and small businesses, put 100% of all apartment building on the City’s recycling
program, enhanced by-law enforcement, implemented a litter prevention program, closed the Keele
Valley landfill, negotiated a long term disposal contract and implemented operational efficiencies.

Solid Waste Management Services (SWMS) has four sections: two District Collection sections, a
Transfer, Processing and Disposal Section and a Policy and Planning Section. Together, staff manage
9 operations yards, seven transfer stations and household hazardous waste/recycling depots, two
materials recovery facilities, a maintenance yard and well as 158 closed former landfill sites. These
assets are valued at approximately $143M. SWMS also operates 522 licensed vehicles and 113 off
road pieces of equipment valued at approximately $90,838,000.

With approximately 1,300 staff, SWMS provides comprehensive waste management services and
programs for residents, small commercial businesses and the private sector in the City of Toronto.

In 2003, SWMS managed approximately 1,453,000 tonnes of garbage, recyclables, organics,
yardwaste and white goods from our customers:


              ABC&Ds and Other
                                      Small Commercial/
               (58,120 tonnes)
                                     Institutional (29,060
                     4%
                                            tonnes)
                                               2%
           Peel Region (101,710
                 tonnes)
                                                                 Residential
                   7%
                                                                  (908,157
                                                                  tonnes)
                                                                    62%




                 Paid Commercial
                (363,250 tonnes)
                       25%                                                       Residential Diverted
                                                                                  (286,835 tonnes)
                                                                                        32%
                                                                                 (43 % single family;
                                                                                  12 % multi-family)



                                                             5
                                                                                     SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                              MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




The City’s solid waste management services are funded primarily from the tax levy (74%) with the
remaining 26% funded by user fees (including tip fees and commercial collection fees), the sale of
recyclables, grants and royalties.

A number of factors are contributing to the need for the City to review its current solid waste
management programs. These factors are both internal and external and their impacts have ranged
from minimal to the need to reengineer our existing collection, transfer, processing and disposal
system. Program changes are necessary to:

             -                      Meet diversion from landfill goals;
             -                      Manage long term disposal of residue; and,
             -                      Wrap up amalgamation and harmonization issues.



This Plan focuses on the implementation of programs and initiatives that will address these factors.

In the Fall of 2000, City Council was engaged in a difficult debate on the future of Toronto’s garbage
following the mandated closure of the Keele Valley site at the end of 2002. This resulted in a disposal
contract for a private landfill in Michigan. This was not intended to be the long term solution to the
City’s garbage.

In 2001, Council adopted the recommendations of Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 calling for the
City to achieve waste diversion goals of 30%, 60% and 100% by 2003, 2006 and 2010 respectively. At
that time, the City was diverting 215,000 tonnes of residential waste, equating to a 25% diversion rate.

The Task Force 2010 targets as adopted by Council are illustrated below:


Task Force 2010- Residential Diversion from Landfill Targets



                                    100%

                                     80%
                 % Diversion Rate




                                     60%

                                     40%

                                     20%

                                      0%
                                                  2003                 2006                   2010
       Diversion Rate                             30%                  60%                    100%




                                                                        6
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Following adoption of the recommendations of Task Force 2010, the City implemented a number of
initiatives designed to meet the 30% diversion by 2003 goal. These initiatives included:

-       Rolling out the Green Bin program to single-family households in Etobicoke and Scarborough.
-       Introducing a corresponding shift from weekly to bi-weekly residual waste collection.
-       Undertaking a blitz to ensure basic recycling programs are available in all 5,000 multi-family
        apartments and condominiums.
-       Expanding the Blue Box Program, both in terms of introducing a wider range of acceptable
        items (e.g., milk and juice cartons, drink boxes, empty paint and aerosol cans) and capturing
        more recyclables overall through mandatory use of the Blue/Grey Box program.
-       Moving to kraft paper bags designed to enhance collection of leaf and yard waste for
        composting.

As a result of these initiatives, the City exceeded its goal of 30% residential waste diversion by 2003.
In 2003, approximately 287,000 tonnes of residential waste resources were diverted from landfill,
which represents a residential diversion rate of 32%. The rate of 32% is a combined diversion rate for
single-family and multi-family residences. The actual diversion rate is 43% for single-family homes and
12% for multi-family dwellings. Homes in Etobicoke, Scarborough, East York, York and Toronto that
have access to the new Green Bin program are diverting more than 50% of their waste from landfill.

Council approved diversion initiatives to date, such as rolling out the Green Bin program to all
remaining single-family homes in North York in 2005 and improving recovery of recyclables, are
expected to get the City to 41% diversion. As these initiatives are not enough to allow us to reach the
60% and 100% targets, the City must develop further initiatives to maximize the quantity of material
diverted.

This Plan outlines the following recommended initiatives to get us from 41% to 100% diversion from
landfill.

The following new initiatives (above and beyond the current programs currently in place) are required
to meet the 60% diversion from landfill goal.
         -      Implementation of Source Separate Organics programs in Apartments
         -      Increasing the Recovery of Recyclables in Apartments;
         -      Single Stream Recycling and New Containers;
         -      Addition of More Materials to the Recycling Program;
         -      Mandatory Diversion Programs and Enforcement;
         -      Waste Limits/Fees; and,
         -      Reuse Centres and Diversion of Durable Goods.

These major residential diversion initiatives must all be implemented if the City is to achieve 60%
diversion from landfill and are, in many cases, interdependent. For example, SSO collection in
apartments will not likely be successful without waste limits/fees and the recovery of new materials
such as plastic film will not be maximized if a new container system is not implemented that will
provide residents with the necessary capacity for their recyclables.

In order to meet the 100% diversion from landfill goal, the remaining 40% of the City’s waste must be
addressed with new and emerging technologies.




                                                         7
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Incremental New Operating Costs of Diversion
       Diversion Initiative           New                     %          Additional       Additional
                                    Tonnes of             Diverted        Annual           Operating
                                    Diversion               from         Operating        Cost/Tonne
                                                          Landfill       Cost ($M)
         Source Separate Organics in        34,845         3.8%            $ 6.8          $195/Tonne
                           Apartments
         Improved Recycling Capacity        25,000          2.8%            $ 4.6         $184/Tonne
  (Recycling Carts or Additional Blue
                                Boxes)
Additional Recycling Materials Added        11,000          1.2%             $0             $0/Tonne
                           to Program
       Increase Enforcement – Single        29,000          3.2%           ($ 1.1)        ($38)/Tonne
      Family Homes and Pay As You
                                Throw
     Increase Enforcement – Multiple        40,000             4.4          $ 1.1          $28/Tonne
   Household Locations and Pay As
                           You Throw
                       Reuse Centres        11,850             1.3          $ 6.6         $557/Tonne
        Curbside Collection of Durable      21,050             2.3          $ 6.0         $285/Tonne
                                Goods
   New and Emerging Technologies           362,000             40%         $ 38.0         $105/Tonne

        Total Incremental Changes          534,745             59%         $ 62 M          $116/Tonne
                                                                        Incremental      Incremental to
                                                                         to Current          Current
                                                                          System          System Cost
                                                                            Cost


The City currently disposes of waste from customers to whom we provide collection, ABC&D’s that
bring their waste directly to transfer facilities and waste brought to our facilities by private customers.
Our 60% diversion goal is based on reduction, reuse and recycling programs as previously identified.
These programs will be provided to customers who receive our collection services and to the City’s
ABC&D’s. It is intended that the remaining 40% of waste generated by those sectors will be dealt with
by new and emerging technologies.             However, until a plan for new and emerging technology is
approved and a facility is able to receive this remaining 40%, landfill disposal is the City’s only option.

In addition, many private customers use the City’s transfer facilities regularly and dispose of over
350,000 tonnes of waste and generates approximately $ 26,000,000 in gross revenue annually. This
waste tonnage has not been included in the City’s 100% diversion goal and, as such, no provisions
have been made to include it in the processing capacity associated with a new and emerging
technology.

As of January 1, 2003, 100% of City’s waste is disposed of under contract to Republic Services’
Carleton Farms Landfill located in Michigan, USA. Since the City began shipping its waste to this
private landfill, a number of operational and cross border issues have created difficulties in our attempt
to dispose of the City’s waste. The City has experienced longer wait times as a result of U.S.
Homeland Security, radiation detection systems and the diagnosis of mad cow disease in Alberta. In
addition, the State of Michigan has taken a number of steps regarding the management of landfills in
Michigan. This includes the passage of eleven Public Acts which introduced new prohibitions on
materials entering landfills in Michigan and additional regulatory measures regarding the import and
disposal of solid waste into Michigan.




                                                           8
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Due to the sizeable volumes of residual solid waste collected by the City, some prohibited materials,
such as yard clippings and beverage containers, will still be present in our waste despite bans and
curbside recycling programs. Such quantities would be found to be de minimis under the law.
However, inspections will be required to ensure that only a de minimis amount of prohibited materials
occurs.

The estimated operating costs associated with these inspections is approximately $840,000. This
funding will be required in 2006 and will become an ongoing annual funding requirement to ensure
compliance prior to loading tractor trailers for transport to Michigan.

The existing and proposed diversion programs, in conjunction with inspections at our transfer facilities
will assist in ensuring that the City complies with the Michigan legislation. However, the City must
continued to be prepared for a border closure or operational upset. Either of these scenerios will leave
the City with the capability to maintain residential waste collection for approximately two days or less.
External assistance would be required after the storage capacity at the City’s transfer stations was
utilized, in order to maintain residential collection service. The need for this contingency disposal may
range from less than one week to over one year.

The City did issue an RFP for contingency disposal capacity and received no responses. Due to the
lack of contingency disposal capacity in the event of a border closure, the City, in conjunction with the
Regions of York, Durham and Peel is currently reviewing contingency solid waste disposal options.

The implementation of all programs proposed in this plan combined with cost increases due to annual
inflation and expected population growth will result in an estimated 113.9% cumulative increase in the
SWMS operating budget between 2004 and 2012. The largest contributors to the estimated increase
year over year is the rollout of SSO in apartments, the implementation of reuse centres/collection of
durables and new and emerging technologies. All proposed programs will have staffing implications
and it is estimated that SWMS will realize at 16% increase in FTE’s between the present day and
2012.




                                                          9
                                                                                                           SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                    MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Solid Waste Management Services 2004 – 2012 Estimated Operating Requirements Including
Debt and Charges on Capital



                                       $400                                                                                       100%

                                                                                                                                  90%
                                       $350
                                                                                                                                  80%
                                       $300




                                                                                                                                          Diversion Rate
                                                                                                                                  70%
                     $Millions




                                       $250                                                                                       60%

                                                                                                                                  50%
                                       $200
                                                                                                                                  40%
                                       $150
                                                                                                                                  30%

                                       $100                                                                                       20%
                                                 2004         2005     2006      2007   2008       2009   2010   2011    2012
        Debt                                      $0           $1          $7     $15    $22       $27    $32    $36     $41
        Operating                                $158         $181     $198      $212   $223       $241   $260   $280    $298
        Projected Diversion                      36%          42%      48%        55%    59%       70%    80%    90%     100%
        Diversion Targets                                              60%                                100%




Solid Waste Management Services 2005- 2012 Estimated Capital Cash Flow Requirements



                                 $75                                                                                               100%

                                 $70
                                                                                                                                   90%

                                 $65
                                                                                                                                   80%
                                 $60
         $Millions




                                                                                                                                   70%
                                                                                                                                            Diversion Rate




                                 $55

                                 $50                                                                                               60%

                                 $45
                                                                                                                                   50%

                                 $40
                                                                                                                                   40%
                                 $35

                                                                                                                                   30%
                                 $30

                                 $25                                                                                               20%
                                          2004          2005         2006       2007    2008       2009   2010    2011     2012
        Capital Exp.                      $54           $40          $70        $60     $39        $42     $43    $33      $33
        Projected Diversion               36%           42%          48%        55%     59%        70%    80%     90%     100%
        Diversion Target                                             60%                                  100%




                                                                                              10
                                                                            SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                     MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




1.0      Where We Have Come From Since 1998



In 1998, the former Metro Toronto and 6 Area Municipalities amalgamated into the new City of
Toronto. The newly created Solid Waste Management Services Division (SWMS) inherited 7 different
service levels, By-laws and policies, an array of varying and aging equipment and a landfill with a 5-
year life remaining and the Avondale Composting Facility also with 5-year life remaining.. At the same
time, Solid Waste Management Services inherited a state of the art transfer station infrastructure,
updated material recycling facilities and high quality diversion programs.

A Made in Toronto Solution for managing the City’s waste has been ongoing since amalgamation.
Amalgamation combined 6 collection operations and one transfer, processing and disposal operation
into one Division with common goals. Since 1998 (SWMS) has been able to take advantage of
efficiencies and a collective spirit that has resulted in the implementation of service improvements and
policies that have successfully contributed to the City’s waste diversion goals. The following are a
sample of what has been achieved since 1998. The Division continues to build on these
accomplishments in its goal to provide cost effective services, maintain a clean city and minimize the
impact of waste on the environment.

      Waste Diversion

         Increased residential diversion from 25% to 32% since amalgamation through expanded blue
         box programs and organics collection.

Figure 1 – City of Toronto Diversion Rates Since 1997

                                          City of Toronto Diversion Rates 1998-2003

                              35                                                             32%
                                                                      27%        28%
                              30    25%         25%       25%
           % Diversion Rate




                              25
                              20
                              15
                              10
                               5
                               0
                                   1998       1999       2000        2001      2002        2003




         Exceeded the 30% waste diversion goal in 2003 by achieving 32% diversion rate.

         Launched an integrated City-Wide Waste Diversion Team comprised of all City Agencies,
         Boards, Commissions and Departments significantly enhancing diversion.

         Implemented user fee based system for ABCD’s and School Boards to recover cost and
         provide an incentive for waste diversion.



                                                                11
                                                                  SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                           MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



   Increased public school service levels from biweekly to once per week recycling. Weekly
   recycling for schools is expected to increase diversion.

   Achieved Council mandated goal of getting 100% of all apartment buildings serviced by the
   City of Toronto on a recycling program.

   Implemented the Yellow Bag program for commercial Solid Waste customers whereby small
   businesses pay for garbage collection but receive free recycling and organics collection. The
   new system harmonized eligibility criteria and By-laws, recovers costs and provides an
   incentive to recycle and compost.

   Increased the diversion of recyclable materials in 2002 by approximately 350 tonnes through
   the Last Chance Recycling Program whereby recyclable materials were removed from waste
   disposed of at transfer facilities.

   Since 1997, have added empty paint and aerosol cans, milk and juice cartons and drink
   boxes to the blue box program.

   Established depots for used computer equipment at six transfer stations.

   Implemented kraft bag policy for leaf and yardwaste and banned grass clippings from
   garbage and yardwaste collection.

   Put out and awarded a tender for the beneficial use of mixed broken glass that is generated at
   the City’s two recycling facilities.



Single Stream Recycling (Combined Blue and Grey Box Materials)

   Issued and awarded an RFP for the design, build and operation of a privately owned
   processed facility for up to 100,000 tonnes for a 7-year term. Also issued and awarded an
   RFP for the design, build and operation of a City owned single stream plant for up to 100,000
   tonnes for a 7-year term at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

   Implemented single stream recycling in September 2003 for single family homes in
   Scarborough, Etobicoke, Toronto, York and East York multi-residential dwellings in North
   York and Scarborough and schools in North York and Scarborough.

   Implemented single stream recycling at 66 schools and apartment buildings which previously
   had two collection systems; bulk fibre and cart commingled. Single stream recycling has
   allowed that only one truck (bulk) will go to these sites to lift all materials, thereby being more
   cost-productive.



Source Separated Organics/Expanded Diversion Capacity

   Completed the construction and commissioning of the 25,000 tonnes per year Organics
   Processing Plant at the Dufferin Transfer Station.

   Issued and reported to Council on the award of the RFP for long term operating agreements
   (10-15 years) for the processing of 150,000+ tonnes of source separated organics.




                                                     12
                                                               SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                        MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




   Reconstructed yardwaste bunker and loading ramp at Commissioners Transfer Station
   doubling its capacity, completed construction of a coverall at the Scarborough Transfer
   Station for the storage of single stream materials and expanded source separated organics
   transfer operations to Scarborough, Victoria Park, Bermondsey, Ingram and Disco Transfer
   Stations.

   Secured short-term capacity composting capacity up to 7,500 tonnes of organic digestate
   generated by the Dufferin Organics processing facility and processing 20,000 tonnes per year
   with the City of Guelph and 70,000 tonnes per year with Halton Recycling in Newmarket and
   also finalized the operating agreements with the four different processing contractors for the
   composting of 60,000 tonnes of leaf and yardwaste.

   Launched the Green Bin Program in Etobicoke in September 2002. Participation to date is
   over 90% with an annual diversion of approximately 12,000 tonnes of organic material.

   Successfully implemented Phase 2, Green Bin Collections Program, of the Task Force 2010
   recommendations in Scarborough in June 2003. Program included purchase of 29 new
   collection vehicles, retrofitting 21 existing vehicles, rerouting and extensive communications
   efforts. Annual diversion is approximately 27,000 tonnes of organic material.

   Successfully implemented Phase 3, Green Bin Collection Program in Toronto, East York and
   York in October 2004. Program included the purchase of 66 new collection vehicles, vehicles
   and extensive communication Annual diversion is approximately 44,000 tonnes of organic
   material.

   Successfully implemented a Green Bin Collections Program for our commercial customers.
   This has resulted in approximately 13,500 tonnes of organics diverted from landfill annually.



Clean City

   Launched a new Clean Streets Litter Prevention Program in 2003 including extensive
   advertising and promotion while imposing increased fines for littering.

   Conducted a litter audit in summer 2002 and received Council approval for a five-year litter
   education strategy including a 50% litter reduction goal. A follow-up audit conducted in
   Summer 2004 indicated a 16% reduction in litter.

   In support of the Yellow Bag Program, a complete re-route of nighttime commercial
   operations has improved efficiency, reduced the waste on the streets and improved overall
   cleanliness of the City.

   Awarded a contract for the installation and maintenance of 4,000 new multi-compartment litter
   and recycling bins which will generate in excess of $10 million in advertising revenue to the
   City over 10 years and divert over 300 tonnes of recyclables annually.



By-law Enforcement

   Increased By-law enforcement activity in order to support a cleaner livable City. Tickets
   issued for infractions in 2002 increased by over 300% to approximately 2,000.


                                                  13
                                                                SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                         MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



   Harmonized the six former municipal residential and commercial collection By-laws into a
   consolidated set of regulations and set fines for the City of Toronto.

   Developed harmonized Access Guidelines for Waste Management Collection for New
   Developments and Redevelopments.

   Developed and implemented hand-held information system for enforcement officers to
   provide daily updated information on By-law calls.



Waste Diversion Organization

   Participated with and advised Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) in the development of a private
   sector funding model for municipalities.

   Participated on CAO Benchmarking expert panel to determine best practices and participated
   and advised in the WDO funding process inclusive of application for WDO funding. Also,
   developed performance measures to evaluate Solid Waste Management operations.



Residue Management

   Facilitated the founding of the New and Emerging Technologies, Policies and Practices
   Citizen and Expert Advisory Committee, conducted meetings throughout the year and
   participated in a GTA-wide planning process for new and emerging technologies.



Transfer Stations

   Installed radiation detection equipment at all seven transfer stations as well as implementing
   the Debit/Credit card funds receivable system allowing for improved customer service

   Constructed bi-level recycling depots and Bermondsey and Ingram Transfer Stations.

   Increased hours of service at the City's transfer stations to include 24 hour, 5 days per week
   operation.

   Reduced the number of front-end loaders required in transfer stations by 22%.



Disposal (post Keele Valley)

   Evaluated responses to TIRM RFP for Disposal Services, negotiated with short-listed
   proponents and recommended service contracts to Council. Negotiations resulted in savings
   of approximately $500 million over a 20-year period compared to the original bids. Presently,
   the City of Toronto has one of the best rates in North America for the disposal of solid waste.

   Issued a RFP for contingency disposal capacity in Ontario to manage solid waste, in the
   event of a temporary border closure.




                                                   14
                                                                   SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                            MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Keele Valley

   Completed post closure construction of final cover, top soiling, landscaping and engineered
   systems for gas and leachate control at the Keele Valley landfill site (KVLS) and also
   commenced final grading for the closure of the Avondale Composting site.



Landfill Remediation

   Identified approximately 187 former landfills and prioritized 44 sites for further investigation.

   Issued an RFP and hired 3 engineering consulting firms to investigate 27 former landfills.

   Completed rehabilitation at 6 closed landfills in Scarborough; final cover placement and
   grading at Morningside, Tyrell and Beare Road landfill and landfills gas remediation at 3 sites;
   McGregor, Orton Park and Warden School landfills.

   Completed the remediation of 2 former landfills (Kingsmill Park) located adjacent to the
   Humber River in the former City of Etobicoke, which included final cover, grading and ground
   water remediation and also completed ground water remediation of the Orton Park landfill in
   Scarborough.



Service Delivery and Cost Savings

   A four-day workweek was implemented in co-operation and conjunction with CUPE Local 416
   in Districts 1 and 3, which improved working conditions for staff, reduced confusion and
   collection day changes for residents, and as a result, reduced the SWMS Operating Budget
   by $1 Million.

   Redesigned and successfully implemented a new garbage and recycling collection system in
   District 1 that provides for garbage and recycling collection on the same day and reduced the
   number of collection vehicles required to perform the work.

   SWMS, in conjunction with Transportation Services and Parks and Recreation successfully
   provided cleanup initiatives at World Youth Day and the SARS Relief Concert that attracted a
   total 1.4 million people to Downsview Park.

   Through improved efficiencies and modified routes, removed eight garbage packers and two
   white goods trucks from service in Districts 3 & 4 in early 1999 resulting in an annual cost
   saving of approximately $1.2 million.

   Harmonized service levels with respect to frequency of residential garbage, yardwaste and
   blue box collection, special front and side door collection services, and provision of
   replacement/additional recycling boxes.

   Since 1998, there has been an overall net decrease of 91 positions (7%) in Solid Waste
   Management Services despite an increase of 7% in the number of households served.




                                                      15
                                                                               SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                        MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




2.0     Current Situation


2.1     Mission Statement

“To provide effective and efficient waste management and resource recovery services to residents,
visitors and businesses in the City of Toronto in order to maintain a clean city and to minimize the
impact of waste on the environment.”

2.2     City of Toronto Strategic Direction

Direction to SWMS is provided through Council’s Strategic Plan, the Environmental Plan, the Task
Force 2010 report and through on-going recommendations provided at City Standing Committees and
Council. The following provides an overview of the strategic direction that provides the basis for this
multi-year plan.

City of Toronto Strategic Plan

Goals relating to the City of Toronto’s well being are set by Council’s strategic plan. The City’s goal is
       to initiate and facilitate improvements in the social, economic and environmental state of the
       City. Our operations encompass all three: To contribute to the social state of the City, we
       ensure first-class waste management systems are in place to provide residents, businesses
       and visitors with appropriate methods of disposing of their solid waste while preventing hazards
       associated with illegally dumped waste and hazardous waste. To contribute to the economic
       state of the City, SWMS provides waste management services to small businesses and is
       continually investigating and implementing options to minimize litter and maintain a clean,
       visually appealing City. Finally, through other strategic goals, we are continually identifying and
       implementing programs to ensure the City’s environmental sustainability such as our diversion
       programs to improve the City’s diversion rate, thereby reducing our reliance on landfills.

City of Toronto Environmental Plan, February 2000

The Environmental Plan recognizes that solid waste generation and disposal has a major impact on
      the environment. At the time of its publication, residents were diverting 25% of their waste
      through reduction, reuse and recycling programs.           The Environmental Task Force
      recommended :


                “That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to Council and the Sustainability
                Roundtable on a strategy to divert 100% of the City’s solid waste resources by 2020; with an interim
                target of 75% by 2010”.


This recommendation was superceded by the Task Force 2010 strategy and goals.




                                                                16
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Task Force 2010, June 2001

Established in January 2001, the Waste Diversion Task Force 2010, comprised of all Toronto City
Councilors, was charged with finding a 'made in Toronto' solution for waste diversion from landfill since
the provincially mandated closure of the City-owned Keele Valley landfill was nearing. After consulting
with Toronto residents, environmental organizations and industry, senior levels of government and the
private sector, the Task Force 2010 recommended a comprehensive waste diversion plan to City
Council that included 47 recommendations. The strategic plan calls for a staged reduction of
residential waste going to landfill and provides the strategic direction for our diversion goals outlined
in this plan.

Long Term Residual Disposal Requirements

In September 2003, the City of Toronto Council approved a recommendation to initiate an individual
EA for an integrated residual municipal solid resource management system.

In July 2004, Council referred the proposed public consultation plan to the as of yet formed
Environment Round Table for its input. The Roundtable provided its direction to Works Committee at
the November 9th meeting. Staff has been requested to comment on the administrative and financial
aspects of the plan at the December Works Committee.

Toronto City Council Priorities for 2003-2006

Council, for its 2003 – 2006 term, identified 9 priorities that are intended to direct staff in the delivery of
City services and the allocation of resources to support the achievement of these goals. Making
Toronto a clean and beautiful city was identified as one of the nine priorities. As a result of this
direction, SWMS staff are enhancing their operations and building relationships with other Divisions
and Departments to address this priority.

2.3      Current Programs

SWMS has four sections: two District Collection sections, a Transfer, Processing and Disposal Section
and a Policy and Planning Section. Together, staff manage 9 operations yards, seven transfer stations
and household hazardous waste/recycling depots, two materials recovery facilities, compost
distribution sites, a maintenance yard and 158 closed former landfill sites.

In addition, SWMS operates a fleet of 635 on-road and off-road vehicles that include collection
vehicles, transfer station/landfill heavy equipment, tractor-trailers, litter vacs, pick-up trucks and
automobiles.

With approximately 1,300 staff, SWMS provides comprehensive waste management services and
programs for a number of sectors in the City of Toronto:

1.       Collection, transfer, processing/disposal of waste, recyclables, yardwaste, organics, white
         goods and bulky items from:

         •   Single family and multiple household residential locations

         •   Small commercial businesses (footprint < 500 square metres)

         •   Institutions

         •   The City’s Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Departments (A, B, C & D’s);

                                                             17
                                                                    SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                             MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



2.   Receive waste at our transfer stations from private customers for disposal.

3.   Litter collection from public right of ways and litter bins;

4.   Household hazardous waste collection and depots for the City’s residential users; and,

5.   Enforcement of City By-laws governing waste management.

6.   Provide loading services to the Region of Peel at the Disco Transfer Station for up to 100,000
     tonnes of waste per year.

7.   Process Asian Longhorned Beatle infested materials.

8.   Operate 44 Environment Days.




                                                         18
                                                                                                                             SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                      MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



2.3           Program Map1

                                                                          Solid Waste Management Services

                                                                Policy and Planning                Administration and Support


                                             Collection                                                                             Transfer


                   Curbside                                            Multifamily                             Waste                                     Recyclables


                                                                                                             Organics                                    Yardwaste
      Waste                      Recycling                  Waste                     Recycling

  Yardwaste                   White Goods             White Goods                    Bulky Items          Recycling Depots                        Last Chance Recycling

  Xmas Trees                   Bulky Items                Xmas Trees

               Commercial                                           School Boards



      Waste                      Recycling                  Waste                     Recycling

               Institutional



      Waste                Partial Recycling

                                             Processing                                                                             Disposal

                   Containers                                           Fibres                     Haulage and Disposal Contracts                    Closed Landfills


                   Yardwaste                                           Organics
                                                                                                                                           Maintenance             Gas Collection

        Household Hazardous Waste                                                                                                        Site Remediation       Leachate Collection



                                      Litter Management                                                                      By-law Enforcement


                   Litter Bins                                      Public Space                     Municipal Code Chapter 548                Municipal Code Chapter 841
                                                                      Pickup

                                                                                                     Municipal Code Chapter 844
      Collection                                          Broom                      Litter Vac

                                         Maintenance


 Transfer Stations/SWMS Collection Yards                  Heavy Equipment/Tractor Trailers


          Landfill Pumping Stations                          Equipment Specifications




                      `1 The program map above is intended to provide an overview of the various services and activities that are provided within the Solid Waste Management
                      Program. It does not reflect the organizational structure of the program.




                                                                                                    19
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



2.4     Facility Locations

Map 1 provides a geographical view of the facilities under the jurisdiction of SWMS and illustrates the
network of operations required to provide solid waste management services to the residents and
businesses located within the City of Toronto boundaries.

Map 1 – SWMS Facility Infrastructure




2.5     Asset Inventory


2.5.1   Vehicles

In 2004, Solid Waste Management Services operated 522 licensed vehicles and 113 off road pieces of
equipment valued at approximately $90,838,000. Corporate Services is responsible for maintaining 487
pieces of equipment while the remainder are maintained by the SWMS Maintenance Unit.

The following provides a summary of equipment by function:




                                                        20
                                                                                SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                         MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 2 - SWMS 2004 Equipment Inventory

                                                          Off
                                  Licensed         Road/Unlicensed
    Operation                     Vehicles        Vehicles/Equipment           Total          Replacement Cost

 Collection                           329                    -                  329              $55,734,781
 Transfer                              82                   41                  123              $20,394,817
 Processing                            1                     7                   8                $1,598,763
 Disposal                             16                    15                   31               $6,552,180
 Litter Collection                     53                   42                   95               $4,312,197
 By-law Enforcement                    21                    -                   21                $693,846
 Maintenance                           20                    8                   28               $1,551,701
 Total                                522                   113                 635            $90,838,285.00

Funding for the replacement of SWMS vehicles is provided from the Corporate Vehicle and Equipment
Replacement Reserve, of which SWMS contributes to on an annual basis. The annual contribution per
vehicle is based on a predetermined formula using replacement values and the projected life of the
vehicle. This ensures that SWMS has sufficient funds for the replacement for vehicles that have reached
the end of their life. The 2004 budgeted contribution is $8,000,000.

Figure 3 summarizes SWMS’ projected annual spending and contributions to the Vehicle and Equipment
Replacement Reserve. At the current rate of funding, it is projected that the reserve balance will be
depleted by 2011. This will be as a result of scheduled replacement of co-collection vehicles beginning in
2008.

Figure 3 - Equipment Replacement Reserve
                                                                                      Reserve Balance ($M)
                                 30                                                                 25


                                 25
                                                                                                      20

                                 20
                                                                                                      15
                          ($M)




                                 15
                                                                                                      10
                                 10

                                                                                                      5
                                  5


                                  0                                                                   0
                                      2005   2006    2007    2008      2009   2010     2011    2012
         Replacement/Purchase of      7.06   7.38    7.35    17.35     4.61   15.58    26.7     23
         Equipment
         Total Contribution            8      8       11         11     11     11       14      14
         Reserve Balance              16.3   17.2    17.9    21.5      15.2   21.5      17      4




                                                                  21
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



The significant factor contributing to the need to purchase new equipment is the age of the equipment.
The life expectancy of both the licensed and off road equipment varies between 6 and 20 years,
depending on the type. Vehicles are typically replaced at the end of their useful life, however, some
vehicles currently in the SWMS fleet have exceeded their life expectance. This is attributed to the
following: (a) financial pressures; (b) operational reasons (i.e.: some vehicles have been kept through the
roll out of the green bin program to optimize the operation); (c) longer than expected lead time for
purchasing; and (d) usage was less than originally anticipated, thereby reducing the wear and tear on the
vehicle. SWMS currently has 116 pieces of equipment (19% of the Division’s total fleet) that have
exceeded their life expectancy. This may result in significantly higher maintenance costs, as equipment
breaks down more frequently, thereby putting additional pressure on the annual operating budget. In
addition, the Division is not able to take advantage of new technologies or increased payloads that new
equipment may offer.

Figure 4 highlights the number of pieces of equipment that has exceeded their life expectancy.

Figure 4 - Vehicles Beyond Their Life Expectancy as of December 2003

                              50
                              45
                              40
         Number of Vehicles




                              35
                              30
                              25
                              20
                              15
                              10
                              5
                              0
                                   1   2   3   4    5    6      7       8      9      10      11
                                                   # Years Overdue




                                                          22
                                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



2.5.2       Facility and Equipment Inventory

SWMS owns and maintains 7 transfer stations, 2 material recovery facilities, 1 organics material
processing facility, 1 fibre transfer facility, 1 maintenance yard and administration building; and equipment
garage at the Keele Valley Landfill valued at a total of $174.3M and ranging in age from 2 years to 30
years. Figure 5 provides a list of these facilities and summarizes the current assets and value associated
with these properties.

    Figure 5 – Replacement Costs of SWMS
    Facilities1
                                                              2
          City Facilities         Replacement Costs ($M)                            Assets                     Age

                                       As of Jan 1, 2004

    Ingram T/S
                3
                                             $20.9                 6539 M2 building with 3 Compactors           16


    Scarborough T/S
                        4
                                             $21.6                 6500 M2 building with 4 Compactors           22


    Victoria Park T/S                        $16.3                 4160 M2 building with 4 Compactors           26

    Bermondsey T/S                           $19.4                 4650 M2 building with 4 Compactors           29

    Dufferin T/S                             $16.3                 2610 M2 building with 2 Compactors           26

    Dufferin Fibre Building                  $10.8                 2610 M2 building                             18

    Disco T/S                                $19.4                 4685 M2 building with 5 Compactors           18

    Commissioners St. T/S                    $16.3                 2323 M2 building with 2 Compactors           7

    Commissioners St. MRF                     $7.5                 1500 M2 building with conveyors,             12
                                                                   sorting m/c, 4 balers

    Dufferin MRF                              $9.8                 3000 M2 building with conveyors,             4
                                                                   sorting m/c, balers

    Dufferin SSO Processing                  $17.9                 3500 M2 building with recycling              1
    Facility                                                       equipment, digester, conveyors and
                                                                   trammel

    Total Assets ($M)                        $176.3
1
  All collection yards owned by Facilities Operations
2
  Replacement costs do not include land acquisition
3
  Ingram replacement cost includes purchase and installation of 3 new compactors in 2002 – 2003
4
  Scarborough replacement cost includes the cost of a covered bunker consturcted in 2004 ($1.1M)



There are no plans between 2005 and 2012 to add additional transfer facilities. Maintenance of transfer
facility assets includes upgrades to meet changing needs, electrical efficiency improvements, the
introduction of radiation detectors, improvements to the weighscale system and the construction of
covered bunkers to accommodate new programs to comply with Michigan requirements prohibiting
recyclables in waste loads. Approximately $3.0M required for the maintenance and upgrading of these
assets are provided for annually in the Solid Waste Management Services capital budget submission.



                                                                       23
                                                                              SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                       MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Maintenance of our waste diversion facilities includes upgrades to the processing operations to meet the
requirements associated with program changes, refurbishing equipment due to normal wear and tear and
construction of bi-level depots to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. Since the City’s diversion
facilities are relatively new, there is no significant capital budget currently associated with their
maintenance. As the infrastructure ages, funds will be provided in future capital budget submissions to
ensure that these facilities remain in a state of good repair.

2.6       Closed Landfills

Under Provincial legislation, SWMS is responsible for well defined and regulated activities relating to the
perpetual care of former landfills that fall under the responsibility of the City of Toronto. At present, there
are approximately 187 known former landfill sites in Toronto. SWMS has responsibility for approximately
158 of them in perpetuity. Those remaining are on private property and the responsibility falls to the
owner.

SWMS has identified approximately 158 old landfill sites on City property. A number of issues must be
addressed with respect to all of the City’s landfills, including:

      •   Potential environmental risks with respect to leachate contamination of water;

      •   Potential risk of explosive gases on lands and in buildings adjacent to the old landfills; and,

      •   Optimizing the landfill gas collected at the 3 sites which utilize and incinerate landfill gas to create
          electricity.

The perpetual care of landfill sites encompasses a variety of works considered necessary for the ongoing
maintenance of closed landfill sites after primary operations have ended. These include monitoring and
possible remedial measures related to surface water, ground water, landfill gas and ambient air;
maintenance of existing leachate and gas control systems, correction of soil erosion/settlement on slopes
and the repair of roadways. The monitoring, reporting and remediation of the City’s Brock West, Keele
Valley and Beare Road landfills are mandated by the Ministry of Environment through site Certificates of
Approval.

Capital and operating funding is necessary annually to provide adequate care of former landfills over the
next 40 years. SWMS must contribute annually to its perpetual care fund to ensure that funds are
available each year to carry out any required work. Currently, the only contribution to the Perpetual Care
Reserve Fund is from the paid tonnes received at the City transfer facilities. At present, $4.42 per paid
tonne is contributed annually to the fund. The annual contribution is declining as paid tonnes from the
commercial and industrial sector decrease. Based on these projections, Figure 6 shows the perpetual
care expected contributions and cash flow requirements as well as the resulting reserve fund balance.
Based on the current scenario, it is estimated that funding will be available for perpetual care expenses
until 2011. Therefore, an alternate funding mechanism must be secured to ensure compliance with
legislation and limit liability.




                                                              24
                                                                                                   SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                            MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 6 - Perpetual Care Contributions and Costs


                                          $45.0
                                          $40.0

                                          $35.0
                                          $30.0




                             $Millions
                                          $25.0
                                          $20.0
                                          $15.0

                                          $10.0
                                           $5.0
                                           $0.0
                                          -$5.0
                                                    2004     2005     2006       2007      2008      2009        2010          2011          2012
         Expenditures ($M)                          $7.7     $5.7      $7.3      $6.4      $6.4       $7.1       $7.5          $7.9          $8.3
         Revenues ($M)                              $2.7     $2.3     $2.1       $1.9      $1.7      $1.4        $1.1          $0.8          $0.7
         Perpetual Care Balance ($M)               $40.4    $35.4     $32.0     $26.8     $22.2      $17.4      $11.7          $5.2       ($2.0)




The combination of declining paid tonnages and additional perpetual care needs will result in the Division
requiring an additional estimated $3.0M (2004 constant dollars)/year. This funding will be provided in the
SWMS operating budget and will constitute an additional budget pressure. A report will be before Works
Committee in 2004 recommending this alternate source of funding. Figure 7 highlights the impact of the
additional annual $3.0M funding on the perpetual care balance. The additional funding provides a
sufficient level of funding for the anticipated work necessary for the ongoing maintenance of closed landfill
sites to ensure compliance with legislation and limit liability. Note that the funding of the perpetual care
fund is solely for the closed landfills that have been identified to date. No contingency funding source
currently exists for landfills that have not yet been identified.

Figure 7 - Perpetual Care Cash Flow Requirements with Additional Contribution
from Operating Budget



                                         $45.0

                                         $40.0

                                         $35.0

                                         $30.0
                         $Millions




                                         $25.0

                                         $20.0

                                         $15.0

                                         $10.0

                                          $5.0

                                          $0.0
                                                  2004     2005     2006      2007      2008      2009       2010       2011          2012
         Expenditures ($M)                        $7.7     $5.7     $7.3      $6.4      $6.4      $7.1       $7.5       $7.9          $8.3
         Revenues ($M)                            $2.7     $5.4     $5.6      $5.6      $5.8      $5.8       $5.9       $6.1          $6.2
         Perpetual Care Balance ($M)              $40.4    $35.4    $35.1     $33.2     $32.4     $31.7      $30.4      $28.8         $26.9




                                                                                 25
                                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




3.0        Existing Operations


3.1        Program Summaries

3.1.1      Collection

Collection staff provide garbage, recycling, organics, yardwaste and white goods services to single
family, multiple household, the City’s Agencies Boards Commissions & Departments, institutions and
small commercial establishments. Collection is provided curbside using rear and side loading packers
and recycling vehicles or from central collection locations at multiple household residences using
mechanical bulk lift or automated vehicles. Collection frequency varies from once every other week for
garbage and recyclables from single family homes to up to 5 times per week for organics collection from
businesses. Figure 8 identifies the existing collection service levels provided to each type of customer.

Figure 8 - Collection Service and Frequency

                                                        Collection Service Provided
                     Organics         Recycling          Garbage              Yardwaste            White             Bulky
  Customer                                                                                         Goods             Items

      Single        Weekly            Bi-weekly        Bi-Weekly*         Weekly (April,         Call-in         Weekly
      Family                                                              May, October,          Basis
  Households                                                              November to
                                                                          mid-December)
      (497,000)
                                                                          Biweekly (June
                                                                          – September



     Multiple       Future            Weekly           Twice       per    Weekly (April,         Call-in or      Call-in  or
      Family        Program                            week               May, October,          weekly          weekly
  Households                                                              November to            dependin        depending
                                                                          mid-December)          g on area       on area
      (462,000)
                                                                          Biweekly (June
                                                                          – September)
                                                                          **Where
                                                                          Approved**
 Small              Up to 5X          Up to 2X         Up to 2X           Not Offered            Not             Not Offered
 Commercial         per week          week             per week                                  offered
 (18,000)

 ABC&D’s            Not               Up to 2X         Up to 2X           Not Offered            Not             Not Offered
                    Offered           per week         per week                                  Offered
 (1,590)
*Weekly garbage collection is provided if the resident is located in an area where the green bin program has not been implemented.




                                                                         26
                                                                  SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                           MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



In 2003, about 1 million tonnes of material were collected from almost 1,000,000 units
comprising of single family homes, apartment dwellings, institutional locations and commercial
establishments. The collection service is provided by both in-house and contracted staff with the
contractor having prime responsibility to provide mechanical collection to the majority of multiple
household locations. Figure 9 breaks down the tonnages collected by customer type.

Figure 9 – 2003 Tonnages Collected by Customer Type

           Commercial
          (Yellow Bag)
          and ABC&D's
         91,000 Tonnes



     Multiple
   Household
 330,333 Tonnes




                                                                                Single Family
                                                                               577,824 Tonnes




3.1.2    Transfer

The Transfer operation is responsible for the management of all waste and the transfer of
recyclable materials from the City's residential, multiple household and commercial collection
programs waste stream, as well as direct delivery of waste from ABC's and D's, the Region of
Peel and the industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sector, as well as the direct delivery
of materials to the transfer stations by citizens of the City of Toronto. The City’s transfer station
network consists of 7 facilities located strategically across the City to allow efficient disposing of
materials by our collections operation. Figure 10 provides an aerial view of our Disco Transfer
Station.




                                            27
                                                                    SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                             MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 10 - Aerial View of the Disco Transfer Station




     The Transfer Station Operation is responsible for the receipt, loading, haulage, and disposal of
     1.16 million tonnes of waste and transfers approximately 400,000 tonnes of various recyclable
     materials including blue box materials, leaf and yardwaste, source separated organics, tires, dry
     wall, scrap metal and white goods to various processing facilities. Figure 11 summarizes the
     percentage of waste handled by customer type at the City’s transfer stations.

     Figure 11 - Transfer Station Customers



                                                                             Paid Commercial
                                                                                   31%
            Residential
              57%




                                                                                Peel Region
                                                                                    8%

                                                                         ABC&D's & Other
                                                                              3%

                                                  Small
                                              Commercial/Ins.
                                                   1%




                                               28
                                                             SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                      MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



All loads of waste and recyclables are screened for radiation before entering the transfer
station, and a second time before leaving the transfer station, in order to comply with U.S.
Homeland Security requirements. Waste is transferred to Michigan, USA where it is landfilled.
This represents more than 33,000 tractor-trailer loads of waste per year.

In 2003, the Transfer Station function generated approximately $26,000,000 in revenue from
waste disposal for the City.



3.1.3   Processing

The Processing Operation is responsible for the management of all materials diverted from the
municipal curbside, multi-unit and commercial waste stream. Through the use of city-
owned/contractor operated and privately-owned/operated recycling and organics facilities, the
processing operation manages over 330,000 tonnes of various materials including blue box
materials, leaf and yard waste, source separated organics, tires, dry wall, computer and
electronic equipment and household hazardous waste. Figure 12 illustrates the breakdown, by
percentage, of tonnages processed by material type.

Figure 12 - Material Tonnage Processed in 2003 by Type



                     Cardboard         HHW
                        2%              1%          Computers
           White Goods
                                                      <1%
               1%

          Organics
            18%




                                                            Containers/Fibre
                                                                 51%


    Leaf and Yard
       Waste
         27%




Further, the processing group is responsible for the marketing and sales of commodities from
the blue box program, which accounts for slightly less than $20 million in revenues per year.
This revenue comes primarily from 51% of the processing stream that is made up of containers
and fibre, as identified above. Figure 13 breaks down the percentage of total revenue received
in 2003 by type of processed material.




                                         29
                                                               SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                        MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 13 - Breakdown of Revenue Received by Recyclable Material


                                        HDPE
                                         6%                            PET Bottles
                                                                          6%

                                                                             Steel Cans
                                                                                3%


                                                                            Aluminum Cans
                                                                                 18%


                                                                             Aluminum Foil
                                                                                 <1%
          Fibre
          67%
                                                                             Polycoat
                                                                            Containers
                                                                              <1%




The processing group continues to work on new market development for the diversion of other
waste materials like tubs and lids, plastic film and polystyrene, etc. With the eventual evolution
to new and emerging technologies for the "residual waste stream”, the processing group will be
responsible for administering, operating and marketing the materials from these new facilities.

In examining the components included in Figures 12 and 13 a number of observations can be
made:

•    blue and grey box materials tend to have lower processing costs and higher market
     values.

•    New materials added to the diversion stream such as organics tend to have higher
     processing costs and lower market values.

•    As new material types are added to increase diversion rates, the average net cost per
     tonne to process these materials will increase.




                                           30
                                                                 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                          MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




3.1.4    Management of Household Hazardous Waste

The household hazardous waste (HHW) program commenced operation in June 1988. Seven
full time and 18 part time staff manage the following services:

Six permanent depots located at Solid Waste Management Transfer Stations where residents
can drop off their HHW 2 days a week year-round on Wednesdays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
and on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

A Toxics Taxi service in which residents can schedule a truck for a home-pick-up of HHW
during the week from Monday to Friday.

Forty-four environment day events operated annually during the Spring, Summer, and Fall
months where residents can dispose of their HHW at locations closer to their homes from 10:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for Saturday events and 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. for Thursday events.

The HHW program diverts approximately 1,600 tonnes of HHW annually from possible
improper disposal into the regular garbage or sewers.

3.1.5    Disposal

The City of Toronto ceased its own disposal operations December 31, 2002, when the Keele
Valley Landfill site in Maple stopped receiving waste. Staff are currently in the process of
completing the final cover for the site which is expected mid 2005.

The City has the responsibility of maintaining all its closed landfills in perpetuity. This includes
the maintenance of engineered systems and monitoring and reporting on surface water,
groundwater and landfill gas. The City has in excess of 180 old landfill sites, most of these are
generally smaller, older sites.

At its three most recently closed sites - Keele Valley, Brock West and Beare Road, closed in
2002, 1996 and 1983, respectively, the City maintains landfill gas collection systems, providing
the gas to contractors who utilize it to generate electricity and royalties to the City.

As of January 1, 2003, the disposal of waste is provided under contract to Republic Services’
Carleton Farms Landfill located in Michigan, USA.

3.1.6    Litter Collection

Building a clean and beautiful city has been identified by the Mayor and Council as a priority.
Rebuilding pride in our City includes ensuring that that the streets are free of litter.

The litter collection function comprises of the collection of litter within the public road allowance
including sidewalks, gutters, tree pits/planter boxes, medians, boulevards, public laneways,
public walkways, stairs and litter bins. Approximately 185 FTE’s are dedicated to the collection
of litter across the City. Collection on the public right of way is done manually using a bag and
broom, and with litter vacuums. The operation currently has 75 bag and broom staff and 52
litter vacuums with operators. Manual routes involve one or two passes 5, 6, or 7 days per
week. Litter vacuum routes may be done 5, 6, or 7 days per week.




                                            31
                                                                 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                          MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




In addition, SWMS is responsible for all illegal dumping in the road allowance. In addition to
these litter collection duties, staff also remove unauthorized poster and flyers from utility poles,
traffic control boxes and street furniture. Litter collection schedules are geared to the area.

3.1.7     By-law Enforcement


The By-law Enforcement unit’s mandate is to serve the community through education and
enforcement of waste By-laws to support a clean and beautiful City. SWMS staff currently
enforce City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapters 548 – Littering and Dumping of Refuse, 841 –
Waste Collection, Commercial Properties and 844 – Waste Collection, Residential Properties.
These codes regulate the placement of garbage on public or private property for collection, the
unauthorized use of public property for the storage of garbage and illegal dumping and littering.

SWMS has 43 Provincial Offences Officers, 4 Supervisors and manage 2 court clerks to
enforce and support our By-laws. In 2003, over 3,800 tickets and 400 clean up orders were
issued for waste related offences. This is a 61 fold increase since 1999 and emphasizes the
importance the City has placed on the enforcement function in meeting the goal for a clean and
beautiful city. Figure 14 illustrates the increase in enforcement since Solid Waste Management
Services took over the By-law enforcement operation in 1999.

Figure 14 - By-law Enforcement Activity Between 1999 and 2003

    4500

    4000

    3500

    3000

    2500

    2000

    1500

    1000

        500

         0
                1999            2000             2001           2002             2003

                                       Tickets/Orders Issued



Many initiatives have been introduced to increase the effectiveness of bylaw enforcement in the
City of Toronto. These include the assignment of officers to wards, staff redeployment
strategies, the implementation of the Flying Squad, organizational and management changes
and improvements in the collection and analysis of all types of information. In addition, in April
2004 By-law staff introduced the Apartment Recycling Program which has heightened the
awareness and compliance around recycling in hundreds of apartments in the City. Expansion
of the program will be a priority in 2005.

It is estimated that approximately 95,000 inspections will be undertaken in 2004, resulting in
17,000 notices, 4,000 tickets and 400 debris removals.

                                            32
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



        Due to the need for increased compliance on the weekends, modified work schedules which
        provide coverage 7 days a week from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. are in place. In total, the SWMS By-law
        function has four shifts: days, afternoons, nights and a modified work week which includes
        weekends.

        3.1.8    Policy and Planning

        The Policy and Planning function comprises of 27 staff who are responsible for monitoring
        trends in the solid waste industry and providing sound advice on new programs, program
        enhancements and new technologies to the operating units and Council. Staff provide the
        technical review and comments on internal and external regulations, legislation and statutes. In
        addition, the Policy and Planning team researches, designs and drafts harmonized policies,
        eligibility criteria and By-laws in support of operations and design and execute Request for
        Proposals and Tenders for services and capital projects.

        The Policy and Planning team also co-ordinates and provides technical support to Sub-
        Committees and Special Working Groups of Council:
        -      Clean Streets Working Group
        -      Apartment Working Group
        -      New and Emerging Technologies Advisory Group
        -      Roundtable on the Environment.

        The Policy and Planning group, in conjunction with operations, played an instrumental role in
        the development and implementation of large scale operations and projects such as:

        Waste Diversion Task Force 2010;
        The Yellow Bag Commercial Waste System;
        The 20 Minute Makeover; and,
        Environment Days.


3.2     Staffing Levels

As a result of both the focus on a clean city and the transport of waste to Michigan, approved FTE’s
have increased by 8% since 1998. This increase in FTE’s has primarily occurred in the litter collection,
transfer facilities and by-law enforcement functions. FTE’s have decreased by almost 15% in the
collection function due to improved routing capabilities, the 4 – 10 workweek, improved productivity and
improved equipment. In addition, the closure of Keele Valley resulted in a decrease in FTE’s of 40%.
Further reductions are expected as the post closure operation winds down. Figure 15 illustrates the
budgeted gross expenditures in SWMS and the corresponding number of approved positions. The
Division has decreased by 91 FTE’s since amalgamation while adding new programs and realizing
efficiencies in others yet never compromising the service levels enjoyed by our customers.




                                                  33
                                                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 15 - Budgeted Gross Expenditures ($Millions) and Number of Approved
Positions from 1997 to 2004




                       Gross Expenditures- ($Millions)
                                                         $200                                                                   1,400




                                                                                                                                        # of Approved Posiitons
                                                                                                                                1,200
                                                         $160
                                                                                                                                1,000
                                                         $120                                                                   800

                                                                                                                                600
                                                          $80
                                                                                                                                400
                                                          $40
                                                                                                                                200

                                                           $0                                                                   0
                                                                1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
      Solid Waste Gross Exp. $M -                               $78     $74     $68     $71     $87     $108    $149    $160
      Tax Supported
       Solid Waste- Gross Exp $M                                $51     $51     $58     $65     $72     $69     $55      $58
      - (User Fee/Material Sales
      Supported)
      # Approved Positions                                      1,393   1,324   1,274   1,211   1,284   1,222   1,236   1,302




                                                                                 34
                                                                             SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                      MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




3.3       Legislation Governing the City’s Solid Waste Management Program

All levels of the Canadian government regulate the management of solid waste. In addition, the City
must adhere to U.S. regulations due to the use of landfill sites south of the border. The following
summarizes relevant legislation governing the City’s solid waste management program. All legislation is
Provincial unless otherwise noted as Federal:

                   Legislation                                         Relevance
 Environmental Assessment Act            Approval required for new or expanded facilities (e.g. landfill sites,
                                         incinerators, waste transfer and processing facilities over certain
                                         size)
 Environmental Protection Act            Approval required for waste management facilities (landfill sites,
                                         incinerators, waste transfer and processing facilities, etc.)
 Municipal Act                           Provides authority for By-laws regulating waste collection, etc.;
                                         restricts municipal authority re collection of fees
 Environmental Bill of Rights            Requires public notice in certain circumstances
 Planning Act                            Regulates land use and consequently location of facilities
 Waste Diversion Act                     Funding for recycling program(s)
 Nutrient Management Act                 Use of processed organics products
 Fertilizers Act (Federal)               Use of processed organics products
 Building Code Act                       Facility construction
 Occupational Health & Safety Act        Safety requirements for construction projects and operating
                                         facilities
 Ontario Water Resources Act             Direct discharge from facilities; sewer systems where landfill
                                         leachate is treated
 Canadian Environmental Assessment       Applies where federal funding or federal jurisdiction
 Act (Federal)
 Canadian Environmental Protection Act   Applies where federal funding or federal jurisdiction
 (Federal)
 Fisheries Act (Federal)                 Impacts on fish or fish habitat
 Consolidated Hearings Act               Provides for one hearing if more than one would otherwise be
                                         required for environmental/planning approvals
 Aggregate Resources Act                 For landfills in former ARA licensed areas; use of compost in quarry
                                         rehabilitation
 Conservation Authorities Act            Stormwater management and activities within regulated watershed
                                         areas
 Electricity Act                         Electrical safety code re facility construction/operation
 Ontario Plumbing Code                   New facility construction
 Dangerous Goods Transportation Act      Transportation of radioactive or other dangerous waste
 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act   Transportation of radioactive or other dangerous wastes
 (Federal)
 Employment Standards Act                Employment process requirements
 Fire Prevention & Protection Act        Fire Code
 Highway Traffic Act                     Licenses, etc.
 Technical Standards & Safety Act        Pressure vessels – digesters, biogas, etc.

Based on the above list, SWMS is impacted significantly by the Environmental Assessment Act and
Environmental Protection Act for both new and existing facilities. For major undertakings, an individual
environmental assessment is required.


                                                     35
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Even when an Environmental Assessment Act approval is obtained, the detailed requirements are
specified through a certificate of approval under the Environmental Protection Act, and enforcement is
generally carried out under the Environmental Protection Act.

Michigan’s regulatory requirements also apply with respect to waste transported to a Michigan landfill
under the City’s waste transportation and disposal contract. Some U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency standards apply as well. For example, in March, 2004 the Governor of Michigan signed eleven
“Public Acts” that amended the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (Act 451 of 1994)
of the Michigan Legislature, which introduced new prohibitions on materials entering landfills in Michigan
and additional regulatory measures regarding the import and disposal of solid waste into Michigan.
These actions on the part of Michigan are in response to the increasing amount of solid waste entering
Michigan from Ontario and other U.S. States.

The “package” of Michigan’s solid waste management Public Acts came into force on October 31, 2004.
As part of its new regulations, Michigan requires all jurisdictions exporting waste to Michigan to submit
Applications for Certification of Equivalent Landfill Disposal Prohibitions. The intent of the Certification
Application is to require exporting jurisdictions to prohibit from disposal those residual materials that
jurisdictions within Michigan are prohibited from disposing themselves.

Figure 16 provides a summary of the most relevant Public Acts approved by the Michigan State
Governor.

As of October 1, 2004 the City, through its prohibitions on the collection and receipt of certain materials
or through mandatory recycling programs, will have addressed all of the prohibitions instituted by
Michigan.


Figure 16 - Acts Passed by Michigan on March 29, 2004, Regarding Prohibition
of Materials from Landfill and other Acts regarding Solid Waste Imports

     Public Act No. &                                       Act Summary
          Subject
  34 – Promotion of           Optimizing recycling and reuse requirements and prohibiting from
 recycling and reuse of       landfill disposal: medical waste; beverage containers; tires; yard
 materials.                   clippings; used oil; lead acid batteries; low-level radioactive waste;
                              hazardous waste; liquid waste; sewage; PCBs; and asbestos.

 35 – Definitions             This amendment is linked to other amendments that include specific
                              material prohibitions, and provides definition clarifications, including
                              “beverage container”.
 36 – Order restricting or    Allows Director of the Department of Environmental Quality to issue
 prohibiting solid waste      an order restricting or prohibiting the transportation or disposal of solid
 transportation or disposal   waste in Michigan (for a maximum of 60 days) if there is a threat to
 in Michigan.                 public health or environmental safety.

 40 – Restrictions on         Prohibits Michigan landfills, effective October 1, 2004 from accepting
 Disposal                     for disposal solid waste generated outside of Michigan, unless the
                              waste has been processed to remove prohibited materials or the
                              generating jurisdiction has been included on an approved list.


International trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, are also relevant to
transportation of waste across the U.S./Canadian border, as is the commerce clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Litigation between the National Solid Waste Management Association and the State of
Michigan was successful.

                                                    36
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



3.4      Linkages with Other Organizations

In order to provide effective solid waste services to our customers while meeting the goals of Council,
SWMS has developed a number of key linkages both within the City and with outside organizations.
These relationships are critical to the success of the operation, whether it be related to budget
restrictions, staffing issues, staff morale, customer satisfaction or meeting the regulatory requirements
associated with the solid waste industry.

3.4.1    Linkages within the Works and Emergency Services Department

Solid Waste Management Services staff work daily with staff in other Divisions within the Department on
such issues as purchasing, accounts payable/receivable, capital infrastructure and IT issues. This daily
interaction is imperative to ensure the timely provision of solid waste management services to our
customers. The following summarizes some initiatives that contribute directly to our mission:

Technical Services - Review of Development Applications

-       SWMS District Collection staff work closely with Development Engineers to ensure that new and
        re-developments are designed to ensure appropriate garbage and recycling/green bin services
        are in place to facilitate City collection. This makes certain that developers have planned
        appropriately for successful diversion programs while ensuring that garbage rooms, loading
        facilities and collection points are designed to minimize dumping and maximize cleanliness.

-       Provides technical assistance, design and contract inspection/administration for remediation
        work at former landfills, capital works and maintenance repairs to the City's transfer stations and
        processing facilities.

Support Services - Public Communication and Consultation

-       SWMS relies extensively on the public communication and consultation to ensure the success of
        the City’s diversion and clean streets programs. SWMS staff liaise with Communications staff in
        the development of the public education campaigns, general news releases and annual
        collection calendars. In addition, public consultation on new initiatives the City may be
        considering is imperative and staff in Support Services work with SWMS to develop effective
        consultation programs that deliver reliable results.

Support Services – Customer Service

-       SWMS provides over 50,000,000 collection passbys annually to residents and commercial
        customers. Unlike many other City services, SWMS provides direct service to our customers up
        to three times every week. This frequent and direct service generates inquiries proportionate to
        the level of service. As such, it is imperative that SWMS and the Customer Service team work
        together to ensure that inquiries are answered in a timely and courteous manner.

Transportation Services – Clean City

-       Both SWMS and Transportation Services are responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of the
        public right of way. Therefore, coordination of initiatives is imperative. Staff in all districts from
        both Divisions work together to investigate illegal dumping, provide clean up services and
        maintain a clean streetscape.




                                                     37
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Joint Coordination Among all WES Divisions to Coordinate Special Events

-       A number of events of the past few years has highlighted the coordination efforts of all Divisions
        in WES. SWMS has provided post event clean ups for both World Youth Day in 2002 and
        SARSstock in 2003. However, SWMS works regularly with other Divisions throughout the year
        to ensure the success and post event cleanup of annual events such as Pride Week parade and
        Taste of the Danforth.

3.4.2    Linkages with Other City Departments

Human Resources - Labour Relations and Other

-       Solid Waste Management Services is primarily an operating Division with the majority of
        unionized staff working on the front lines. SWMS works closely with Corporate Human
        Resources to ensure adherence to the Collective Agreement and that Health and Safety issues
        are addressed and resolved promptly. This ensures that our customers continue to receive the
        quality service they are accustomed to while ensuring a motivated and safe workforce.

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (EDCT), Urban Development Services (UDS) and
Corporate Services - Clean City Initiative

-       The Mayor and Council identified making Toronto a clean and beautiful city as a priority for the
        2003 – 2006 Council term. Works and Emergency Services has been designated the lead on
        the Clean City component with Solid Waste Management Services coordinating the effort.
        SWMS has been working closely with other WES Divisions, EDCT, UDS and Corporate
        Services in identifying issues, setting direction to resolve the issues and implementing them at
        the operations level.



3.4.3    Linkages with External Organizations

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

-        The MDEQ sets forth requirements and prohibitions for solid waste disposal in Michigan.
         Beginning October 1, 2004, MDEQ must approve City of Toronto for disposal in landfill located
         in Michigan.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)

-       The CNSC regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security
        and the environment and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of
        nuclear energy. The CNSC is an independent agency of the Government of Canada.. CNSC is
        notified of the receipt of certain isotopes in the waste stream at the City's transfer stations, and
        may request reports and/or further investigate materials acquired through our radiation
        program. The City also notifies the CNSC when these isotopes have been transported from the
        stations, with information on the contractor, destination and rates.

Commissioners Street Public Liaison Committee

-       Condition 19 of the Certificate of Approval for the Commissioners Street Transfer Station
        requires the City to establish, maintain and support a public liaison committee [PLC] to address
        concerns regarding the operation of the transfer station. The City meets quarterly with the
        Commissioners Street PLC to address issues affecting the community.


                                                    38
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Keele Valley Liaison Committee

-      To address concerns regarding the operations, closure and post closure activities at the Keele
       Valley Landfill site. The City meets quarterly with various stakeholders to address issues
       effecting the community.

U.S. Customs & Border Protection (U.S. Department of Homeland Security)

-      Before the City’s waste can enter the United States, it must be cleared by U.S.Customs.
       Weighscale staff must fill in a Customs manifest indicating the weight and value for each load
       and either send the form with the driver or fax it to authorities. Through C-TPAT, a U.S. Customs
       process to verify supply chain security measures and streamline the Customs process, the City
       has obligations under the program as a proposed partner partner in the security process.


Environment Canada

-      Environment Canada develops and administers the legislation, regulations and approvals for the
       cross--border movement of waste. Staff are working closely with Environment Canada on a prior
       and informed reporting system for cross-border waste shipments to ensure compliance with US
       regulations and avoiding rejected loads at the border.

Ontario Ministry of Environment

-      The Ministry of the Environment develops and administers the legislation, regulations and
       approvals for the operation of the City transfer stations, MRFs, organics processing facilities,
       landfills and the City's waste management collection system. Staff work very closely with
       Ministry officials to ensure compliance with Provisional Certificates of Approval.

Stewardship Ontario

-      The City of Toronto, along with other municipalities in Ontario, receives funding from Waste
       Diversion Ontario (WDO) for its Blue/Grey Box recycling program. It is estimated that the City will
       receive approximately $3 million in funding in 2004 and over $3.3 million in 2005. This funding
       will continue in subsequent years and the exact amount received is contingent on
       quantities/types of materials collected, etc.

Natural Resources Canada - Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

-      Through the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) and the Radium
       Round-up Program SWMS is able to effectively and safely manage some of the radium waste
       collected through our radiation program. This ensures that we comply with US Regulations,
       while safely disposing of radioactive waste that has been brought in error to our transfer facilities.




                                                    39
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



3.5     Waste Currently Managed

Figure 17 illustrates the waste the City managed in 2003 by generator. Waste includes all material that
passes over the weighscales including garbage, recyclables, yardwaste and organics. SWMS provides
collection to the residential, small commercial sector and some A,B,C & D’s. Collection crews bring the
material to the City’s transfer facilities on behalf of these customers. The paid commercial (customers
who pay tipping fees), Peel Region and the remaining A,B,C & D’s bring their waste directly to the
transfer facility. The bulk of the City’s business is the management of residential waste (62%) and is
currently funded entirely from the tax base. The remaining 38% of the waste is funded through tipping
fees or a combination of user fees and the tax base.

The City’s diversion rate is based on waste and recyclables generated by the residential customers
served by the City.

Figure 17 - Waste Managed in 2003 (Approximately 1,453,000 tonnes)



           ABC&Ds and Other
            (58,120 tonnes)
                  4%        Small Commercial/
                           Institutional (29,060
                                  tonnes)
                                     2%

 Peel Region (101,710
       tonnes)
         7%
                                                   Residential
                                                    (908,157
                                                    tonnes)
                                                      62%




   Paid Commercial
   (363,250 tonnes)
         25%
                                                                     Residential Diverted
                                                                      (286,835 tonnes)
                                                                            32%
                                                                        (43 % single family;
                                                                        12 % multi-family)




                                                   40
                                                                                           SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                    MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



3.6       Program Budget

3.6.1     Approved Capital Budget – 2004

The following issues and opportunities provided the basis for approved capital funding in 2004:

      •   Achieve Council approved diversion targets

      •   Ensure adequate funding for increased Perpetual Care expenditures and the potential for more
          sites to be added for perpetual care

      •   Explore funding partnership opportunities for diversion projects

      •   Maintain facilities infrastructure

Figures 18 through 20 below provide a breakdown of the 2004 capital budget by project type,
expenditure category and by financing source.

Figure 18 - 2004 Capital Budget - Cash Flow by Project ($53.6M)




                                                        Keele Valley Final
                                                       Development $1.5M
                                                               3%
                              Transfer Station Asset
                                                                             Multi-Family Residential
                               Management $3.4M
                                                                             Unit Containers $1.5M
                                       6%
                                                                                       3%




          Perpetual Care of
           Landfills $7.7M
                14%




                                                                                         Diversion Facilities
                                                                                              $39.5M
                                                                                                74%




                                                                 41
                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 19 - 2004 Capital Budget - Cash Flow By Category ($53.6M)




                      State of Good
                      Repair $5.1M
                           10%




                                                Legislated/City
                                                Policy $48.5M
                                                     90%




Figure 20 - 2004 Capital Budget - Cash Flow By Financing Source


                                                                  Reserve Funds
                                                                     $9.2M
                                                                      17%



                                                                       Capital From
                                                                       Current $0.5M
                                                                            1%




            Debt $44.0M
               82%




                                       42
                                                                       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



3.6.2   Approved Operating Budget - 2004

The 2004 Solid Waste Management Services Operating Budget was approved based on the following
issues and opportunities:

   •    24 hour/5 day per week Transfer Station operation resulting in increased annual operating
        expenditures

   •    Increases to Solid Waste Management Transfer Station Tipping Fees, thereby potentially
        decreasing revenue

   •    Market price sensitivity of commodity prices for recyclable materials

   •    Cost sharing opportunities for diversion initiatives from Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), thereby
        introducing a new form of revenue

   •    Increase user fee for waste collection and disposal for Agencies, Boards, Commissions and
        Departments in order to promote waste diversion

   Figures 21 through 24 summarize how the 2004 operating budget for SWMS has been funded as
   well as budgeted expenditures by activity type and expenditure category.

Figure 21 – Revenue Sources of 2004 Operating Budget ($216.1M)

                                           ABCDs/School
                                                              Grants ($3M)
                         Royalties/Other     s ($4M)
                                                                  1%
                             ($9M)              2%
                               4%                                   Yellow Bags
                                                                       ($2M)
                         Sale of                                         1%
                       Recyclables
                         ($14M)
                           7%



                      Tipping Fees
                         ($26M)
                          12%

                                                                       Tax Levy
                                                                       ($158M)
                                                                         73%




                                                   43
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 22 - 2004 Budgeted Sources of Operating Revenue ($58.0M Gross)


                                                       Yellow Bags
                                 Grants ($2.9M)          ($2.4M)
                                      5%                    4%
                      ABCD/Schools
                        ($3.6M)
                          6%
                                                                     Tipping Fees
                                                                       ($26.1M)
                                                                         45%

               Royalties/Other
                   ($9M)
                    16%




                            Sale of
                          Recyclables
                           ($14.0M)
                             24%




Figure 23 – 2004 Operating Budget Expenditures by Activity ($216.1 Gross)



                            Litter Collection                        Collection
                                ($13.8M)                             ($70.4M)
                                   6%                                  34%
                    Processing
                     ($20.3M)
                        9%


                   Transfer
                   ($22.6M)
                     10%




                      Program                                            Disposal
                       Support                                           ($59.2M)
                      ($29.8M)                                             27%
                        14%




                                                  44
                                                                            SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                     MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 24 - Total 2004 Budgeted Program by Expenditure Category ($216.1M
Gross)

                                    Interdepartme
                                     ntal Charges
                                                                     Salaries and
                     Capital           ($17.1M)
                                          8%                           Benefits
                   Transfers
                                                                      $79.0M)
                    ($9.9M)
                                                                         37%
                      5%

                    Contributions
                    and Transfers
                      ($3.3M)                                            Materials and
                         2%                                               Supplies
                                                                           ($6.0M)
                               Services and                    Equipment     3%
                                  Rents                          ($0.8M)
                                ($100.0M)
                                   45%



Figure 25 illustrates the 2004 budgeted gross expenditures. Operating costs account for 85% of the
budget. Of the operating cost, in-house staff account for 42% of these costs while contracted services
make up the remaining 43%.

Figure 25 – 2004 Budget Gross Expenditures ($216.1M)


                                    Contributions to         Payment in
                                     Reserves/Res.          Lieu of Taxes
                       Charges for Fund ($9.9M)                ($3.3M)
                       City Services      5%                     2%
                         ($17.1M)
                            8%
                                                                                Direct
                                                                              Operating
                                                                              ($91.5M)
                                                                                42%




                     Contracted
                      Services
                      ($94.3M)
                        43%




                                                       45
                                                                             SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                      MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



3.7                 Key Performance Measures

SWMS has identified and employs a number of key performance measures in order to monitor the
efficiency and effectiveness of its program services while achieving the diversion goals set by Council.
SWMS also participates in both the Provincially mandated Municipal Performance Measurement
Program (MPMP) and the Ontario Municipal CAOs Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI). The Province of
Ontario introduced the MPMP reporting requirement to ensure municipal accountability, improve service
delivery, share best practices and increase taxpayer awareness. OMBI’s mandate is to partner for
service excellence. There are two ways in which performance measures can be used to evaluate Solid
Waste Management’s performance:

(a)           Internally through comparing the city’s own year over year results
(b)           Externally by comparing Toronto’s results with the trends of other Ontario municipalities while
              taking into consideration factors unique to Toronto that influence the City’s results

The following series of figures provide both types of comparative data using 2003 results from other
OMBI Municipalities. It is of the utmost importance to note that the City’s solid waste management costs
can only be compared to other municipalities when all the influencing factors have been taken into
account. A higher cost/tonne does not necessarily mean lower productivity, rather a difference in
program design, service levels, recycling efforts and reliance on private contractors. Since we are
unable to comment on the external factors contributing to their costs, no municipal names have been
attached to these results costs (with the exception of Toronto).

Figure 26 illustrates the cost per tonne of garbage collection between 2001 and 2003. The cost per
tonne is rising year over year primarily due to a reduction in the volumes of garbage collected (10.4 %
reduction in 2002 and 7% in 2003) which has shifted to the recycling and organics stream. While this
reduction in tonnage will result in disposal savings it will not translate into a reduction in collection costs
because fixed costs are being spread over lower volumes. The gross system operating costs have
remained fairly stable with moderate annual increases (CPI, wage increases under Collective
Agreements etc.). The decrease in tonnages experienced in 2002 & 2003 are not sufficient to warrant a
reduction in equipment or staff without compromising the efficiency of the system. As such, as the City
increases its diversion efforts, and tonnage is removed from the waste stream, an increase in the cost
per tonne for garbage collection will likely continue to rise.

Figure 26 – Toronto’s Annual Operating Costs per Tonne for Garbage Collection


                   $80
                   $70
                                                                                         $61.47
                                                              $57.05
                   $60          $49.51
      Cost/Tonne




                   $50
                   $40
                   $30
                   $20
                   $10
                    $-
                                 2001                         2002                        2003
                                                              Year


Source – Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)



                                                         46
                                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



While the City’s annual operating cost for garbage collection is increasing, Figure 27 indicates that our
costs are below the average cost of $72.95/tonne of other OMBI municipalities in Ontario. Costs for
garbage collection are influenced by each municipalities program design and service levels, its urban
form, distance to transfer facilities, the extent of the recycling program and the amount of precipitation
received by that municipality in 2003. As with the majority of Ontario municipalities, the City of Toronto
provides once per week garbage collection. Our collection efficiency is reduced in the dense urban
downtown core due to on-street parking, one way streets and high traffic volumes. On the other hand
there is bulk-lift collection at apartments which tends to be less costly than curbside collection and
accounts for approximately 48% of the households collected from.

Figure 27 - Annual Operating Costs per Tonne in 2003 for Garbage Collection in
Comparison with other OMBI Municipalities


                 $140
                                                                                                                   $118.31
                 $120
                                                                                                          $95.59
                 $100
    Cost/Tonne




                                                                                        $75.13   $79.01
                 $80                                                           $74.27
                                                                      $67.59
                                          $61.47    $61.90   $62.67
                        $51.59   $54.96
                 $60

                 $40

                 $20

                   $-
                                          Toronto


Source – 2003 Core Framework Results – OMBI Municipalities

Figure 28 illustrates the change in the annual operating costs per tonne between 2001 and 2003
associated with the transfer and disposal of garbage. The cost per tonne of garbage transferred through
City facilities and disposed of has increased by almost 57% in 2003. This was primarily due to the
increased costs associated with hauling and disposing of waste in Michigan versus the lower costs
realized prior to the closure of Keele Valley at the end of 2002. In addition, the City realized a 30% drop
in the volumes of waste disposed due to a reduction in commercial and industrial waste after the closure
of Keele Valley, and lower volumes of garbage collected due to the yellow bag program and increased
diversion programs.




                                                                 47
                                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 28 – Toronto’s Annual Operating Costs per Tonne for Transfer and
Disposal of Garbage


                  $80                                                                                 $70.32
                  $70
                  $60
    Cost/Tonne




                  $50               $39.93                           $40.67
                  $40
                  $30
                  $20
                  $10
                   $-
                                     2001                            2002                              2003
                                                                     Year


Source – Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)

Figure 29 indicates that we are incurring disposal costs above the average of $58.08 per tonne for other
OMBI municipalities in Ontario. However, waste transfer and disposal costs are heavily influenced on
the accessibility to owned and/or local landfill sites with available capacity, the distance to the landfill site
and the reliance on private contractors. We may be realizing above average costs since the urban form
of the City does not lend itself to the development of a new, City-owned landfill within its boundaries and
those municipalities identified with lower disposal costs usually own their own landfill and thus incur
lower costs such as the City enjoyed prior to the mandated closure of Keele Valley. Other municipalities
with high costs typically do not operate their own landfill sites.


Figure 29 - Annual Operating Costs per Tonne in 2003 for Transfer and Disposal
of Garbage for OMBI Municipalities

                  $140

                  $120                                                                                              $114.56

                                                                                                           $98.88
                  $100                                                                            $90.45
     Cost/Tonne




                   $80                                                            $69.53 $70.32

                   $60                                                   $55.66
                                                         $42.26 $45.82
                   $40                          $34.67
                                  $29.64 $31.81
                         $13.32
                   $20

                    $-
                                                                                        Toronto


Source – 2003 Core Framework Results – OMBI Municipalities




                                                                48
                                                                       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 30 shows a 26% increase in diversion costs on a per tonne basis in 2003. This increase was
primarily driven by a change in the mix of recyclable materials that are being diverted as the organics
programs have been introduced. The net cost to divert a tonne of organics (green bin) is higher than
fibre and containers (blue box). In addition, the closure of Keele Valley and the Avondale Compost site
resulted in an increased cost per tonne for the processing of leaf and yardwaste now contracted to the
private sector.

Figure 30 – Toronto’s Annual Operating Costs per Tonne for Diversion Programs

                $190                                                               $169.87
                $170
                         $140.02
                $150                                        $135.01
                $130
   Cost/Tonne




                $110
                $90
                $70
                $50
                $30
                $10
                -$10
                           2001                              2002                    2003
                                                             Year


Source – Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)


Figure 31 provides a comparison of the City’s cost/tonne for diversion programs with other OMBI
municipalities. Factors influencing the results will include program design, materials collected, urban
form, the amount of promotion and education undertaken and the frequency of collection. While our
costs are above the OMBI average of $134.87, it is important to note that the City provides its
customers with a large number of programs and service levels that may not be enjoyed by other
municipalities. These include 15 material types included in the recycling programs (all of which must be
collected, processed and marketed), an extensive yardwaste program that runs from April to December
(in addition, Christmas trees are collected in January), weekly green bin collection, backyard composting
programs, a household hazardous waste program, Environment Days, litter bins for recyclables and
white goods recycling. Some of the Regional municipalities (Tier 1) in OMBI, that are depicted below,
only provide some diversion programs with the local governments (Tier 2) also providing this service. In
these cases the results are not necessarily comparable to Toronto.




                                                      49
                                                                                                           SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                    MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 31 - Annual Operating Cost per Tonne in 2003 for Diversion Programs for
OMBI Municipalities

                 $250                                                                                             $232.01 $234.80
                 $225
                 $200
                                                                                                       $169.87
                 $175                                                                $162.00 $164.24
    Cost/Tonne




                 $150
                                                                   $119.42 $123.52
                 $125                                       $111.67
                                                   $89.33
                 $100                     $80.43
                                 $77.56
                 $75    $53.55
                 $50
                 $25
                   $-




                                                                                                        Toronto
Source – 2003 Core Framework Results – OMBI Municipalities


Figure 32 illustrates the overall cost, on a per tonne basis, of the City’s waste management program and
includes the collection, transfer, processing and disposal of all materials managed within the system.
The overall cost per tonne increased by 59% in 2003 is as a result of the factors previously mentioned
including a 23% decrease in tonnages managed as a result of the closure of Keele Valley, the increase
in costs associated with the haulage and disposal of waste in Michigan and the movement of waste from
the less costly garbage stream to the more costly diversion stream.

Figure 32 – Toronto’s Annual Average Operating Costs per Tonne for the Solid
Waste Management System

                 $140
                                                                                                                           $118.80
                 $120

                 $100
    Cost/Tonne




                                          $71.39                                $74.72
                  $80

                  $60

                  $40

                  $20

                   $-
                                          2001                                   2002                                        2003
                                                                                Year


Source – Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP)

Figure 33 highlights that, even after implementation of the more costly diversion initiatives such as the
green bin program and without access to our own landfill site, the cost per tonne for the City’s integrated
waste management system is just above the average of $105.21 per tonne for OMBI municipalities.




                                                                           50
                                                                                                               SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                        MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 33 – Total Average Operating Cost per Tonne in 2003 for the Solid Waste
Management System for OMBI Municipalities

                                    $180                                                                                                 $167.24
                                    $160                                                                                       $149.99
                                    $140
                                                                                                     $118.80 $121.89 $123.27
                                    $120                                           $102.98 $103.33
        Cost/Tonne




                                    $100                                  $82.07
                                     $80                         $72.10
                                               $57.66
                                                        $57.95
                                     $60
                                     $40
                                     $20
                                          $-
                                                                                                     Toronto


Source – 2003 Core Framework Results – OMBI Municipalities

Customer service plays a key role in measuring Divisional performance in order to meet the goal of
providing effective service. SWMS uses customer service statistics to review and resolve issues that
are operational in nature. Figure 34 highlights the number of complaints received annually regarding the
City’s solid Waste management program. Due to the number of programs offered by SWMS, the
operation directly affects our customers at a minimum, once per week and is a service that residents
expect to provided on their scheduled collection days.

The Division completes over 50,000,000 collection passbys annually. The most common complaint
received related to these passbys is a missed collection/materials left behind. Collection may be missed
or materials left for a variety of reasons including both staff error and customer non-compliance.

In 2003, SWMS realized less than 1 complaint for each 1,000 passbys. Again this complaint may be
staff error or customer non-compliance. Regardless, all complaints are investigated and resolved. In
the 1st quarter of 2004 complaints dropped by 4% and may be attributed to a decrease in complaints
regarding the 2003 roll out of the green bin program in District 4.

Figure 34 - Number of Complaints Received Annually

                                   0.94                                                                0.93
                                   0.92
    Complaints per 1,000 Passbys




                                    0.9
                                   0.88
                                   0.86
                                   0.84                                                                                         0.83
                                   0.82
                                    0.8
                                   0.78
                                                    2001                     2002                      2003           To September 30, 2004
                                                                                          Year


Source: Works and Emergency Services, Customer Service



                                                                                        51
                                                                                SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                         MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



SWMS, as part of its goal as articulated by Task force 2010, to meet 60% diversion from landfill by 2006
and 100% diversion from landfill by 2010 has set residential diversion targets to measure performance
of its programs. Figure 35 illustrates our current and anticipated diversion rates.

The estimated diversion rate includes waste and recyclables from multi-family dwellings. Diversion from
single family homes in 2006 is expected to reach 60% subject to the addition of new diversion programs.


Figure 35 - Percentage of Residential Solid Waste Diverted
    60%

    50%
                                                                                                      48%*
                                                                                        42%
    40%
                                                                          36%
                                                            32%
    30%
                                27%           28%
                 25%
    20%

    10%

    0%
          2000 Actual   2001 Actual   2002 Actual   2003 Actual      2004          2005          2006
                                                                   Estimated     Estimated     Estimated

Source: Report dated April 21, 2004 from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services entitled “Getting to 60% and
Beyond”




The City’s residential diversion rate has continued to improve each year as illustrated in Figure 36. In
2003 the improvement was attributable to:

•    Improved recovery from existing diversion programs and public awareness of the various diversion
     programs and a mandatory recycling By-law which if violated may culminate in discontinued City
     collection.

•    Full-year impact of recycling programs in multi-unit residential buildings.

•    Expansion of the organics/green box program.




                                                         52
                                                                                                     SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                              MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 36 – Toronto’s Percentage of Residential Solid Waste Diverted


    Residential Diversion Rate   40%
                                 35%                                                                             31.6%
                                                  26.7%                          27.9%
                                 30%
                                 25%
                                 20%
                                 15%
                                 10%
                                  5%
                                  0%
                                                   2001                          2002                            2003
                                                                                 Year



Toronto’s diversion rate of 31.6% is below the 2003 average for OMBI municipalities of 35.9% as
illustrates in Figure 37. The key factor behind this is the mix of single-family residences and multi-
unit residential buildings. Apartments typically have lower diversion rates than houses and
represent approximately 48% of Toronto’s total housing stock. Recycling in apartments is not as
convenient for residents relative to single-family homes and apartments do not have leaf and yard
waste materials to recycle. The diversion rate for the City excluding apartments was approximately
43 per cent in 2003.

Figure 37 – Residential Diversion Rate in 2003 for OMBI Municipalities

                                 60%
                                       51.0%
   Residential Diversion Rate




                                 50%           45.2%
                                                       43.1% 41.2%
                                                                   40.6%
                                 40%                                       37.4%
                                                                                   35.1%
                                                                                           31.6% 30.0%
                                                                                                       29.3%
                                 30%
                                                                                                                   23.6% 22.4%

                                 20%

                                 10%

                                 0%
                                                                                           Toronto




                                                                            53
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




4.0     Driving Factors for Change


4.1     Driving Factors for Change

A number of factors are contributing to the need for the City to review its current solid waste
management programs. These factors have been both internal and external and their impacts have
ranged from minimal up to a need to reengineer our existing collection, transfer, processing and disposal
system.

4.1.1   Task Force 2010 - Achievement of Diversion Goals

The importance of waste diversion and minimizing the impact of waste on the environment have been
on-going issues for both the City of Toronto since amalgamation in 1997 and the former municipalities
that made up Metro Toronto pre-amalgamation.

For almost 15 years, the former Metro Toronto, its area Municipalities and, following amalgamation, the
new City of Toronto worked with the Province to pursue Ontario landfill options. While the review for
landfill opportunities were taking place, residents were provided with numerous reduction, reuse and
recycling programs that were updated and expanded as new markets and technologies warranted in an
attempt to save the valuable landfill space at the City owned Keele Valley site.

In the Fall of 2000, City Council was engaged in a difficult debate on the future of Toronto’s garbage
following the mandated closure of the Keele Valley site at the end of 2002. This resulted in a disposal
contract for a private landfill in Michigan. This was not intended to be the long term solution to the City’s
garbage.

In 2001, Council adopted the recommendations of Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 calling for the City
to achieve waste diversion goals of 30%, 60% and 100% by 2003, 2006 and 2010 respectively. At that
time, the City was diverting 215,000 tonnes of residential waste, equating to a 25% diversion rate.
These waste diversion goals are for waste the City collects from residents, small commercial
establishments and ABC&D’s and waste brought directly to our transfer facilities from ABC&D’s. This
diversion target does not include our private customers that pay to dispose of waste at City transfer
stations.

The targets it established as adopted by Council are illustrated in Figure 38.




                                                     54
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 38 – Task Force 2010- Residential Diversion Rate from Landfill Targets




                                  100%

               % Diversion Rate
                                  80%
                                  60%
                                  40%
                                  20%
                                   0%
                                         2003            2006                  2010
         Diversion Rate                  30%             60%                   100%



Figure 39 translates these diversion goals into the reductions that will be required in the daily truckloads
of waste (not including private customer, paid waste received directly at our transfer facilities) currently
being shipped to Michigan for disposal.

Figure 39 – Toronto’s Pledge




    * Includes WWW Sludge from Toronto Water. Actual number of Solid Waste trucks in 2003 was 121.




                                                    55
                                                                                  SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                           MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Following adoption of the recommendations of Task Force 2010, the City implemented a number of
initiatives designed to meet the 30% diversion by 2003 goal. These initiatives included:

-       Rolling out commercial Green Bin program.
-       Rolled out single stream program in Etobicoke, Scarborough, Toronto, York and East York.
-       Rolling out the Green Bin program to single-family households in Etobicoke and Scarborough.
-       Introducing a corresponding shift from weekly to bi-weekly residual waste collection.
-       Undertaking a blitz to ensure basic recycling programs are available in all 5,000 multi-family
        apartments and condominiums.
-       Expanding the Blue Box Program, both in terms of introducing a wider range of acceptable
        items (e.g., milk and juice cartons, drink boxes, empty paint and aerosol cans) and capturing
        more recyclables overall through mandatory use of the Blue/Grey Box program.
-       Moving to kraft paper bags designed to enhance collection of leaf and yard waste for
        composting.

As a result of these initiatives, the City exceeded its goal of 30% residential waste diversion by 2003. In
2003, approximately 287,000 tonnes of residential waste resources were diverted from landfill, which
represents a residential diversion rate of 32%. The rate of 32% is a combined diversion rate for single-
family and multi-family residences. The actual diversion rate is 43% for single-family homes and 12% for
multi-family dwellings. Homes in Etobicoke and Scarborough that have access to the new Green Bin
program are diverting more than 50% of their waste from landfill. The distribution of the City’s 2003
residential waste stream is shown in Figure 40.


Figure 40 - 2003 Residential Waste Stream


                                      2003 Residential Waste Diversion


                          1000000
                           900000
                           800000                                      32%
                           700000
                           600000
                    tonnes 500000         43%       + 12%         =             W aste Diverted(tonnes)
                           400000
                           300000
                           200000                                               W aste
                                                                                Collected(tonnes)
                           100000
                                0
                                      Residential



                                                    Residential


                                                                  Residential
                                        Family



                                                      Family
                                        Single



                                                      Multi-




                                                                    Total




Continuing to ship the City’s waste to Michigan landfill is tenuous and every effort must be made to divert
as much waste as possible from landfill. Michigan has a deposit on carbonated beverage containers and
has passed legislation that prohibits carbonated beverage containers in waste delivered to the state. If
all the policies and programs recommended in this report are put into place, it is estimated that the City
would achieve an 80% recovery rate on carbonated beverage containers, which would be comparable
to the Michigan deposit/return system.




                                                            56
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Council approved diversion initiatives, such as rolling out the Green Bin program to all remaining single-
family homes in the City (Toronto, East York and York in October 2004 and North York in 2005) and
improving recovery of recyclables, are expected to get us to 41% diversion. As these initiatives are not
enough to allow us to reach the 60% target, the City must develop further initiatives to maximize the
quantity of material diverted.

4.1.2    Residual Disposal

As of January 1, 2003, the disposal of 100% of City’s waste is provided under contract to Republic
Services’ Carleton Farms Landfill located in Michigan, USA.

Since the City began shipping its waste to this private landfill, a number of operational and cross border
issues have created difficulties in our attempt to dispose of the City’s waste.

In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States instituted its Homeland
Security Program. This program was designed to thwart attempts by terrorists to enter the U.S. or
transport weapons or explosives into the U.S. for terrorist purposes and has resulted in longer wait times
and a more rigorous and time-consuming inspection and administration process at the U.S. - Canada
border.

In May 2003, radiation detection systems were installed at the U.S. border to monitor all vehicles
requesting access to the U.S. As a result, 34 trailers were refused entry to the U.S. between June 1
and July 21, 2003 for allegedly containing radioactive waste, which contributed to the backlog of waste
at our transfer stations. In addition, fines have accompanied a number of the load rejections. In July
2003, the City installed radiation detection systems at each of the seven transfer stations. All incoming
loads are monitored for radioactive waste. In addition, all waste trailers are cleared through the
detectors before they are sent to Michigan for disposal.

On May 20, 2003, solid waste entering the U.S. was declared to be "regulated garbage" due to the
diagnosis of a cow in Alberta with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, more commonly known as "mad
cow disease". As a result, the border was closed to waste for approximately eighteen hours and
created a backlog of solid waste at our transfer stations.

During the course of 2003, the City was required to direct approximately 7,000 tonnes of solid waste to
the City of Guelph’s landfill and 15,860 tonnes of waste to the Greenlane landfill in London, Ontario in
order to address accumulating tonnages of waste at our transfer stations resulting from the peak loading
and the operational upset caused by the border closure over mad cow disease. The disposal of waste
at Guelph’s landfill was facilitated through emergency purchase orders and emergency certificate of
approval amendments from the MOE. This action was required due to the risk of being in violation of
the specifications of our Certificates of Approval that govern the amount of tonnage a transfer station can
receive and the length of time it can remain on the tipping floor, and to off-set the potential requirement
to temporarily suspend solid waste collections.

Because Guelph is located about a third of the distance from Toronto, relative to the haul route to
Michigan, our haulage contractor, supplemented by City forces, was able to increase the number of daily
truck movements and therefore more rapidly reduce the accumulated solid waste at our transfer
stations.

Guelph provided disposal capacity to the City of Toronto in 2003 at a cost of approximately $750,000.
However, this capacity is no longer available as their landfill closed at the end of 2003.

The need for contingency landfill capacity has been recognized by the City to address the set of
circumstances experienced in 2001 – 2004. These situations and any future situations pose a threat to
public health and financial liability with respect to the environment. Without the use of alternative landfill
sites located in Canada, the City cannot continue operations and maintain service provision.


                                                     57
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



A request for proposals for contingency waste disposal capacity was issued in late 2003. No proposals
were received. A report dated January 26, 2004 from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services and the Chief Financial Officer documented the proposal call and its outcome.

In the event of a short-term border closure or major operational upset, such as the impact of a major
snowstorm along a transport route, the City can respond by utilizing the storage capacity at its solid
waste management transfer stations in order to maintain its residential collection service.

However, this could only be maintained for approximately two days or less, depending on the amount of
waste in transfer stations at the time of the border closure or operational upset. External assistance
would be required after the storage capacity at the City’s transfer stations was utilized, in order to
maintain residential collection service.

The City’s position is not unique. The GTA Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, in varying
degrees, share the pressing requirement to acquire, at a minimum, contingency disposal capacity in
Ontario. A collaborative planning process to identify contingency disposal capacity in the event of a
border closure has been initiated with these Regional bodies.


Figure 41 – Estimated 2003 Ontario Waste Shipments to Michigan




                                                  58
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



4.1.3   Ontario Ministry of Environment’s 60% Plan

The Province has recognized that the current lack of landfill capacity in Ontario and the recent
amendments to the State of Michigan’s waste laws are placing significant pressure on Ontario
communities and industries to divert the waste currently sent there for disposal.

In 2004, the Provincial Minister of the Environment announced that the Province is working towards a
strategy that aims to divert 60% of Ontario’s waste from landfill by 2008. To achieve this goal, the
province is relying on residents, businesses, industry, manufacturers and packagers, waste
management and environmental experts, as well as municipalities to find better waste management
solutions. However, while the provincial government has set the goal it will be up to municipalities to
determine how best to get there. The Province has identified that reaching 60% diversion hinges on
municipalities dealing with organic waste more aggressively.

The City is well positioned in its attempts to meet this goal due to both Council’s diversion targets set by
the Task Force 2010 and through programs such as the green bin that are currently being implemented
and those programs that are in the planning stages as set out in this business plan.

This 60% goal may be legislated at some point in the future and progress will be monitored through the
current system in which municipalities such as the City report their diversion rates on an annual basis to
Waste Diversion Ontario and through the MPMP program.

4.1.4   Waste Diversion Ontario

WDO is a non-share government corporation created under the Waste Diversion Act in June 2002.
Funds are collected from industry and provided to municipalities to fund residential diversion programs
for types of waste designated by the Minister of Environment through regulations. The City of Toronto,
along with other municipalities in Ontario, receive funding from Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) for its
Blue/Grey Box recycling program. It is estimated that the City will receive approximately $3 million in
funding in 2004 and over $3.3 million in 2005. This funding will continue in subsequent years and the
exact amount received is contingent on quantities/types of materials collected, etc. In addition to
Blue/Grey Box materials, the City can expect to receive funding for other recovery programs in the
future. Waste oil and tires have been designated by the Minister of the Environment and funding plans
are being developed. The designation of Electronics is imminent and organics will be considered in
future years.

WDO funding that is now provided for recycling makes this an opportune time to improve existing
programs and implement new ones. As such, as the WDO funds additional recovery programs such as
organics collection, the City’s share of the cost will decrease, thereby potentially making diversion more
financially attractive than disposal.

SWMS has recommended that Council request that the Minister of Environment also consider
designating litter, mattresses, furniture and carpets as types of waste that require manufacturers to meet
recycling targets and share with municipalities the cost of diverting these materials from landfill. Should
these materials be designated in the future by the Minister of Environment, a portion of the costs
identified in this business plan may be offset by WDO funding.

4.1.5   Amalgamation and Harmonization

Since amalgamation, SWMS has been actively identifying and harmonizing service and operational
inequities related to seven former municipalities. Section 1 of this plan highlights all the successful
harmonization initiatives to date. SWMS has come far, considering the challenges faced. Solid waste
management is a highly visible core service provided by the City. Our customers consider solid waste
management essential to the well being of the City and the inequities realized following amalgamation
resulted, at times, in increased frustration levels by our customers. The process of harmonization, at
times, exasperated the situation when service levels in some parts of the City were being reduced to
                                                    59
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



meet the financial constraints of the new City. However, seven years later, with thoughtful planning and
outreach programs, SWMS has been able to successfully harmonize the majority of our policies, service
levels and operational inequities while improving levels of service and implementing new programs while
working within fiscal restraints. There are, however, a small number of issues that remain outstanding
that must be resolved in the near future. This is particularly important as we move forward with our
diversion goals and with the onset of Corporate initiatives such as 3-1-1.



4.2 Barriers to Change

The City, as part of its plan to divert 100% of its waste from landfill must rely on new and emerging
technologies to deal with up to 40% of the waste stream as residual that cannot be reduced, reused,
recycled or composted in the time frames being considered. The review of any technology for this
residual waste stream must go through a individual Environmental Assessment process as regulated by
the Environmental Protection Act and Environmental Assessment Act. This process may take upwards
of 5 years to complete with no guarantee that a technology or site will be approved. Therefore, it is
important to realize that it is unlikely that the City will be able to meet its 60% or 100% diversion goals in
the original timeframe approved by Council due to this constraint.

4.3 Long Term Vision

The program changes associated with the driving factors for change all require long term planning,
commitment by Council, staff, our industry partners and our customers. In addition, and, most
importantly, sustainable funding is required for success. The visions associated with these themes will
not come without both a cost and resistance to change. Once these obstacles have been addressed
and resolved, the result will be a successful reengineering of our waste management system and
outreach programs that will be a model for other communities around the world.




                                                     60
                                                                              SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                       MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




5.0            Program Changes


Note:          All costs identified with the proposed initiatives are INCREMENTAL to the current
               program costs and include landfill avoidance costs and WDO revenues, as appropriate.
               In addition, any diversion rates quoted refer to diversion of waste the City collects from
               residents, small commercial establishments and ABC&D’s and waste brought directly to
               City transfer stations by ABC&D’s. Tonnage brought to our transfer facilities by private
               customers are NOT included in the City’s diversion targets.

5.1            Program Changes Necessary to Achieve Diversion Goals

The 60% and 100% waste diversion from landfill goals have been set by Council. This plan proposes
that 60% of the waste stream be dealt with through reduction, reuse, recycling and composting initiatives
while the remaining 40% will be diverted from landfill through new and emerging technologies. The
breakdown of the components of the remaining 40% of the residual waste steam (residue) is illustrated
in Figure 42.

Figure 42 - Composition of Overall Residential Waste Generation and Projected
40% Residue

               1000000

               900000

               800000

               700000
                                                                                      SSO
               600000
                                                                                      Blue/Grey Box
      Tonnes




               500000                                                                 Yardwaste
                                                                                      Durables/HHW
               400000
                                                                                      Non Recyclable Waste
               300000

               200000

               100000

                    0
                           Total Residential Waste     Residue After 60% (362,000
                         Generation (908,000 Tonnes)            Tonnes)




As identified above, only 46% (167,000 tonnes) of the remaining residue is actually non-recyclable
waste. The remaining 54% is a combination of recyclable and compostable material that residents have
chosen not to place in their recycling containers. The recovery rate of materials is a significant factor in
both the success of the City’s diversion programs and the makeup of residual waste. The recovery rate
is based on the number of eligible homes participating in the diversion program and the amount of
material available for diversion from each participating home. Figure 43 provides further clarification of
the definition of a recovery rate.


                                                        61
                                                                            SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                     MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 43 - Recovery Rate Explained

                                     Recovery Rate Definition:

             % Participation in a Program X % of Material Captured = % Recovery

           Where:           Participation = proportion of eligible homes using program
                            Capture = proportion of eligible material within participating home
                            Recovery = proportion of all eligible material actually diverted from landfill

The recovery rate of materials will vary by diversion program and is dependent on a number of factors.
These factors may include:

-          Convenience of diversion program versus disposal. For example, if the diversion program is
           not as user friendly as garbage collection, users may opt for the easier disposal option.
           Therefore, potentially divertable materials are lost to the waste stream;
-          Presence of incentives to divert, such as monetary incentives. User pay programs encourage
           participation, therefore recovery rates increase; "bag limits" every other week garbage, and;
-          Demand for additional space, not frequent enough collection or bin capacity for diversion
           materials. An overflowing blue box may encourage a resident to dispose of their recyclable
           materials in the garbage until collection day.

It is important to note however, that, even if all the above factors are addressed by the City, it is still
expected that minimal quantities of potentially divertable material will ultimately end up in the waste
stream.

Waste diversion estimates in the business plan are based on a projection that overall recovery rates will
rise from the current rate of 50% to approximately 80% city-wide as shown in Figure 44. The 20% of
uncaptured recyclables and compostables will remain in the residual waste. A 20% loss of potential
recyclables may seem high but recognizes that even with 92% of homes participating in the City's
diversion programs and providing 87% of available recyclables, overall recovery is 80%.


Figure 44 – Projected Recovery Rates for Recyclables
                                          Houses             Apartments/Condos                Overall
           Material Type
                                    Current     Projected    Current %     Projected    Current    Projected
                                      %             %                          %          %            %
    Aluminum Beverage                 69          80 +           32          70 +         55          80
    Plastic Beverage                  63          80 +           34          70 +         54          80
    Newspaper                         82           85            67           75          77          80
    Home Office/Junk Mail             33           75            21           65          29          70
    Overall                          59.7         82.4          29.9          70         49.4        78.4

A number of initiatives have been identified that will assist in achieving the 60% and 100% diversion
from landfill goals. Both the City’s recycling program and single family green bin program were “easy
hits”. These programs are user friendly and, as such, have been embraced by our residents resulting in
high participation and recovery rates. In addition, the costs associated with these programs were not
unreasonable when compared to both the economic and environmental cost of disposal. As we move
towards our diversion goals, proposed programs become increasingly expensive and will be less user
friendly, resulting in lower participation and recovery rates.




                                                      62
                                                                       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



While cost is an important factor when considering the implementation of new programs, the success of
a diversion program hinges on the recovery of materials. Getting to 60% diversion from where the City
is today will become increasingly difficult due to the expected recovery rates associated with each new
initiative. Material that is not recovered must continue to be managed as residual waste.

The following new initiatives (above and beyond the current programs currently in place) are required to
assist in getting us towards our 60% goal.
          -        Implementation of SSO Programs in Apartments
          -        Increasing the Recovery of Recyclables in Apartments;
          -        Single Stream Recycling and New Containers;
          -        Addition of More Materials to the Recycling Program;
          -        Mandatory Diversion Programs and Enforcement;
          -        Waste Limits/Fees; and,
          -        Reuse Centres and Diversion of Durable Goods.


These major residential diversion initiatives must all be implemented if the City is to achieve 60%
diversion from landfill and are, in many cases, interdependent. For example, SSO collection in
apartments will not likely be successful without waste limits/fees and the recovery of new materials such
as plastic film will not be maximized if SWMS does not reassess its collection methods. The current
blue box collection system is reaching capacity and needs to be reviewed.

The plans associated with each initiative also consider other City managed waste including waste from
the City’s Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Departments (ABCDs), schools, municipally collected
commercial establishments (Yellow Bag Program) and from public spaces.

Reaching the goal of 100% diversion from landfill hinges on the approval and implementation of new
and emerging technologies. The approved technologies will address the remaining 40% of the waste
stream as identified previously in Figure 41.




5.1.1   Implementation of Source Separated                           35,000 Tonnes
        Organics (SSO) Programs in Apartments                        3.8% Diversion from Landfill

The City has been operating organics collection pilots            using deep collection systems in two
apartment buildings since 2002. The deep collection systems are being tested at a small condominium
building with no garbage chutes and a large 260 unit rental building with a garbage chute. Participation
in the program has been very good, with an average organics capture rate of 75kg/hh/year. To
implement SSO collection in the multi-residential sector across the City, one system will not fit all.
Buildings differ in size, layout, and whether there are garbage chutes. There are also a number of
infrastructure issues that must be considered such as underground utilities and underground parking,
overhead clearance for deep collection systems, overhead balconies and odour issues with carts and
bulk bins.


There are three systems that we would recommend for SSO collection in apartments.

                         A deep collection system

                         A modified bulk container system

                         A cart system for those buildings where space is very limited



                                                   63
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




                                           Deep Collection System

Testing of these three systems in low rise, high rise and Toronto Community Housing buildings, as well
as townhouse complexes, would provide the City with the knowledge and experience to develop the
most suitable SSO systems for multi-family complexes. It is recommended that we test SSO collection
systems in 30 buildings in 2005 and an additional 20 buildings in 2006. Toronto Community Housing
buildings represent a significant percentage of multi-family dwellings and therefore, it is important to
include some of their buildings in the pilots. Funds for the SSO Apartment pilots have been included in
Solid Waste Management Services 2005 Operating Budget submission. Traditionally, recyclable
materials from apartment buildings are more contaminated than materials collected from single-family
homes. If SSO loads from apartments contain hazardous contaminants, such as car batteries or motor
oil, the anaerobic digestion facility at Dufferin would be compromised and could require shutdown for a
significant amount of time, which would affect single-family Green Bin processing capacity. Test loads of
apartment mixed waste will be sent to the mixed waste facility operated by "Conporec Inc." in Quebec
for processing, as there may be buildings where SSO will not be possible and some type of backup
method will need to be available.

Many apartments are not providing adequate recycling for their residents and participation is significantly
lower than single-family homes. It is important that the City focus its efforts on ensuring proper recycling
programs that maximize the recovery of recyclables are in place before implementing SSO programs in
apartments. As well, current apartment collection contracts have to be honoured.

It is proposed that the main rollout of SSO collection in apartments commence in 2007. This will enable
us to learn valuable lessons from the 50 pilot buildings before implementing SSO programs in
apartments city-wide. It will allow us time to focus on improving recovery of recyclables in apartments
(currently 12%) and have the Green Bin program operating smoothly for the 500,000 single-family
homes in the City. It will also allow time for new, recently bid, organics processing capacity to be brought
on line to accommodate the anticipated quantities from multi-family homes.

It is proposed that the apartment SSO program be implemented one district at a time, completing one
area before moving on to the next. Roll-out of the SSO program would be subject to the pilots
demonstrating that SSO collection and processing is viable for apartments and a Waste Limit/Fees
policy being in place.

Figure 45 shows the schedule and associated net annual operating costs associated with source
separated organics collection at apartments. These costs include both the incremental collection and
processing costs and the net landfill avoidance cost. The costs, do not, however, assume WDO
funding. At this time, WOD does not presently fund organics collection. Any future WDO funding will
offset the net incremental operating cost. Note that as the system matures, the net cost per tonne
decreases.




                                                    64
                                                                           SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                    MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 45 – Estimated Net Incremental Operating Costs for Source Separated
Organics Programs in Apartments

                                          Estimated Net           Estimated         Estimated Net
                        Number of          Incremental             Tonnes            Incremental
           Year
                        Complexes         Operating Cost          Collected           Operating
                                                                                     Cost/Tonne

           2005              30               $129,167               207               $624.00

           2006              30                $97,964               345               $283.95

           2007             790              $1,179,267             5,796              $203.46

           2008             620              $1,896,722             10,074             $188.28

           2009            1370              $3,836,157             19,527             $196.45

           2010            2220              $6,982,921             34,845             $200.40

           2011            2220              $6,624,625             34,845             $190.12

           2012            2220              $6,823,364             34,845             $195.82



This successful implementation of this initiative also relies on the City providing appropriate containers to
all locations within the City. Containers will include both the kitchen catchers and centralized collection
bins. The type of central collection bin will vary by location depending on space and access but will
include bulk lift containers, toters and deep collection containers. Additional specialized vehicles will
also be required for collection. Figure 46 summarizes the estimated annual capital requirements for the
SSO program in apartments. Initial capital expenditures associated with implementation will cease as of
2011, however, the replacement of vehicles and containers must be planned beyond 2012.

Figure 46 - Estimated Capital Costs Associated with the Implementation of
Source Separated Organics Programs in Apartments

   Year        2005        2006         2007             2008         2009           2010        2011     2012

Estimated     $62,346     $41,564    $1,641,778     $1,288,484     $2,847,134     $4,613,604       -        -
   Capital
     Cost



Under existing policies, we do not expect apartments to divert the 75kg/hh/yr currently being achieved in
the two pilots, as these two buildings have traditionally been very good recyclers. However, if the policies
recommended in this Business Plan for apartments are put into effect (e.g., mandatory diversion
enforcement, waste limits), we feel it is reasonable to project SSO diversion from apartments to be
75kg/hh/yr. This would result in diversion of approximately 35,000 tonnes annually of SSO (462,000
units x 75kg).



                                                     65
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




5.1.2     SSO Processing Capacity Requirements

The first three phases of the Green Bin program have been completed and now provide weekly SSO
collection to approximately 390,000 single-family households. The final stage of implementation is
scheduled for the fall of 2005. The Yellow Bag Program SSO collection was fully implemented in
September 2002 and currently serves approximately 1,800 customers. The quantity of SSO collected
through these existing programs is summarized in Figure 47.

Figure 47 - Source Separated Organic Material Collection Rates for Existing
Programs
                                                                                  Quantity Collected
                                    Program                                        (Tonnes/Year)

 Residential Single-family (Green Bin)                              Etobicoke            15,000
                                                                 Scarborough             22,000
                                                     Toronto, York, East York1           45,000
                                           Yellow Bag (commercial generators)            15,000
                                                                          Total          97,000
    1
        Based on only 5 weeks of operating results

At this time, programs to collect SSO from multi-family households and from the City’s ABC&Ds are still
in the planning stage. Two multi-family SSO pilot projects are underway involving a combined total of
280 households. SSO collection has also begun at a few ABC&D facilities. However, the total quantity of
SSO collected from these sectors is not significant at this time.

The final phase of the Green Bin program implementation is scheduled for September 2005. When fully
implemented, the Green Bin program will serve approximately 500,000 single-family households and will
be one of, if not the, largest programs of its type in North America.

SWMS will initiate pilot SSO collection projects in approximately 30 multi-family residential buildings in
2005. The pilot projects will assess the performance of different on-site SSO separation systems. The
results of these pilot projects will guide the phased implementation of the multi-family SSO collection
program planned to being in 2007. These projects will provide new information on the quantity and
quality of SSO collected from multi-family households that will be incorporated into plans to secure
additional SSO processing capacity.

SWMS has undertaken to secure capacity to process the SSO collected through the Green Bin Program
by biological methods and to ensure that the resulting product is marketed to beneficial uses.

Prior to Council’s decision to implement the Task Force 2010 recommended SSO program, the City (in
the form of the former Metropolitan Toronto regional municipality) had begun construction of an organic
waste processing facility at the Dufferin waste management site. This facility has since become
dedicated to SSO processing. The limited capacity of the Dufferin organics processing facility provides
only a portion of the City’s SSO processing requirements. SWMS has undertaken two request for
proposal (RFP) processes to secure additional capacity in the interim period (ie. while long-term capacity
is being secured) and in the long-term.

SWMS assessed the City’s SSO processing requirements and recommended two sequential request for
proposal (RFP) processes to secure the required processing capacity; (1) an RFP for interim processing
capacity; and, (2) and RFP for long-term capacity.



                                                     66
                                                                       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



A RFP for interim SSO processing was released in January 2003 and invited public and private sector to
offer processing services for up to 100,000 tonnes per year of SSO from the Green Bin and Yellow Bag
programs for a term of two to five years. As a result, interim processing contracts were awarded to the
City of Guelph and Halton Recycling (2003) Ltd. for up to 20,000 and 70,000 tonnes per year
respectively. The tonnage awarded through the interim SSO RFP was in addition to quantity of SSO
processed at the City’s Dufferin organics processing facility.

In October 2003, SWMS released a RFP for long-term SSO processing capacity. The RFP was a
cooperative effort of the City and the Regions of York, Peel and Durham and sought processing capacity
for a combined total of 320,000 tonnes per year (Toronto = 160,000, York = 60,000, Peel = 60,000,
Durham = 40,000 tonnes per year) for a period of 10 or 15 years. Respondents were invited to propose
capacity for as little as 10,000 tonnes per year and as much as 100,000 tonnes per year (the tonnage
limit intended to ensure a diversity of contractors and technologies). Respondents were also invited to
propose to expand or replace the Dufferin organics processing facility on a design-build-operate basis
where the City would own the facility (Part A of the RFP), or to offer processing capacity at their owned
facility (Part B of the RFP). Subsequent to the release of the RFP, the Regions of Peel and Durham
withdrew their participation in order to pursue development of their own processing facilities thereby
reducing the available tonnage to 160,000 tonnes per year from the City and York Region.

The proposal evaluation process identified four preferred respondents offering a combined 130,000
tonnes per year of processing capacity under Part B of the RFP. One valid proposal was received to
expand the Dufferin facility under Part A of the RFP however it was determined to be too expensive and
submitted with too many exceptions to the requirements of the work as described in the RFP to be
considered for award.

In October 2004, City Council approved the award of 10-year processing contracts to the four preferred
respondents. Of the 130,000 tonnes per year offered by the four preferred respondents, up to 70,000
tonnes per year would originate from the City of Toronto and the remaining 60,000 would originate from
the Region of York. Council also directed that the City’s remaining SSO, estimated to be 90,000 tonnes
per year (160,000 tonnes per year total generation less 70,000 tonnes per year awarded through the
long-term RFP), be processed at a publicly owned and/or operated facility or facilities. At that time
Council also directed that the SSO business plan be developed and steered by a sub-committee of
Works Committee. The Sub-Committee is to focus first on expanding the Dufferin Organics Processing
Facility and also a directing future discussions with other municipalities regarding the co-operative
development of SSO processing capacity.

The availability of interim and long-term processing capacity is shown in Figure 48. As Figure 48
illustrates, a capacity gap exists between total expected SSO generation and capacity secured at
Dufferin and through the interim and long-term processing contracts.




                                                   67
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 48 – Toronto SSO Generation and Interim and Long-Term Processing Capacity




                       180000


                       160000


                       140000
     Tonnes per Year




                       120000


                       100000
                                                                                                             A s s u m e s a ll
                                                                                                             in te rim c o n tra c ts
                       80000                                                                                 a re e x te n d e d


                       60000                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          A s s u m e s D u ffe rin
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      c lo s e d fo r c o n s tru c tio n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      0 6 /0 8
                       40000


                       20000


                           0
                                              Feb-05




                                                                                                    Feb-06




                                                                                                                                                                  Feb-07




                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Feb-08




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Feb-09




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Feb-10
                                     Dec-04




                                                                                           Dec-05




                                                                                                                                                         Dec-06




                                                                                                                                                                                                                Dec-07




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Dec-08




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Dec-09




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Dec-10
                                                                Jun-05




                                                                                                                          Jun-06




                                                                                                                                                                                    Jun-07




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Jun-08




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Jun-09




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Jun-10
                                                                         Aug-05




                                                                                                                                   Aug-06




                                                                                                                                                                                             Aug-07




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Aug-08




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Aug-09




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Aug-10
                                                       Apr-05




                                                                                                                 Apr-06




                                                                                                                                                                           Apr-07




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Apr-08




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Apr-09




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Apr-10
                            Oct-04




                                                                                  Oct-05




                                                                                                                                            Oct-06




                                                                                                                                                                                                      Oct-07




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Oct-08




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Oct-09




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Oct-10
                                                       T o ro n to T o ta l G e n e ra tio n A ll S o u rce s                                        T o ro n to Inte rim C a p ac ity a n d O p tio ns (A ll                                                            T o ta l T o ro n to L o n g -T e rm P ro c ess in g C a p a c ity (A ll
                                                                                                                                                     S       li   )                                                                                                      S       li    )




                                                                                                                                                                                                               68
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




5.1.3 Single Stream Recycling and Improved                                 25,000 Tonnes
Recycling Capacity                                                         2.8% Diversion from Landfill

Single-stream recycling allows the City to co-collect                    recyclables and Green Bin
organics in the same two-compartment truck rather than sending two trucks down the street. This
reduces the number of trucks needed, which in turn saves on collection costs and reduces traffic and air
pollution. It also provides residents with the convenience of mixing their containers and paper materials.

A new single stream processing facility is currently operating in Scarborough and a second single
stream facility at our Dufferin Transfer Station will be operational early in 2005. The City is planning to
convert to single stream collection throughout the entire City and inform all residents of the change in
early 2005.

The current operating contracts for the two single-stream facilities provide capacity of 185,000 – 200,000
tonnes of recyclables per year. The initiatives in this plan will result in the recovery of over 250,000
tonnes of single-stream recyclables annually. The options that will be considered to acquire the
additional processing capacity required include increasing the capacity at the existing facilities through
adding shifts and/or expanding the size of the facilities or constructing a third single-stream processing
facility.

As we have added materials to our Blue/Grey Box program over the years and switched recycling
collection to every two weeks, a blue and a grey box may no longer provide enough capacity for all
residents. The addition of more materials to the Blue Box program will further increase the need for
additional bin capacity. The new capability to process recyclables in a single stream format opens the
door to exploring new collection containers as a replacement or supplement to the undersized blue/grey
box system.

There are four options available to provide residents with additional capacity to store and set out their
single-stream recyclable materials for collection. These include:

                          Provide residents with a large wheeled cart to store and set out their
                          recyclables (automated recycling cart system);

                          Do not provide additional containers but switch to weekly recyclables
                          collection;

                          Provide residents with more blue boxes; and/or

                          Allow the use of special recycling bags for overflow material to supplement the
                          blue and grey boxes.



Option 4, allowing the use of special recycling bags for overflow material, is not being evaluated at this
time. There is not enough data available on the impact this system would have as residents would have
to purchase the bags on an ongoing basis, which could act as a deterrent to increased recovery of
recyclables.

Due to the varied nature of the City’s streets, one universal system will likely not be possible. Automated
collection of carts may be ideal in the suburban areas but may not be suitable in some areas with on-
street parking, in which case these areas could switch to weekly recyclables collection.

The City is currently testing a new container for single stream recycling collection: a 242-litre (54 gallon)
cart with wheels. The pilot commenced in November 2003 has been monitored for the past year. The
                                                           69
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



cart system is being piloted in a neighbourhood in Scarborough consisting of 647 households bounded
roughly by Centennial on the West, Lawson on the North, Port Union on the East and Lawrence on the
South.

The truck collecting the material uses an automated mechanical arm to tip the blue cart, but the driver
must get out to tip the green bin into the truck. We will be undertaking some time-motion studies on the
automated collection.




            Automated Arm Tipping Cart                           Recycling Carts Along Street

The participation rate in the cart pilot is high; approximately 96% of residents are setting out their carts
for collection. Approximately 60% of the carts are full on collection day and 17% are 3/4 full. The cart has
the equivalent capacity of 4 blue/grey boxes. In addition, to improved participation and increased
capture of recyclables, the recycling cart pilot has reduced the instances of blowing litter due to the fully
enclosed container.

The pilot will provide valuable information on capture rates and the impact on collection costs of
operating an automated cart based system. However, further study is warranted as the current pilot is in
an area of traditionally good recyclers and is in a suburban area.

It has been recommended that an expanded automated recycling cart pilot be implemented in 2005,
involving a total of 3600 homes (six routes). The routes would include a cross section of areas including
areas that have a history of being poor recyclers, areas of average recyclers and areas with on-street
parking.

Funding has been included in Solid Waste Management Services 2005 Operating Budget submission
for the pilot. A funding application for this pilot has been submitted to WDO for 50% funding under their
Effectiveness and Efficiency (E&E) funding program.

Based on a preliminary analysis of the City’s collection routes, it is estimated that approximately 70%
would be suitable for an automated cart collection system and the remaining 30% would receive weekly
collection of recyclables due to on-street parking and other operational conditions.

It is recommended that, in conjunction with the cart pilot in 2005, a pilot for weekly recycling collection be
implemented. Following evaluation of both the cart and weekly recycling pilots, and assuming each is
successful, the programs will be rolled out beginning in 2007.




                                                            70
                                                                                             SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                      MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



To ensure participation, It is proposed that the City provide residents with a minimum one new cart per
household. A capital investment will also be required for the purchase of 13 specialized collection
vehicles for the cart program and 25 rear pack vehicles for the weekly recycling program. In the weekly
recycling areas, co-collection trucks will be used for recycling and SSO weekly collection and the new
rear-packers will be used for bi-weekly residual waste collection.

For the purpose of this plan, we have made a preliminary estimate that a system that provided
adequate, convenient capacity for single-family residents to store and set out their recyclables for
collection could divert up to an additional 25,000 tonnes of materials annually.

Figures 49 and 50 show the estimated annual net incremental operating and capital costs of improving
recycling capacity to single family homes. Initial capital expenditures associated with implementation will
cease as of 2011, however, the replacement of vehicles and containers must be planned beyond 2012.

Figure 49 - Estimated Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with
Implementing Single Family Cart Recycling(1)


      Year         # Single                Estimated                 Estimated Total Net                 Estimated Total Net
                    Family                Increase in              Incremental Operating              Incremental Capital Cost
                  Residences               Tonnage                   Cost for Additional               for Additional Captured
                                                                     Captured Materials                       Materials
  2005             3,600 (pilot)               200                        $ 310,508                           $ 180,000
  2006             3,600 (pilot)               200                          $3,650                                0
  2007               92,800                   5,162                      $ 1,043,154                         $ 5,620,000
  2008               171,840                  9,559                      $ 1,127,093                         $ 4,687,000
  2009               239,840                 13,342                       $ 931,264                          $ 4,135,000
  2010               314,590                 17,500                      $ 1,104,327                         $ 4,472,500
  20 11            314,590 (full             17,500                       $ 492,723                               0
                    program)
      2012         314,590 (full             17,500                        $ 507,505                              0
                    program)
(1)
      This assumes cart recycling will be provided to 70% of the single family homes in Toronto


Figure 50 - Estimated Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with
Implementing Once per Week Recycling at Locations that Cannot be Serviced
With Carts(2)
      Year         # Single                Estimated                Estimated Total Net                 Estimated Total Net
                    Family                Increase in             Incremental Operating              Incremental Capital Cost
                  Residences               Tonnage                  Cost for Additional               for Additional Captured
                                                                    Captured Materials                       Materials
  2005               3,600                     146                       $ 74,398                                0
  2006               3,600                     146                       $ 66,127                                0
  2007              23,200                     939                       $ 508,654                           $ 675,000
  2008              42,960                    1,739                      $ 898,336                           $ 675,000
  2009              144,960                   5,869                     $ 3,234,805                         $ 2,925,000
  2010              185,210                   7,500                     $ 3,961,216                         $ 1,350,000
  20 11           185,210 (full               7,500                     $ 3,943,922                              0
                   program)
      2012        185,210 (full               7,500                       $ 4,062,239                             0
                   program)
(2)
      This assumes once per week recycling at 30% of the single family homes in Toronto




                                                                            71
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




5.1.4 Additional Materials Added to the Recycling
                                                                          11,000 Tonnes
Program                                                                   1.2% Diversion From Landfill
Secure, stable markets are required before we add                   materials to the City’s recycling
program, in order to ensure that the materials that residents       sort and put out for collection are
actually recycled. The most recent additions to the City’s program were empty paint cans and aerosol
cans, milk and juice cartons and drink boxes in 2001. Staff monitor markets continuously for
opportunities to add new materials to the Blue/Grey Box program.

Plastic Tubs and Lids

Recent market developments indicate that viable markets for plastic tubs and lids are emerging. It is
recommended that the City issue a Request for Quotations (RFQ) for plastic tubs and lids. If the RFQ
results in a stable market bidding on this material, it is recommended that the City add plastic tubs and
lids to its Blue Box program early in 2005. Our new single stream processing contracts allow for the
addition of various types of plastics.

Based on waste audits, it is estimated that there are approximately 3,800 tonnes of plastic tubs and lids
in the residential waste stream. Based on the current capture rate for PET and HDPE plastics, the City
would recover 2,000 tonnes of plastic tubs and lids annually from single-family and multi-family
residences. If the policies recommended in this report are put into effect (e.g., bag limits, mandatory
diversion enforcement, automated cart system), it is estimated that 3,000 tonnes of tubs and lids could
be diverted annually.

It is expected that there would not be a net increase in costs to the City to add plastic tubs and lids to the
Blue Box program. The avoided disposal savings and increased Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO)
funding would offset increased processing costs and the minimal impact on collection costs.



Plastic Film

Plastic film markets have been investigated and it has been determined that there are no stable markets
available that could accept the quantity of plastic film that would be collected in the City’s Blue Box
program. Plastic film would include items such as plastic grocery bags, laundry garment bags, milk
bags, bread bags, plastic wrap etc.

Based on waste audits, it is estimated that there are approximately 9,500 tonnes of plastic film in the
residential waste stream. Based on the current capture rate for PET and HDPE plastics, the City would
recover 5,000 tonnes of plastic film annually from single-family and multi-family residences, if stable
markets materialized. If the policies recommended in this report are put into effect (e.g., bag limits,
mandatory diversion enforcement, automated cart system), it is estimated that 7,000 tonnes of plastic
film could be diverted annually.

Polystyrene

Discussions have been held with the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association (CPRA), the primary
market for recycling polystyrene in Ontario, about market capacity if the City were to added polystyrene
to its Blue Box program. CPRA has indicated that they could accept polystyrene from Toronto's Blue
Box but would require six to eight months lead time to expand their Mississauga processing facility to
accommodate the additional volume. We do have concerns about problems that occur when expanded
polystyrene breaks apart when sorting/processing, causing litter and contamination in other materials
and about the high cost of collecting this lightweight material. Discussions with CPRA are ongoing. A
new recycling container system for residents and additional collecting vehicles will be required before

                                                            72
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



plastic film can be added. It is estimated that approximately 500 tonnes of polystyrene could be diverted
annually.


Ceramics and Other Glass

SWMS is also investigating the possibility of including ceramics and other types of glass such as
drinking glasses, heat-resistant glasswares and mirrors as acceptable glass items in our recycling
program. While these types of glass are contaminants for glass container markets, this material may not
be a problem for some mixed glass markets such as those using crushed glass in drainage applications.
We will be issuing an RFQ for mixed glass for 2006-2010 and will include ceramics and other types of
traditionally non-recyclable glass as an option. It is estimated that an additional 500-1000 tonnes of glass
could be diverted annually if these types of glass were accepted.

It is expected that the current fleet of collection vehicles will be able to absorb any new recyclable
materials added to the existing programs. It is also expected that with WDO funding and revenues
received for the new materials, there will be no net financial impact on collection or processing.



5.1.5 Enforcement of Mandatory Diversion                                 69,000 Tonnes
Programs and Implementation of Bag Tag Program                           7.6% Diversion from Landfill

Section 844.3 (D) of the Toronto Municipal code states that all owners or tenants of residential locations
receiving municipal garbage collection services must participate fully in the City’s recycling program.
Mandatory recycling is not currently enforced for single-family households. Approximately 92% of single
family households currently participate regularly; however, there are some single-family residences that
consistently do not recycle.

The recovery of recyclables from apartments is significantly lower than single-family residences.
Apartments are monitored to determine if they are participating. For example, some apartments that are
not providing adequate recycling have been removed from City waste collection until the problem is
rectified, while other problem buildings are encouraged to recycle through education.

Enforcement of mandatory recycling is required if the City is to meet its waste diversion goals.


Single-Family Residences

Progressive education and written warnings will be used to enforce mandatory recycling in single-family
homes. If the household still does not participate fully in the City’s recycling program, a fine will be
issued. The City can issue fines to single-family homes in the amount of $55 for not recycling, under
Section 844-20G of the Toronto Municipal Code.

The intent of the enforcement is to change the behaviour of those who blatantly refuse to recycle. The
enforcement procedures will be used as a guideline and City staff will exercise discretion before any
fines are issued.

It is difficult to determine how many By-law Compliance Officers will be required. While there are
500,000 homes, most do participate and it is only the blatant offenders that we will be pursuing. It is
estimated that, initially, six By-law Compliance Officers will need to be hired to monitor and enforce
recycling in single-family homes. Funds for these staff have been included in Solid Waste Management
Services 2005 Operating Budget submission.




                                                           73
                                                                           SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                    MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 51 provides a summary of the annual operating and capital costs associated with increased
enforcement of recycling from single family residences. Annual operating costs include salaries, benefits
and vehicle leasing costs. Following the purchase of 6 vehicles in 2008, annual operating costs include
only salaries, benefits and fleet costs.

Since the majority of single family residences participate in the City’s recycling program, the biggest
impact enforcement will have on diversion will be with regards to yardwaste and SSO. It is expected
that the City will only realize a significant increase in recycling diversion following the implementation of a
pay-as-you-throw program. Refer to Figure 53 for a further breakdown of diversion as a result of pay-as-
you-throw.

Figure 51 - Estimated Annual Incremental Operating Costs for Increased By-law
Enforcement for Single Family Homes


           Year             Estimated Impact         Estimated Annual Net         Estimated Annual Net
                              on Diversion           Incremental Operating         Incremental Capital
                                (Tonnes)                    Costs                        Costs

           2005                     500                     $ 544,436

           2006                    3,000                    $ 546,271

           2007                    18,000                   $ 562,659

           2008                    18,000                   $ 532,480               $ 150,000 (for the
                                                                                   purchase of 6 pick-up
                                                                                         trucks)

           2009                    18,000                   $ 548,454

           2010                    18,000                   $ 564,908

           2011                    18,000                   $ 581,855

           2012                    18,000                   $599,310


SSO diversion will be mandatory for single-family homes once the Green Bin program is fully
implemented in single-family homes across the City.

Apartments

By-law Compliance Officers will routinely inspect apartment buildings to determine if the buildings are
adequately recycling. The officers will decide if there are enough recycling bins for the number of units
within a building based on a pre-determined formula for minimum requirements, and whether the
recycling bins are being used. The recycling bins will also be checked for contamination and the
garbage bins will be checked to ensure they do not contain a significant quantity of recyclables.

It is anticipated that the following notification process for buildings that are providing inadequate
recycling may be used:




                                                            74
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



•        An apartment building that has been continually non-compliant over the course of two weeks
         (2 collections) will receive a letter stating that they have not been participating fully in the
         recycling program and that they will be removed from City waste collection if they do not
         comply. The building will then be monitored over the next two weeks.

•        If upon inspection after the next two weeks (2 collections) the building is still non-compliant, a
         registered letter will be given to property management. This letter will state their failure to
         comply, notify them that they are being removed from City collection services for a minimum
         three-month period and identify the date that service will be discontinued.

•        Service will be reinstated after the suspension period if the apartment owner/property manager
         proves that they have rectified the problems leading to the suspension and will provide and
         promote proper recycling.

The intent of the stringent notification process for apartments is to change the behaviour of apartment
owners/property managers who blatantly refuse to offer and promote proper recycling to their tenants.
The enforcement procedures will be used as a guideline and City staff will exercise discretion before
municipal collection service is discontinued.

Agreements will be signed with owners/property managers of apartment buildings, outlining the terms of
waste management services provided by the City including the penalties for non-compliance with the
City's recycling program.

It will be necessary to hire twenty additional By-law Compliance Officers and associated managerial and
administrative support to adequately enforce mandatory recycling in the 5,000 apartment buildings in the
City. Funds have been included in Solid Waste Management Services 2005 Operating Budget
submission for this purpose.

Figure 52 provides a summary of the annual operating and capital costs associated with increased
enforcement of recycling from multiple household residences. Annual operating costs include the
salaries and benefits of 24 additional By-law enforcement officers and vehicle leasing costs. Following
the purchase of 24 vehicles in 2008, annual operating costs include salaries, benefits and fleet costs.
Expected tonnes diverted have not been included at this point. Enforcement alone will not change the
behaviour in multiple household location. The biggest impact enforcement will have on diversion will be
in conjunction with the implementation of a pay-as-you-throw program. Refer to Figure 54 for a
breakdown of diversion as a result of both increased enforcement and pay-as-you-throw.




                                                          75
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 52 - Estimated Annual Net Incremental Operating and Capital Costs
Associated with Enforcement at Multiple Household Locations


        Year          Estimated Annual Net Incremental          Estimated Annual Net Incremental
                              Operating Costs                            Capital Costs

        2005                      $ 2,177,744

        2006                      $ 2,185,083

        2007                      $ 2,250,635

        2008                      $ 2,129,918                  $ 600,000 (for the purchase of 6 pick-up
                                                                                trucks)

        2009                      $ 2,193,816

        2010                      $ 2,259,630

        2011                      $ 2,327,419

        2012                      $2,397,242


SSO collection will be mandatory in apartments once an SSO program is put in place in the building.
Education and discretion will be used, as organics collection will be a new program.



5.1.6     Bag Tag Program

Approximately 140 Bag Tag programs are now in place in Ontario, including the Regional Municipality of
Peel and several area municipalities in the Regional Municipality of York. 'Bag Tag' is a generic name
that describes a wide range of systems that discourage the production and set-out of waste and
encourage diversion through the use of financial disincentive. These municipalities have introduced Bag
Tag programs to address one or both of the following objectives:

-       increase waste diversion from landfill by creating a financial incentive to utilize no charge
        recycling and composting programs by introducing a fee for disposal; and

-       address budget pressures arising from increased disposal fees.

The introduction of a Bag Tag program for the residential sector in Toronto will contribute to the
achievement of diversion objectives by introducing a financial incentive to minimize residual solid waste
and maximize diversion through the 3Rs and composting.

Toronto’s program would be primarily focused on creating a financial incentive to increase diversion, not
to address budget pressures.




                                                         76
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



The potential of a Bag Tag program to help achieve greater waste diversion was recognized by Task
Force 2010. The Task Force report carried several inter-connected recommendations regarding
reduction in “bag limits” (i.e. the number of bags or items of residual solid waste set-out at curbside for
collection) and the introduction of a Bag Tag program (Task Force recommendations 30, 31, 44, and
45).

A staff report from the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services, dated March 17, 2003 was
submitted to Works Committee on the subject of Bag Tags for the residential sector.

The report presented various Bag Tag models, including identification of current Bag Tag programs for
the following clients of SWMS:

-      commercial establishments delivering solid waste to our transfer stations;

-      small and mid-size commercial establishments participating in the Yellow Bag program;

-      private schools receiving services from SWMS;

-      the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board; and,

-      Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Departments of the City of Toronto.

Common to all of the sectors listed above is the requirement to pay for disposal, while receiving no
charge recycling to create a financial incentive to divert waste from landfill.



Public Consultation

The March 17, 2003 staff report also contained an account of the public consultation program held in
October and November 2002 regarding Bag Tags (known as “Pay-As-You-Throw” at that time). Nine
meetings were held across the City at municipal civic centres.

The majority of participants expressed support for a Bag Tag program similar to Peel’s “Three Bag
Standard” program as they could readily conform to such a program, particularly following introduction of
the Green Bin Program. They were also impressed with the improvement in diversion rates following
the introduction of a Bag Tag program.

In Peel’s program residents are provided with collection of three bags of solid waste per week at no
charge. To set-out additional bags or items residents must purchase a $1 tag and place it on the bag or
item to be collected at curbside. Peel’s program also provides a Bag Tag program for multi-residential
buildings by providing bulk-bin collection that provides an equivalent of three bags for each apartment
unit, measured in cubic yards. If an apartment building exceeds the allocated number of cubic yards a
charge is levied to the apartment building owner for the additional services provided.

The pro-Bag Tag meeting participants also expressed support for the $1 fee for a bag tag for items
above three bags a week on the grounds that those who do not participate in recycling programs, or
have low recycling rates, should pay for the solid waste they generate.

On the other hand, at each meeting there were participants who spoke out against the introduction of a
Bag Tag program on the grounds that their taxes should pay for the total cost of solid waste collection
and disposal. Some argued for no limit on the set-out of bags or a very high limit.




                                                          77
                                                                       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



These positions were put forward, in particular, at the meeting held at the North York Civic Centre
(October 30, 2002). Participants at that meeting expressed concern over the reduction in collection
frequency following amalgamation and concern over further planned reductions following the
introduction of the Green Bin and the proposed Bag Tag program.



Program Implementation: Single-Family Residential

The introduction of a Bag Tag program for the single-family residential sector would be based on the
following components:

-      a “hybrid” program providing collection of 4 bags or items on a bi-weekly collection schedule (2
       bags per week x 2);

-      residents would purchase “bag tags” from municipal buildings and retail outlets at a cost of $1
       per bag tag for the set-out of bags or items over the bi-weekly 4-bag standard. A charge of $1
       per bag tag represents a subsidized rate;

-      the program would be implemented in 2006, following implementation of the Green Bin program
       in the former North York;

-      the current exemption program for large families unable to manage their household residual solid
       waste within the set-out bag limit, while utilizing the City’s mandatory recycling programs, be
       maintained;

-      the program be initiated with the distribution of free tags for use during an introductory phase;
       and,

-      the recycling programs and the Green Bin would continue to be provided on the tax base with no
       further per unit charge in order to create a financial incentive to utilize diversion programs.



Program Implementation: Multi-Unit Buildings

The introduction of a Bag Tag program for the multi-unit residential sector would be based on the
following components:

-      introduction of a Bag Tag program in 2005 based on a threshold per unit waste limit;

-      an adjustment in the disposal standard would be made to allow for the presence of organics until
       the equivalent of a Green Bin program is introduced;

-      the disposal standard would be set at one bag of garbage per person following introduction of a
       Green Bin program equivalent; and

-      the landlord or building owner would be responsible for collection and disposal charges above
       the standard.

Bi-weekly Four-Bag Standard

A reduction in the bag limit from 6 to 4 will provide sufficient capacity for most residents. Each bag or
item set-out for collection and disposal can weigh up to 20 kg. Four bags per bi-weekly collection cycle
therefore equals 80 kg, which equals over 2 tonnes per year (80 kg x 26 bi-weekly collections), per

                                                         78
                                                                     SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                              MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



household. If each household produced this amount of waste the City would more than double its
landfill capacity requirements.

Based on research undertaken in the former Scarborough, where the Green Bin has been implemented,
the introduction of a bi-weekly four-bag standard would accommodate the disposal needs of
approximately 80% of households. The program would therefore impact those households that
continued not to recycle and utilize the Green Bin, or maintain a low participation rate following the
implementation of a Bag Tag program.



Amnesty Days

The Bag Tag program could include the provision of “amnesty days” to accommodate high set-out rates
following major holidays.



Communications Program

The introduction of a Bag Tag program would be supported with communications to each household
and mass media advertising. Tools would be provided to landlords in the form of content for
newsletters, a website, and other resources to assist in communicating with apartment tenants or
condominium owners.

An initial budget estimate is $1 million over two years for single-family residences and $500,000 over
two years for multi-unit buildings.



Program Staff

Current in-house staff would be assigned to the implementation of the Bag Tag program. By-law
enforcement officers would be assigned to a liaison role with multi-residential landlords and
superintendents in order to: communicate the purpose of the program; establish a no-charge disposal
threshold; and distribute communications materials.

Figure 53 shows the costs associated with the implementation of a bag tag program in single family
households, along with the corresponding increase in diversion. The financial analysis is based on the
sale of bag tags at $1 each to be used for bags over the limit of 4 bags per collection cycle per
household. Gross operating costs include collection, transfer and processing costs and takes into
account disposal savings as a result of the diversion of additional recyclables. Estimated revenue
includes both product and WDO revenue. It is anticipated that there will be no capital investments
required for the rollout of the single family program.




                                                       79
                                                                                              SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                       MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 53 - Estimated Annual Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with
the Implementation of a Pay-As-You-Throw Program in Single Family
Households


      Year       Estimated Impact             Estimated Annual             Estimated Revenue                    Estimated Net
                                                                                        (2)
                   on Diversion                  Incremental                                                     Incremental
                     (Tonnes)                 Operating Costs(1)                                                Operating Cost

      2005                 500                       $ 16,018                     ($ 59,225)                       ($43,207)

      2006                3,000                     $ 822,887                     ($366,011)                      $ 456,877

      2007               11,000                     $ 701,673                    ($1,930,337)                    ($1,228,564)

      2008               11,000                     $ 497,621                    ($1,988,144)                    ($1,490,523)

      2009               11,000                     $ 454,586                    ($2,047,788)                    ($1,593,202)

      2010               11,000                     $ 468,244                    ($2,109,222)                    ($1,640,998)

      2011               11,000                     $ 482,270                    ($2,172,498)                    ($1,690,228)

      2012               11,000                     $ 496,738                    ($2,237,673)                    ($1,740,935)
(1)
       Includes costs associated with program support, collection, transfer, processing and disposal savings.
(2)
      Includes recyclable product revenue and revenue from sale of bags.

Figure 54 shows the costs associated with the implementation of a bag tag program at multiple
household locations, along with the corresponding increase in diversion. Gross operating costs include
collection, transfer and processing costs and takes into account disposal savings as a result of the
diversion of additional recyclables. Estimated revenue includes both product and WDO revenue.

The implementation of a pay as you throw program at multi-unit locations also assumes that the City will
provide free recycling containers to accommodate the additional recyclables expected following program
implementation. It is anticipated that the bulk of the capital expenditures will occur between 2005 and
2007. The capital costs associated with this are identified in Figure 55.




                                                                            80
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 54 - Estimated Annual Net Incremental Operating Costs Associated with
the Implementation of a Pay-As-You-Throw Program at Multi-Unit Locations


 Year     Estimated Impact       Estimated Annual          Estimated Revenue            Estimated Net
            on Diversion            Incremental                                          Incremental
              (Tonnes)           Operating Costs                                        Operating Cost

 2005           $20,000         $1,914,810               ($2,369,000)                 ($454,186)

 2006           $37,000         $3,713,022               ($4,51,130)                  ($801,108)

 2007           $38,000         $3,762,020               ($4,775,217)                 ($1,013,197)

 2008           $39,000         $3,935,548               ($5,047,907)                 ($1,112,359)

 2009           $40,000         $4,157,256               ($5,332,661)                 ($1,175,405)

 2010           $40,000         $4,281,973               ($5,492,641)                 ($1,210,667)

 2011           $40,000         $4,410,433               ($5,657,420)                 ($1,246,987)

 2012           $40,000         $4,542,746               ($5,827,142)                 ($1,284,397)




Figure 55 - Estimated Capital Costs Associated with Pay-as-You Throw at Multi-
Unit Locations


                                                  2005          2006           2007

                 Estimated Capital Cost        $ 430,385       $860,769      $143,462



The beneficial impact on diversion of the introduction of a Bag Tag program for the combined residential
sectors is 88,500 tonnes per year, which equates to an 8-9% increase in diversion. Therefore, its
introduction is key to assisting in the achievement of the City’s diversion targets.

Linked to the success of the Bag Tag program is the adjustment in the bag set-out limit, that is
recommended to be 4 bags per household on a bi-weekly collection cycle.

The financial analysis has shown a net budget impact of $1,584,000 in the year 2010. As
implementation takes place and new data is available the financial analysis should be revisited and
reviewed.




                                                          81
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




5.1.7     Reuse Centres and Collection of Durables
                                                                      33,000 Tonnes
                                                                      3.4% Diversion from Landfill
There are numerous charitable organizations in Toronto
such as Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul
Society, Habitat for Humanity and homeless shelters that accept and utilize reusable goods. Examples
of these goods include clothing, electronics, small appliances, furniture, dishes, bedding, toys and
building materials such as kitchen cupboards, bathroom fixtures, lighting, windows and doors. In order to
increase diversion, the City should work co-operatively with these charities by assisting them to obtain
more reusable items.

In order to assist the charitable organizations to obtain and divert more reusable goods from landfill, it is
proposed that the City should work with one or more of these organizations to establish a reuse centre
that is fully operational by 2006. Residents would drop off reusable goods such as textiles, furniture,
small metal items, electronics and sporting goods at the site and the charitable organizations could resell
them to the public.

Depending on the success of the initial centre, it is also proposed that the City consider expanding to six
reuse centres located across the City in 2007. Due to space and traffic issues, these centres cannot be
placed at Transfer Stations. Other City land or privately owned space must be considered. The
estimated incremental operating costs and capital expenditures associated with implementing reuse
centres across the City are summarized in Figure 56. These operating costs are based on the funds
required to operate and maintain one reuse centre in 2006 and six reuse centres in 2007 and beyond.
Estimated costs include plant leasing costs, salaries and benefits, equipment operating costs and
general maintenance costs. Each reuse centre will require a capital investment that includes the
purchase of forklifts, signage and general renovations.

Figure 56 - Estimated Annual Incremental Operating Costs and Capital
Expenditures Associated with the Full Implementation of Six (6) Reuse Centres

   Year        Number         Estimated Annual           Estimated Capital         Projected Diversion
               of Reuse          Incremental               Expenditures                 (Tonnes)
               Centres         Operating Cost
   2005            -               $196,351                  $1,000,000                     300
   2006            1              $1,094,071                 $5,000,000                     936
   2007            6              $5,702,033                      -                        11,850
   2008            6              $5,839,329                      -                        11,850
   2009            6              $6,014,509                      -                        11,850
   2010            6              $6,194,944                      -                        11,850
   2011            6              $6,380,792                      -                        11,850
   2012            6              $6,572,216                      -                        11,850


It is important to note that due to the convenience of curbside garbage collection and mobility issues, a
significant portion of residents will not take full advantage of a reuse facility. In order to maximize
diversion of durable goods, the reuse centres must be complemented with a curbside collection program
for some of the large, bulkier items generated by residents. These include carpets, furniture, mattresses
and building materials. While some of these materials may not be suitable for reuse due to their age
and quality they would be recycled.




                                                           82
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



It is proposed that residents would be provided with scheduled collection days for each of these items
with dedicated vehicles providing collection. The scheduled collection days would be set annually and
advertised in the City’s collection calendar or set based on a call in system. ,A total of four vehicles
would be required to collect carpets, ten vehicles to collect furniture, five vehicles to collect mattresses
and two vehicles to collect reusable building materials. Based on these needs, the implementation of
this program would require the purchase and operation of six rear packers and twenty-one stake trucks.

While mattresses, carpets and non-reusable furniture do not have viable markets at this time, we have
assumed that the markets will develop and have shown projected quantities of these materials diverted
starting in 2007.

The estimated annual incremental operating and capital costs associated with a curbside collection
program for durables are summarized in Figure 57. Operating costs are made up primarily of wages
and benefits of collection staff, call centre operators, supervisors and fleet operating costs. Capital
requirements to implement a curbside durable collection program include the purchase of 26 vehicles.
Replacement of vehicles must be considered beyond 2012.

It should be noted that these costs do not include any potential offsetting payments from WDO should
the targeted items be designated by the Minister of the Environment.


Figure 57 - Estimated Annual Incremental Operating and Capital Costs
Associated with the Curbside Collection of Durable Goods
   Year          Estimated Annual      Estimated Capital Projected Diversion
            Incremental Operating Cost   Expenditures         (Tonnes)
   2005                  $-                    -                1,663
   2006               $909,211             $ 580,000           21,050
   2007              $5,141,445           $ 3,040,000          21,050
   2008              $5,295,689                -               21,050
   2009              $5,454,559                -               21,050
   2010              $5,618,196                -               21,050
   2011              $5,786,742                -               21,050
   2012              $5,960,344                -               21,050




                                                                          362,000 Tonnes
5.1.8   New and Emerging Technologies                                     40% Diversion from Landfill
The varied and aggressive waste reduction, reuse, recycling
and composting initiatives that are outlined in this section will, if adopted, bring the City of Toronto to
approximately 60% diversion from landfill.

In order to work toward the 100% diversion from landfill goal, technologies beyond source reduction and
source separation will have to be employed to treat the complex mixed waste residual material that will
remain.

As shown in Figure 42, this residual waste will represent approximately 40% of all waste generated, or
about 400,000 tonnes per year.




                                                           83
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



In order to assist staff, Works Committee and Council, examine and ultimately select technologies to
manage this residual waste, a Citizen and Expert Advisory Group was struck in 2002. The New and
Emerging Advisory Group has been very active over the past 22 months, meeting on 60 occasions, to
explore and report to Works and Council on three focused issues:

    1) Whether the 100% diversion from landfill is achievable.

    2) Whether the proposed 60/40 split between traditional source reduction, reuse, recycling and
       composting on the one hand and the introduction of New and Emerging Technologies, Policies
       and Practices on the other is reasonable approach or requires modification.

    3) Next steps the City should take in order to achieve its diversion objectives.

The activities, resolutions and recommendations of the Advisory Group will be available in their final
report which is expected by the end of the year.

As part of their mandate, the Advisory Group provided feedback to staff on our examination of the
potential for the four classes of New and Emerging Technologies (Physical, Biological, Thermal,
Chemical) to treat and divert from landfill the 400,000 tonnes of residual waste that will require treatment.

In the original Task Force 2010 estimates, the 60% by 2006 diversion from landfill target was deemed to
be achievable through a combination of expanded traditional source separation diversion techniques
(Green Bin, etc.); and New and Emerging Technologies that would be operational by 2006. With
direction from Council, staff undertook an extensive call for proposals for Small-Scale New and
Emerging Research Facilities (up to 25,000 tonnes) that had the potential to be operational and
contributing toward landfill diversion by 2006. As a result of direction from the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment which would have required a full individual Environmental Assessment for any thermal
treatment based technology (3 of 4 short listed vendors), Council decided not to proceed with a research
facility at this time.

Therefore, although it is expected that the expanded traditional source separation diversion technologies
will eventually divert 60% of all waste, without the contribution of diversion from New and Emerging
Technologies, towards the 60% by 2006 goal, it is unlikely that it will be achieved.

With input from the New and Emerging Advisory Group, staff conducted an Request for Proposal and
Council approved the awarding of a Consulting Contract to prepare the Terms of Reference for an
individual Environmental Assessment for Toronto's residual waste. However, work on the Terms of
Reference has not begun ending the resolution of feedback to Works Committee from the Mayor's
Environmental Roundtable on the Environmental Assessment process. It is expected that work on the
Terms of Reference for the Environmental Assessment will begin in early Spring 2005.

5.1.9    Achievement of Diversion Goals

In order to achieve the Council goals of 60% and 100% diversion from landfill, all the recommended
initiatives must be implemented in the timeframes proposed. Should an initiative not be implemented,
the tonnage associated with that program will need to be dealt with as a residual waste. In addition,
many of the initiatives are interrelated and the elimination or delay of one initiative will ultimately affect
the diversion rate and success of another.

Figure 58 provides a summary of the anticipated progression towards 100% diversion from landfill with
the implementation of all the recommended programs and timelines.




                                                            84
                                                                                       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 58 – Tonnage Captured by Proposed Initiatives to Achieve 100%
Diversion from Landfill


                                   Tonnage Captured by Initiatives to Achieve
                                         100% Diversion from Landfill

                                   1,000,000

                                    900,000

                                    800,000
                 Tonnes diverted




                                    700,000

                                    600,000

                                    500,000

                                    400,000

                                    300,000

                                    200,000

                                    100,000

                                          0
                                                2004    2005    2006        2007   2008   2009    2010   2011    2012
          Reuse Centres                                 300     2,600   32,900 32,900 32,900 32,900 32,900 32,900
          Additional Materials/Increased                2,346   2,846   9,601      15,299 30,212 36,000 36,000 36,000
          Capacity
          New Technologies- Residue                                                                             362,000
          Pay as You Throw                             20,500 40,000 49,000 50,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000
          Enforcement                                   500     3,000   18,000 18,000 18000 18,000 18,000 18,000
          SSO Apartments                                207     345     5,796      10,074 19,527 34,845 34,845 34,845
          Expanded Green Bin                   90,700 107,000 107,000 107,000 107,000 107,000 107,000 107,000 107,000
          Existing Diversion Tonnage           265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000




As highlighted in each program summary, these new diversion from landfill initiatives will result in
incremental costs to SWMS’ base budget. The incremental annual costs associated with the proposed
diversion initiatives are shown in Figure 59. These estimates are the net incremental increase after full
program implementation in 2012 dollars before any capital debt charges. This Figure shows that an
additional $62M in the SWMS operating budget will be required in 2012. The average incremental cost
is $116 per tonne of additional diversion tonnage. Section 6.1 provides a detailed summary of the year
over year increases associated with the new diversion initiatives.




                                                                       85
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 59 - Incremental New Operating Costs of Diversion

              Diversion Initiative                      New             Additional             Additional
                                                      Tonnes of          Annual                 Operating
                                                      Diversion       Operating Cost           Cost/Tonne
                                                                          ($M)
                            SSO in Apartments           34,845              $ 6.8              $195/Tonne
                  Improved Recycling Capacity           25,000              $ 4.6              $184/Tonne
                 Additional Recycling Materials         11,000               $0                 $0/Tonne
  Increase Enforcement – Single Family Homes            29,000             ($ 1.1)             ($38)/Tonne
                                     and PAYT
    Increase Enforcement – Multiple Household           40,000              $ 1.1               $28/Tonne
                           Locations and PAYT
                                 Reuse Centres          11,850             $ 6.6               $557/Tonne
          Curbside Collection of Durable Goods          21,050             $ 6.0               $285/Tonne
              New and Emerging Technologies            362,000             $ 38.0              $105/Tonne

                    Total Incremental Changes          534,745           $ 62 M                $116/Tonne
                                                                     Incremental to          Incremental to
                                                                     Current System          Current System
                                                                          Cost                    Cost



5.2      Long Term Disposal of Waste

The City currently disposes of waste from customers to whom we provide collection, ABC&D’s that bring
their waste directly to transfer facilities and waste brought to our facilities by private customers. Our 60%
diversion goal is based on reduction, reuse and recycling programs as identified in Section 4.2. As
previously discussed, these programs will be provided to customers who receive our collection services
and to the City’s ABC&D’s. It is intended that the remaining 40% of waste generated by those sectors
will be dealt with by new and emerging technologies. However, until a new and emerging technology
is approved and a facility is able to receive this remaining 40%, landfill disposal is the City’s only option.

In addition, many private customers use the City’s transfer facilities regularly and dispose of over
350,000 tonnes of waste in 2003 which approximately $ 26,000,000 in revenue. However, private
tonnage is expected to 190,000 tonnes in 2004 and 150,000 tonnes in 2005 and is expected to generate
approximately $14,000,000 in revenues. The waste tonnage has not been included in the City's 100%
diversion goal and, as such, no provisions have been made to include it in the processing capacity
associated with a new and emerging technology. It is intended that this waste will continue to be
disposed of in a traditional landfill.

Based on the above, there is a continued need to plan for long term disposal through traditional
methods.




                                                            86
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN

5.2.1   Michigan Compliance

Michigan has a history, dating back to 1988, of trying to attain State-level flow control powers to govern
inter-state movements of solid waste and the import of solid waste from foreign jurisdictions.

To date, Michigan has not received the flow control powers it has been seeking because Federal courts
have upheld the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which governs and regulates inter-state
commerce. Solid waste from Canada is permitted entry into the U.S. under the North American Free
Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”).

Michigan continues to press for State-level flow control powers and has successfully lobbied the U.S.
Senate to empower and provide funding to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to
proceed with the enforcement of the Agreement Between the U.S. and Canada Concerning the
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste (the “Transboundary Agreement”).

The Transboundary Agreement was signed in 1986. It originally applied only to hazardous waste, but in
1992 it was extended to include other wastes. The agreement imposes a general obligation on both
countries to permit the import and export of waste for treatment, storage and disposal. The exporting
country must give the importing country written notice of a proposed shipment. The notice may cover a
single shipment or a series of shipments over a 12-month period. Each country’s “designated authority”
(EPA in the U.S., Environment Canada in Canada) may “consent” or “object” to the proposed shipment
based on technical considerations such as the capability of the receiving facility to safely manage the
waste.

To date, the Transboundary Agreement for non-hazardous waste has not been enforced as both
countries must develop and promulgate regulations. However, both Federal governments are taking
steps to develop the necessary tools to enforce the Agreement through their respective designated
authority. SWMS will continue to monitor the implementation of the Transboundary Agreement and
report to Works Committee on the implications for Toronto’s management of residual solid waste.

Michigan has also taken a number of steps regarding the management of landfills in Michigan in addition
to the passage of the eleven Public Acts. For example, Michigan has passed the following resolutions
urging action:

    •   in 2003, the Michigan Senate passed a resolution urging Toronto officials to go forward with
        their efforts to develop an alternative to sending solid waste to landfills in Michigan and to work
        with Michigan officials to promote a Great Lakes basin-wide response to solid waste issues;
        and

    •   on June 22, 2004, the Michigan House of Representatives adopted a “House Resolution”
        urging the Ontario Minister of the Environment to establish new landfills and landfill expansions
        in Ontario.

Following the closure of Keele Valley at the end of 2002 the City became reliant on disposal of its
municipal residual solid waste at Republic Services’ Carleton Farms Landfill in Michigan.

On March 29, 2004, the Governor of Michigan signed eleven “Public Acts” that amended the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act (Act 451 of 1994) of the Michigan Legislature, which
introduced new prohibitions on materials entering landfills in Michigan and additional regulatory
measures regarding the import and disposal of solid waste into Michigan. These actions on the part of
Michigan are in response to the increasing amount of solid waste entering Michigan from Ontario and
other U.S. States.




                                                          87
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Michigan has included in its legislation the recognition that despite best efforts to exclude some non-
hazardous prohibited materials, small quantities, or “de minimis” amounts, may still be present. The
State has defined “de minimis” as “incidental disposal of small amounts of materials that are
commingled with other solid waste.”

Due to the sizeable volumes of residual solid waste collected by the City, some prohibited materials,
such as yard clippings and beverage containers, would still be present in our waste despite bans and
curbside recycling programs. We believe that such quantities would be found to be de minimis.
However, inspections will be required to ensure compliance if prohibited materials exceed de minimis
quantities on a recurring basis.

SWMS developed documentation and refined procedures and policies at our Transfer Stations to insure
on-going compliance with Michigan Legislation, and the Department of Environmental Quality, where
necessary, to demonstrate compliance with Public Act 40 (restrictions on disposal) of the Michigan State
Legislature, prior to the October 30, 2004 implementation date.

The annual costs associated with this legislative requirement are outlined in Figure 60. The estimate of
$25,000 for 2005 is for the retention of a consultant to document all relevant procedures and policies for
compliance by SWMS and its contractors. Funds identified in subsequent years are required for
inspections at each transfer station to ensure compliance prior to loading tractor trailers for transport to
Michigan. An inspections operation will require 2 FTE’s at each of our 7 transfer stations. Estimated
costs include salary and benefits and a cost of living increase year over year.

Figure 60 – Estimated Annual Operating Costs Associated with Legislative
Compliance with the State of Michigan


              2005        2006        2007         2008          2009        2010           2011           2012
Annual
Operating   $25,750     $891,156    $917,891     $945,427    $973,790     $1,003,004     $1,033,094    $1,064,087
Costs

5.2.2   Recovery of Recyclables at City Transfer Facilities

In an effort to increase recovery of recyclables and reduce our reliance on future long term residual
disposal needs, SWMS has the opportunity to implement a recovery program at each of the seven
Transfer Stations to manually separate recyclable scrap metal, old corrugated cardboard (OCC) and
other materials disposed of by our paying customers as markets become available. In addition, this
initiative will contribute to compliance with Michigan legislation as described in Section 4.4.1. This
recovery opportunity has not been included as part of our residential diversion initiatives as the goal of
this initiative is to recover recyclables disposed of as waste by paid customers rather than our residents.
It is expected that this program, after full implementation, will divert approximately 1,050 tonnes of OCC
and scrap metal annually from the paid customer waste stream transported to Michigan.

The following roll out schedule is proposed:

             2006         Ingram Transfer Station
             2007         Disco Transfer Station
                          Scarborough Transfer Station
                          Bermondsey Transfer Station
             2008         Dufferin Transfer Station
                          Victoria Park Transfer Station
                          Commissioners Street Transfer Station

                                                            88
                                                                       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



The costs and diversion projections associated with the implementation of this initiative are outlined in
Figure 61. The diversion projections are based on results of a “Last Chance Recycling” pilot program
undertaken in 2001 and 2002 at the Ingram Transfer Station. The costs associated with this program
are also based on the pilot results and include two staff (salary and benefits) at each of the seven
transfer stations and annual haulage costs to market. The cost per tonne for this initiative is extremely
high compared to residential source separated programs. This is primarily due to the labour intensive
work associated with recovering recyclables out of the waste stream. Staff will be required to manually
sift through loads as they are brought in and identify and remove recyclables.


Figure 61 - Estimated Diversion and Costs Associated with Recovering
Recyclables from the Waste Stream at City Transfer Facilities


                2006          2007          2008           2009          2010          2011           2012
 Estimated
 Annual
              $162,742     $639,245      $1,108,626    $1,141,885     $1,176,142    $1,211,426     $1,247,769
 Operating
 Costs
 Estimated
 Tonnes          316          993          1,374          1,374          1,374         1,374          1,374
 Diverted
 Estimated
 Cost per       $515          $644          $807           $831          $856          $882           $908
 Tonne



5.2.3   Republic Contract Renewal

In 2001, the City contracted with Wilson Logistics Inc. and Republic Services Inc. to transport and
dispose of 285,000 tonnes of residual waste in 2001 and 2002 at the Carleton Farms Landfill, located in
Michigan, USA.

At its meeting December 4, 5, and 6, 2001, City Council adopted Clause 18 of Report No. 16 of the
Policy and Finance Committee, which provided authority to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services and the City Solicitor to negotiate and enter into an amending agreement to the
Wilson/Republic Contract for the haulage and disposal of 100% of the City's residual municipal solid
waste following the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill site, from January 1, 2003 to December 31,
2005. On January 1, 2003, Wilson Logistics Inc. assumed responsibility for the haulage of all of the
City's residual municipal solid waste to the Carleton Farms Landfill.

Disposal capacity has been secured to December 31, 2020 with Republic Services with the first option
to renew effective January 1, 2006 and 3 years, 2 years, 5 years, 3 years and 2 years thereafter. The
current cost for haulage and disposal is $50.54/tonne for our municipal tonnage and $53.64 for our
commercial tonnes. Cost for disposal will continue to rise with the Consumer Price Index, as defined in
the Contract.

Staff will bring a report to Works Committee in March 2005 regarding the potential renewal of the
haulage and disposal contracts for the period January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008.




                                                         89
                                                                            SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                     MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN

5.2.4    Landfill Contingency Disposal Plan


In 2003, backlogs of solid waste at our transfer stations were remedied by disposal at the City of
Guelph’s municipal landfill and the Green Lane Landfill, located near St. Thomas, Ontario. However,
Guelph’s landfill has now been closed and is therefore no longer an option for the City. Disposal
capacity at the Green Lane Landfill is limited due to its Certificate of Approval and under high market
demand. Therefore, its capability to respond to the City’s contingency disposal requirements is limited.

The City’s issued an RFP for contingency disposal capacity that closed on January 16, 2004. The RFP
sought the equivalent of between one and one hundred and eighty days of disposal capacity
requirements. No proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. This result leaves the City with the
capability to maintain residential waste collection for approximately two days or less in the event of a
short-term border closure or major operational upset. Any border closure and operational upsets are
reviewed on a case by case basis by staff, and the most appropriate contingency plan is implemented,
with input from the Ministry of Environment, as required.

As a result, the City currently remains dependent on Republic Services’ Carleton Farms Landfill in
Michigan for the required disposal of its solid waste, Wastewater system by-products and street
sweepings. The City’s contract with Republic Services does not include the provision of contingency
disposal capacity in Ontario.

Due to the lack of contingency disposal capacity in the event of a border closure, the City, in conjunction
with the Regions of York, Durham and Peel has contracted a leading waste management planning firm
to develop contingency solid waste disposal plans for each municipality.

The need for contingency disposal may range from less than one week to over one year. The
contingency plan will outline six contingency scenarios: less than 7 days; 7– 21 days; 21– 45 days; 45–
90 days; 90-180 days and 180-365 days. Any contingency plan the City relies on will be accompanied
by a number of barriers. The City’s contingency plan will address:

-       Contingency landfill Certificate of Approval amendments

-       Physical restricts (operating hours, access etc.)

-       Available landfill cell capacity and potential landfill capacity (and timelines for construction)

-       Agreements or approvals required

-       Cost associated with both haulage and disposal


The Ontario Ministry of Environment has recognized that we currently do not have contingency capacity
available to us. This plan, when completed, will provide the Ministry with the information they need to
begin reviewing the changes they must implement (i.e. permit changes, emergency orders, approval for
site expansion etc.) in order to ensure that landfill capacity exists following a border closure.

An interim report is expected before the end of 2004.




                                                             90
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN


5.2     Asset Utilization

In order to ensure that our Transfer Station network is efficient and is used to its optimum capacity,
SWMS will continue to develop pricing policies for private, paid waste. This will ensure that we maintain
competitiveness with market place, and ensure that appropriate cost recovery and budget requirements
are achieved. It is recommended that a volume based pricing structure be developed to allow
efficiencies for larger waste operators.


5.4      Harmonization Issues

5.4.1   Charities and Institutions

To achieve its diversion objectives a policy review of the solid waste management services provided by
the City to its clients is warranted and necessary. There is a need to re-engineer the City’s provision of
services to Charities, Institutions and Religious Organizations (“CIRO Group”) within the City on the
grounds that it will improve diversion rates, create a “utility” orientation to the services provided by
SWMS, promote conservation and reduce impact on the environment.

SWMS provides solid waste management services to approximately 2,000 CIRO Group bodies across
the City. The City does not charge members of the CIRO Group for the solid waste management
services provided to them. This service provision predates amalgamation. It is based on a social goal
of assisting not-for-profit organizations, and in the case of major generators such as Goodwill, Salvation
Army and the Food Bank, providing disposal services to organizations that divert materials from landfill
due to their re-use programs (such as clothing sales through outlets) and matching surplus foodstuffs to
clients.

In 2003, the CIRO Group generated approximately 15,000 tonnes of waste, of which approximately 42%
was delivered directly to our transfer stations for disposal. The cost to SWMS for the management of
this waste is approximately $1.6 million per year. A further subsidy of approximately $324,000 is
provided for the collection and processing of recyclable materials.

In response to a directive from City Council, a consultation program was conducted in March and April of
2004 with stakeholders from the CIRO Group. Four open meetings were held at different points in the
City to facilitate broad input.

Following a staff presentation that included references to the closure of the Keele Valley Landfill, export
to Michigan, the City’s diversion objectives, and the potential introduction of a PAYT program
stakeholders provided their feedback. Many of the stakeholders expressed opposition to the
introduction of a PAYT program on the grounds that they were already under considerable financially
pressure and the addition of PAYT would be detrimental to their operations.

The current provision of free disposal and recycling to the CIRO Group provides a financial subsidy from
SWMS of almost $2 million per year and a negative incentive to divert waste. The result is an operating
subsidy to external organizations that could, in part, be utilized to fund diversion programs and a
financial model that does not provide a financial incentive to divert waste from disposal.

To meet the diversion targets established by the City, the diversion rates of all client groups must
improve. The current policy of provision of free disposal for the CIRO Group is not supportive of the
need to improve diversion rates. By introducing a policy of charging for disposal and providing free
recycling (including the Green Bin program) a financial incentive is introduced to improve diversion.




                                                          91
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN

Presented below are three options for the future delivery of solid waste management services to the
CIRO Group. They are premised on: (i) maintaining provision by the City of solid waste management
services to the CIRO Group; and (ii) maintaining the policy of free recycling and inclusion in the Green
Bin program for the CIRO Group.

Option A. Status Quo

The current level of service delivery could be maintained. However, this would not create a financial
incentive to divert waste and would maintain an operating subsidy of almost $2 million per year. For
these reasons the “status quo” option is not recommended.

Option B. Cost Recovery for Disposal

In order to introduce a financial incentive to reduce waste, the City could introduce a cost recovery policy
for the CIRO Group. Under this policy CIRO Group members would be charged the City’s per tonne
cost for disposal at transfer stations and, in the case of curbside collection, be required to purchase
Yellow Bags. However, CIRO Group clients would retain no charge recycling services from the City,
including access to the Green Bin program. This would create a financial incentive to divert waste.

Option C. Cost Recovery for Disposal and Provision of Grants for Waste Disposal

Option B (full cost recovery for disposal) does not take into account the assistance provided by clients
whose business diverts waste (e.g. Goodwill). In addition, other clients, due to the nature of their
philanthropic services (e.g. a charity soup kitchen) are not able to pass through operating costs to the
clients they serve.

Therefore it is recommended that an annual budget of $0.5 million be established for the provision of
funds in the form of Yellow Bags or credit for disposal at transfer stations be established.

The key criterion for this Grants Program would be: (a) the client’s business results in a diversion of
materials from disposal; or (b) the nature of client’s business does not provide a means for a pass
through of costs to their clients.

The introduction of Option C would result in a cost recovery for disposal through the charging of fees
through the Yellow Bag program and at transfer stations, but add costs through increased recycling and
the introduction of a Grants Program. It is anticipated that, with the introduction of a cost recovery
program, some of the waste currently received from the CIRO Group will be directed to other providers
of disposal services.

It is recommended that Option C be considered for establishment on January 1, 2006. Subject to
approval of a more detailed report to Works Committee in early 2005.

The estimated financial impacts of the first year of the program (i.e. cost recovery for disposal, no charge
recycling and a Grants Program) are presented in Figure 62.




                                                           92
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN

Figure 62 – Estimated Annual Operating Budget Impact of the Implementation
of Option C


                                   Activity                                            Budget Impact

 Cost recovery of waste delivered directly to transfer stations                          ($ 456,164)

 Cost recovery of waste collected at curbside                                           ($ 1,154,300)

 Provision of recycling services including Green Bin                                      $ 650,000

 Provision of Grants Program                                                              $ 500,000

 Communications                                                                           $ 50,000

 Estimated 2006 Net Operating Budget Impact                                              ($ 410,464)



5.4.2   Bulky Item Collection from Multiple Household Locations

Currently, the scheduling and collection of bulky items (furniture and mattresses) from multiple
household locations varies by area.

In the former City of Toronto, York, East York and Etobicoke the majority of multiple household locations
phone in to book a collection of bulky items. There is no limit to the amount set out for collection.
Collection is provided with a rear load packer.

In the former City of North York, bulky items are collected weekly from bulk lift containers with a front end
truck. These locations are limited to a maximum of 1-4 cubic bulk lift container per 100 residential units.

Rear load collection is provided weekly to a portion of the multiple household locations in the former City
of Scarborough (no limit). The remaining locations must use a private contractor for the collection of
their bulky items.

Staff are currently reviewing options to resolve these discrepancies and ensure that equitable collection
is provided to our multiple household customers. Staff will bring a report to the Works Committee in
2005 with a recommended harmonized service for bulky items.

5.4.3   Street Events

SWMS provides free collection for a number of different street and private events each year. SWMS
recognizes that some events are significant economic boosters to the City. However, other events are
profit-driven and helpful to only a small group of residents and businesses.

Street events require significant litter clean up, waste collection, recycling collection and organics
collection, and in some cases, the provision of collection containers. In addition, some street events
encourage abuse of our collection policies. Businesses not eligible for collection will put their garbage
out, knowing that a clean up is forthcoming. In addition, businesses eligible for yellow bag collection will
put their garbage out free green bags.




                                                           93
                                                                         SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                  MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN

The number of events and scope of services requested is increasing annually. As the number of events
continue to grow, the SWMS budget must be adjusted accordingly to accommodate both the cost
associated with the provision of services provided to the event and the cost associated with the abuse of
the service.

SWMS requires a policy and protocol for street and private events and will put a report forth to Works
Committee on annual costs associated with street and private events and a recommended policy.



5.4.4   Litter Bins

Currently, the City does not have a policy or protocol related to litter bins. SWMS requires a policy which
definitively spells out where, when and under what conditions a litter bin will be placed on public
property.

Further, it will also determine the “types” of bin: whether it be a Eucan bin, or Eco Mopi, a Eco Box, or
some other style of bin, and the policy will also determine whether all bins within the City of Toronto have
a recycling component.

SWMS will provide Works Committee in 2005 with recommended policy options for litter bins.



5.4.5   Bin Rental

Currently, all multiple household locations in the former City of Toronto that receive City bulk lift
collection must rent their garbage containers from the City at a cost of $34.50/container/month. These
locations receive recycling containers from the City free of charge. Conversely, the other former
municipalities’ multi-unit buildings are responsible for providing their own garbage containers, which
meet our specifications. The City provides recycling containers to these locations at cost.

The bin rental program in the former City of Toronto generates approximately $800,000 per year and is
offset by the cost of the free recycling containers, the cost of maintaining the bins and the cost of
purchasing the bins. This is high maintenance program which is not part of our core competency and
should ultimately be phased out in preparation for a City-wide pay-as-you-throw program.



5.4.5   Increased Service to Townhouse Locations

There are discrepancies between the types of services provided to townhouse developments across the
City. These differences are as a result of former municipalities' policies. These differences relate to the
method of set-out of waste and recyclables. In some developments, we provide door-to-door collection
on private roads, while in a substantially higher number, we collect waste and recyclables from a
common collection point within the development. There are several issues related to this issue. They
include private road versus public road, access and egress, and most importantly, diversion. Where we
have door-to-door collection, diversion rates on a per unit basis are substantially higher than where we
have common point collection.

We are now in the process of collecting data on the extend of the service discrepancies and will then
explore opportunities to harmonize the collection practices with a goal of enhancing diversion and
improving resident satisfaction.



                                                           94
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Based on preliminary numbers, we believe there is an opportunity to provide curbside collection to
approximately 30,000 townhouse units in Toronto. This represents a substantial opportunity to enhance
diversion. As with any harmonized programs, this program would also require additional resources to
purchase specialized collection equipment, provide containers and increase staff. We will be bringing a
report forward for consideration in 2005.




                                                        95
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




6.0     Financial Requirements


Note: All financial Projections are based on the best available information available. Future year
estimates will be subject to refinement as additional information becomes available.

In 2004, 74% of the operating funding required for Solid Waste Management Services programs was
financed primarily through the tax levy. The remaining funding is provided through waste disposal from
our private customers, sale of recyclables, sale of yellow bags and grants (i.e. WDO funding). The 2004
capital budget is funded primarily through debt financing and reserve funds.

Base operating and capital budget requirements change year over year as a result of cost of living
increases for both in-house and contracted services, increases to our customer base as new residential
developments are completed, additional costs associated with new initiatives and additional costs
resulting from legislative changes.

6.1     Incremental Impact of Proposed Programs

The projected increase in diversion to 2012 and its impact on the SWMS operating budget is highlighted
in Figure 63. Estimated annual operating expenditures are based on the current budget and the
incremental costs associated with the implementation of all programs identified in Section 5.

The estimated increase in the net annual operating budget requirements in 2012 over 2004 amounts to
$139.6 million with the following major attributing factors:

1.      Inflationary changes in expenditures ($42.2 million) and volume increase due to population
        growth ($5.6 million)

2.      Prior Year Impacts and Other Base Changes to maintain existing service levels ($27.6 million)
        and;

3.      Impacts from the implementation of all proposed Diversion Programs as identified in Section 5
        ($64.2 million)




                                                        96
                                                                               SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                        MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 63 – Projected Net Operating Budget Requirements and Associated
Projected Diversion Rates



                            $400                                                                  100%

                                                                                                  90%
                            $350
                                                                                                  80%
                            $300




                                                                                                         Diversion Rate
                                                                                                  70%
                $Millions




                            $250                                                                  60%

                                                                                                  50%
                            $200
                                                                                                  40%
                            $150
                                                                                                  30%

                            $100                                                                  20%
                                   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012
         Debt                       $0     $1     $7    $15    $22    $27    $32    $36    $41
         Operating                 $158   $181   $198   $213   $223   $241   $260   $280   $298
         Projected Diversion       36%    42%    48%    55%    59%    70%    80%    90%    100%
         Diversion Targets                       60%                         100%




Figure 64 further illustrates the impact each new program will have on the 2004 base operating budget
through to 2012. The largest contributors to the estimated increase in the operating budget year over
year is the rollout of SSO in apartments, reuse centres and the collection of durables and residual waste
management (new and emerging technologies). SSO in apartments and reuse centres/collection of
durables make up 30% of the new costs associated with program changes but contribute only 7.2%
diversion points towards the City’s 100% goal. New and emerging technologies make up 60% of the
new costs and are expected to increase the City’s diversion rate by 40%.




                                                                 97
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN

Figure 64 - Operating Budget Impact by Proposed Programs



     $Millions
        250

        235

        220

        205

        190

        175

        160

        145

        130

        115

        100

         85

         70

         55

         40

         25

         10

         -5
                 2005       2006       2007        2008        2009      2010        2011       2012
        -20

       Approved 2004 Operating Budget                     Multi-Unit Mandatory Diversion
       SSO in Apartments                                  Enforcement of PAYT in Apartments
       Additional Materials                               Re-use Centres and Collection of Durables
       Single Family Mandatory Diversion                  Enforcement of PAYT in Single Family Homes
       Improved Recycling Capacity - Carts                Improved Recycling Capacity - Weekly Recycling
       Transfer Station Operations - Recovery Program     Transfer Station Operations - Michigan Compliance
       Residual Waste Management Facilities




                                                          98
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN

All proposed programs identified in this Plan will have staffing implications. SWMS will realize a 16%
increase in FTE’s should all programs identified in this plan be approved. Figure 65 identifies the year
over year change in FTE’s as a result of program implementation.

Figure 65 - FTE Impact with Implementation of New Programs 2005 - 2012

             1600

             1550

             1500

             1450

             1400
   # FTE's




             1350

             1300

             1250

             1200

             1150
                    2004   2005   2006     2007      2008     2009     2010      2011     2012


The projected increase in diversion to 2012 and its impact on the SWMS capital budget requirements is
highlighted in Figure 66. Estimated annual capital expenditures are based on the 2004 approved capital
budget and the incremental costs associated with the implementation of all programs identified in
Section 5. Note that the largest capital expenditure will occur in 2006 and 2007. This is as a result of
the need to construct new diversion facilities to accommodate the proposed programs. It is important to
note, however, that equipment purchased for the implementation of the proposed programs will become
due for replacement after 2012 and any reserve contributions must be planned accordingly.




                                                         99
                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 66 - Solid Waste Management Services Estimated Capital Requirements
and Associated Diversion Rates 2005 - 2012



                        $75                                                                         100%

                        $70
                                                                                                    90%

                        $65
                                                                                                    80%
                        $60
          $Millions




                                                                                                    70%




                                                                                                           Diversion Rate
                        $55

                        $50                                                                         60%

                        $45
                                                                                                    50%

                        $40
                                                                                                    40%
                        $35

                                                                                                    30%
                        $30

                        $25                                                                         20%
                               2004   2005   2006   2007    2008   2009      2010    2011    2012
         Capital Exp.          $54    $40    $70    $60     $39    $42       $43     $33     $33
         Projected Diversion   36%    42%    48%    55%     59%    70%       80%     90%    100%
         Diversion Target                    60%                            100%




Figure 67 further identifies the impact of each program on the capital budget. The 2004 capital budget
has been used as a base to highlight the impacts to the current situation.




                                                           100
                                                                      SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                               MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN



Figure 67 – 2005 – 2012 Impact on Capital Budget by Proposed Programs



    90



    80



    70



    60



    50



    40



    30



    20



    10



     0
              2005         2006         2007   2008      2009         2010        2011        2012

         Approved 2004 Capital Budget                 Multi-Unit Mandatory Diversion
         SSO in Apartments                            Enforcement of PAYT in Apartments
         Additional Materials                         Re-use Centres and Collection of Durables
         Single Family Mandatory Diversion            Enforcement of PAYT in Single Family Homes
         Improved Recycling Capacity - Carts          Improved Recycling Capacity - Weekly Recycling
         Transfer Station Operations                  Residual Waste Management Facilities




                                                      101
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN


6.2     Net Operating Budget Requirements 2005 - 2012

Figure 68 provides a detailed summary of the net operating budget requirements for Solid Waste
Management Services from 2005 – 2012. Section A of the summary provides an estimate of the net
operating budget requirements before capital financing at the existing service levels. Section B
highlights the estimated increase in budget requirements associated with the implementation of all
programs identified in this plan. The following assumptions were made when developing the financial
estimates:

-      Inflation on expenditures at 3% per year

-      Debenturing charges on debt financing at 3.5% for the first year of debenturing and 14% per
       year thereafter

-      The financial impacts for individual diversion initiative are net of disposal savings, WDO funding
       and sale of recyclables revenue if applicable and include any operating impacts from the
       associated capital expenditures

-      Volume growth factor due to population growth and new developments at 2% per year

-      For initiatives #1 and #6: 16 FTE's (District s1 & 2), 16 FTE's (Districts 3 & 4) and 1 Senior
       Analyst for bylaw transition for 1 year.

-      For Initiative #2, City will pay for the containers. Pilots in 2005 & 2007 with implementation by
       areas during 2007-2010

-      For Initiative #3, City will pay for the containers and no user fee revenues are assumed.

-      For Initiative #4, no net incremental cost impacts are assumed

-      For Initiative #5, 6 Re-use Centres at $1M each (1 in 2005 & 5 in 2006) on City land.

-      For Initiative #7, bag tags at $1 each to be used for bags over the limit of 2 bags per week per
       household. Tag revenue estimated at $501K each year.

-      For Initiative #8, no net incremental cost impacts are assumed

-      For Initiative #9, City will pay the carts. Pilots in 2005 & 2007 with implementation starting in
       2007 for Scarborough, North York in 2008, Toronto/East York in2009 and Etobicoke/York in
       2010.




                                                         102
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




 Figure 68 - Solid Waste Management Services: Projected Net Operating Budget Requirements 2005 - 2012

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              N e t O p e r a t in g B u d g e t R e q u ir e m e n ts in $ M illio n s (I n fla t e d )
                                                                                                                                                                                       2005                  2006                    2007                 2008                 2009               2010                   2011          2012
A ) E s tim a te d N e t O p . B u d . R e q m t's B e fo r e C a p it a l F in a n c in g a t E x is tin g S e r v ic e L e v e ls
     A p p ro v e d 2 0 0 4 N e t O p e ra tin g B u d g e t                                                                                                                                1 5 8 .1              1 5 8 .1                1 5 8 .1            1 5 8 .1            1 5 8 .1             1 5 8 .1            1 5 8 .1        1 5 8 .1
     I n fla tio n a ry c h a n g e s a n d v o lu m e g ro w th                                                                                                                                6 .5                1 6 .8                  1 8 .6              2 4 .1              2 9 .7               3 5 .5              4 1 .5          4 7 .8

      P rio r Y e a r Im p a c ts & O th e r B a s e /E x is tin g S e rv ic e /N e w S e r v ic e C h a n g e s                                                                              1 3 .3                1 6 .0                  1 8 .7              2 0 .7              2 1 .5               2 2 .3              2 6 .6          2 7 .7
E s tim a te d O p . B u d . R e q u ir e m e n ts B e fo re C a p ita l F in a n c in g a t E x is tin g S e rv ic e L e v e ls (A )                                                       1 7 7 .9              1 9 0 .8                1 9 5 .4            2 0 2 .9            2 0 9 .3             2 1 5 .9            2 2 6 .3        2 3 3 .5

B ) C h a n g e O b je c tiv e s / I n itia tiv e s
   D iv e r s io n fr o m L a n d fill I n itia t iv e s
1 . M u lti- u n it a p a r tm e n t m a n d a to ry d iv e r s io n e n fo rc e m e n t                                                                                                        2 .2                  2 .2                    2 .3                2 .1                2 .2                2 .3                  2 .3          2 .4
2 . S S O in a p a r tm e n ts                                                                                                                                                                  0 .1                  0 .1                    1 .2                1 .9                3 .8                7 .0                  6 .6          6 .8
3 . A d d itio n a l re c y c lin g in a p a rtm e n ts d u e to im p le m e n ta tio n a n d e n fo rc e m e n t o f P A Y T                                                                 (0 .5 )              ( 0 .8 )                (1 .0 )             ( 1 .1 )             ( 1 .2 )            (1 .2 )             ( 1 .2 )        (1 .3 )
4 . A d d itio n a l m a te ria ls                                                                                                                                                              0 .0                  0 .0                   0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0               0 .0                 0 .0           0 .0
5 . R e - u s e c e n tr e s ,d r o p o ff lo c a tio n s ,c o lle c tio n o f r e u s a b le s ,d u r a b le s                                                                                 0 .2                  2 .0                 1 0 .8               1 1 .1               1 1 .5             1 1 .8               1 2 .2         1 2 .5
6 . S in g le -fa m ily m a n d a to ry d iv e rs io n e n fo rc e m e n t                                                                                                                      0 .5                  0 .5                   0 .6                 0 .5                 0 .5               0 .6                 0 .6           0 .6
7 . S in g le -fa m ily in c r e a s e d re c y c lin g d u e to im p le m e n ta tio n & e n fo rc e m e n t o f P A Y T                                                                     (0 .0 )                 0 .5                 (1 .2 )             ( 1 .5 )             ( 1 .6 )            (1 .6 )             ( 1 .7 )        (1 .7 )
8 . S in g le -fa m ily in c r e a s e d S S O & y a rd w a s te d u e to e n fo rc e m e n t                                                                                                   0 .0                  0 .0                   0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0               0 .0                 0 .0           0 .0
9 . S in g le -fa m ily im p r o v e d c u rb s id e re c y c lin g c a p a c ity -im p le m e n t c a rts                                                                                      0 .3                  0 .0                   1 .0                 1 .1                 0 .9               1 .1                 0 .5           0 .5
1 0 . S in g le - fa m ily im p r o v e d c u rb s id e re c y c lin g c a p a c ity -im p le m e n t w e e k ly re c y c lin g                                                                 0 .1                  0 .1                   0 .5                 0 .9                 3 .2               4 .0                 3 .9           4 .1
1 1 a .T r a n s fe r S ta tio n O p e ra tio n s - R e c o v e ry P r o g ra m                                                                                                                0 .0                  0 .2                   0 .6                 1 .1                 1 .1               1 .2                 1 .2           1 .2
1 1 b .T r a n s fe r S ta tio n O p e r a tio n s - M ic h ig a n C o m p ila n c e                                                                                                           0 .0                  0 .9                   0 .9                 0 .9                 1 .0               1 .0                 1 .0           1 .1
1 2 . R e s id u a l W a s te M a n a g e m e n t F a c ilitie s (N e w & E m e r g in g )                                                                                                      0 .0                  1 .6                   1 .6                 3 .4               1 0 .4             1 7 .9               2 7 .7         3 8 .0
       T o ta l fo r C h a n g e O b je c tiv e s /In itia tiv e s ( B )                                                                                                                        3 .0                  7 .2                 1 7 .3               2 0 .5               3 2 .0             4 3 .9               5 3 .1         6 4 .2

T o t a l E s tim a te d N e t O p . B u d . R e q u ir e m e n ts (A + B )* * B e fo r e C a p it a l F in a n c in g                                                                      1 8 0 .8              1 9 8 .1                2 1 2 .8            2 2 3 .5            2 4 1 .3             2 5 9 .8            2 7 9 .4        2 9 7 .7
In c re m e n ta l D e b t C h a rg e s                                                                                                                                                                              6 .8                  1 5 .2              2 2 .0              2 6 .6              3 1 .5               3 6 .4         4 1 .0
T o t a l E s tim a te d N e t O p . B u d . R e q u ir e m e n ts (A + B )* * w ith C a p ita l F in a n c in g                                                                           1 8 0 .8              2 0 4 .9                2 2 8 .0            2 4 5 .4            2 6 7 .9            2 9 1 .3             3 1 5 .8       3 3 8 .7
C u m u la tiv e A n n u a l In c re a s e fro m 2 0 0 4 le v e ls                                                                                                                            2 2 .7                4 6 .8                  6 9 .9              8 7 .3            1 0 9 .8            1 3 3 .2             1 5 7 .7        1 8 0 .6
C u m u la tiv e % C h a n g e o v e r 2 0 0 4 O p e ra tin g B u d g e t                                                                                                                  1 4 .4 %              2 9 .6 %                4 4 .2 %            5 5 .2 %            6 9 .4 %            8 4 .3 %             9 9 .7 %      1 1 4 .3 %


T o ta l D iv e r s io n                                                                                                                                                                      42%                  48%                     55%                 59%                  70%                 80%                 90%           100%

C ) T o ta l 2 0 0 4 A p p r o v e d P o s itio n s                                                                                                                                     1 ,3 0 1 .9
     2 0 0 5 R eq u est                                                                                                                                                                     7 1 .8                7 1 .8                 7 1 .8               7 1 .8               7 1 .8              7 1 .8              7 1 .8          7 1 .8
    A d d itio n a l P o s itio n R e q u e s t                                                                                                                                                3 .2                 2 9 .0              1 3 0 .8              1 4 1 .7             1 7 2 .3            1 8 7 .9            1 8 7 .9        1 8 7 .9
    T o ta l A p p r o v e d P o s it io n R e q u e s t                                                                                                                                1 ,3 7 6 .9            1 ,4 0 2 .7           1 ,5 0 4 .5           1 ,5 1 5 .4          1 ,5 4 6 .0         1 ,5 6 1 .6         1 ,5 6 1 .6     1 ,5 6 1 .6
* * F ig u r e s in c lu d e th e o p e ra tin g im p a c t fro m C a p ita l E x p e n d itu r e s a n d n e t o f d is p o s a l s a v in g s a n d re v e n u e s fr o m W D O a n d s a le o f re c y c la b le s if a p p ro p r ia te .




                                                                                                                                                                                      103
                                                                        SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                 MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN


6.3     Capital Budget Requirements 2005 - 2012

Figure 69 provides a detailed summary of the capital budget requirements for Solid Waste Management
Services from 2005 – 2012. Section A of the summary provides an estimate of the capital budget at
2004 service levels year over year. Section B breaks down the estimates for the different diversion
initiatives to achieve the diversion goals by legislated/policy and state of good repair. Legislated/policy
expenditures make up the bulk of the estimated capital budget. The construction of the Residual Waste
Management Facilities using new and emerging technologies is the major program attributing to the
capital requirements. The facilities are to be built in stages with 20,000 tonnes per year in 2006 and
expand to 400,000 tonnes per year by 2012. The impact of the proposed programs highlighted in this
plan on the capital budget requirements are summarized in Section C. State of good repair funding
requirements between 2005 and 2012 do not change as a result of the implementation of the proposed
programs. The following assumptions have been made:

-      For initiatives #1 and #6: 16 FTE's (District s1 & 2), 16 FTE's (Districts 3 & 4) and 1 Senior
       Analyst for bylaw transition for 1 year.

-      For Initiative #2, City will pay for the containers. Pilots in 2005 & 2007 with implementation by
       areas during 2007-2010

-      For Initiative #3, City will pay for the containers and no user fee revenues are assumed.

-      For Initiative #4, no net incremental cost impacts are assumed

-      For Initiative #5, 6 Re-use Centres at $1M each (1 in 2005 & 5 in 2006) on City land.

-      For Initiative #7, bag tags at $1 each to be used for bags over the limit of 2 bags per week per
       household. Tag revenue estimated at $501K each year.

-      For Initiative #8, no net incremental cost impacts are assumed

-      For Initiative #9, City will pay the carts. Pilots in 2005 & 2007 with implementation starting in
       2007 for Scarborough, North York in 2008, Toronto/East York in2009 and Etobicoke/York in
       2010.




                                                          104
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 69 - Solid Waste Management Services: Projected Capital Budget Requirements 2005 – 2012

                                                                                                                                  A p p r o v e d 2 0 0 4 P r o j e c t e d C a p it a l B u d g e t R e q u ir e m e n t s in $ M ill io n s ( I n f l a t e d t o y e a r s o f e x p e n d it u r e s )
                                                                                                                                      $ M i llio n s            2005                  2006                2007                2008                2009                   2010                 2011             2012
  C a p i t a l B u d g e t a t e x is t i n g s e r v ic e l e v e ls ( f r o m 2 0 0 4 B u d g e t )

 A ) B y I n fr a s tr u c tu r e T y p e
     T r a n s f e r S ta tio n A s s e t M g m t                                                                                                   3 .4                3 .8                 3 .2                 3 .0                 3 .0                 3 .0                   3 .0                 3 .0          3 .0
     K e e le V a l le y D e v e lo p m e n t                                                                                                       1 .5                0 .5
     D iv e r s i o n F a c il itie s                                                                                                             3 9 .5              2 7 .2               3 2 .3               1 9 .4                 2 .0                 2 .0                 2 .0                 2 .0        2 .0
     P e r p e tu a l C a r e o f L a n d f il ls                                                                                                   7 .7                5 .7                 7 .3                 6 .4                 6 .4                 7 .1                 7 .5                 7 .9        8 .3
     M u lti- R e s id e n t ia l C o n ta in e r s                                                                                                 1 .4                0 .8                 0 .4                 0 .4                 0 .4                 0 .4
                                                                                                                                                  5 3 .5              3 8 .0               4 3 .3               2 9 .2                1 1 .8               1 2 .5               1 2 .5               1 2 .9      1 3 .4

 B ) B y P r o j e c t C a te g o r y
      L e g is l a te d /P o lic y                                                                                                                4 8 .7               3 3 .4               3 9 .6               2 5 .8                 8 .4                 9 .1                 9 .5                 9 .9      1 0 .3
      S ta t e o f G o o d R e p a ir                                                                                                               4 .8                 4 .6                 3 .6                 3 .4                 3 .4                 3 .4                 3 .0                 3 .0        3 .0
                                                                                                                                                  5 3 .5               3 8 .0               4 3 .3               2 9 .2               1 1 .8               1 2 .5               1 2 .5               1 2 .9      1 3 .4

 C a p it a l B u d g e t R e q u ir e m e n t s A r is in g f r o m C h a n g e O b j e c t i v e s / I n i t i a t iv e s
 C ) B y D iv e r s io n f r o m L a n d f ill I n it ia tiv e s
    1 . M u lt i- u n it a p a r tm e n t m a n d a to r y d iv e r s io n e n f o r c e m e n t                                                                         0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .6                 0 .0                 0 .0                0 .0        0 .0
    2 . S S O in a p a r tm e n ts                                                                                                                                       0 .1                 0 .0                 1 .6                 1 .3                 2 .8                 4 .6                0 .0        0 .0
    3 . A d d itio n a l r e c y c lin g in a p a r tm e n t s d u e to im p le m e n t a tio n a n d e n f o r c e m e n t o f
 PAYT                                                                                                                                                                    0 .4                 0 .9                 0 .1                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                0 .0        0 .0
    4 . A d d itio n a l m a te r ia ls                                                                                                                                  0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                0 .0        0 .0
    5 . R e - u s e c e n tr e s ,d r o p o f f lo c a t io n s ,c o lle c t io n o f r e u s a b le s ,d u r a b le s                                                   1 .0                 5 .6                 3 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                0 .0        0 .0
    6 . S in g le - f a m ily m a n d a t o r y d iv e r s io n e n f o r c e m e n t                                                                                    0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .2                 0 .0                 0 .0                0 .0        0 .0
    7 . S in g le - f a m ily in c r e a s e d r e c y c lin g d u e to im p le m e n t a tio n & e n f o r c e m e n t o f
 PAYT                                                                                                                                                                    0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                0 .0        0 .0
    8 . S in g le - f a m ily in c r e a s e d S S O & y a r d w a s te d u e t o e n f o r c e m e n t                                                                  0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                0 .0        0 .0
    9 . S in g le - f a m ily im p r o v e d c u r b s id e r e c y c lin g c a p a c ity - im p le m e n t c a r ts                                                     0 .2                 0 .0                 5 .6                 4 .7                 4 .1                 4 .5                0 .0        0 .0
    1 0 . S in g le - f a m ily im p r o v e d c u r b s id e r e c y c lin g c a p a c ity - im p le m e n t w e e k ly
 r e c y c lin g                                                                                                                                                         0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .7                 0 .7                 2 .9                 1 .4                 0 .0        0 .0
    1 1 . T r a n s f e r S ta tio n O p e r a t io n s                                                                                                                  0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0                 0 .0        0 .0
    1 2 . R e s id u a l W a s te M a n a g e m e n t F a c ilitie s ( N e w & E m e r g in g )                                                                          0 .0               2 0 .0               2 0 .0               2 0 .0               2 0 .0               2 0 .0               2 0 .0      2 0 .0
 T o ta l                                                                                                                                                                1 .7               2 6 .5               3 1 .1               2 7 .4               2 9 .9               3 0 .4               2 0 .0      2 0 .0

 D ) B y P r o j e c t C a te g o r y
     L e g is l a te d /P o lic y                                                                                                                                        1 .7               2 6 .5               3 1 .1               2 7 .4               2 9 .9               3 0 .4               2 0 .0      2 0 .0
     S ta t e o f G o o d R e p a ir
                                                                                                                                                                         1 .7               2 6 .5               3 1 .1               2 7 .4               2 9 .9               3 0 .4               2 0 .0      2 0 .0




                                                                                                                                                                           105
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   MULTI-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN




Figure 69 Continued
                                                                                                                                    A p p r o v e d 2 0 0 4 P r o j e c te d C a p ita l B u d g e t R e q u ir e m e n ts in $ M illio n s (I n f la t e d to y e a r s o f e x p e n d itu r e s )
                                                                                                                                        $ M illio n s             2005                2006                2007               2008              2009                 2010                 2011            2012
  T o ta l C a p ita l B u d g e t R e q u ir e m e n ts
 B y In fra s tr u c tu re T y p e (A + C )
      T ra n s fe r S ta tio n A s s e t M g m t                                                                                                      3 .4               3 .8                3 .2                3 .0                3 .0                3 .0                3 .0                3 .0           3 .0
      K e e le V a lle y D e v e lo p m e n t                                                                                                         1 .5               0 .5                0 .0                0 .0                0 .0                0 .0                0 .0                0 .0           0 .0
      D iv e r s io n F a c ilitie s                                                                                                                3 9 .5             2 8 .9              5 8 .8              5 0 .6              2 9 .4              3 1 .9              3 2 .4              2 2 .0         2 2 .0
      P e rp e tu a l C a re o f L a n d fills                                                                                                        7 .7               5 .7                7 .3                6 .4                6 .4                7 .1                7 .5                7 .9           8 .3
      M u lti-R e s id e n tia l C o n ta in e rs                                                                                                     1 .4               0 .8                0 .4                0 .4                0 .4                0 .4                0 .0                0 .0           0 .0
                                                                                                                                                    5 3 .5             3 9 .7              6 9 .8              6 0 .4              3 9 .2              4 2 .4              4 2 .9              3 2 .9         3 3 .4

 B y P ro je c t C a te g o ry (B + D )
     L e g is la te d /P o lic y                                                                                                                    4 8 .7             3 5 .0              6 6 .1              5 7 .0              3 5 .8              3 9 .0              3 9 .9              2 9 .9         3 0 .3
     S ta te o f G o o d R e p a ir                                                                                                                   4 .8               4 .6                3 .6                3 .4                3 .4                3 .4                3 .0                3 .0           3 .0
                                                                                                                                                    5 3 .5             3 9 .7              6 9 .8              6 0 .4              3 9 .2              4 2 .4              4 2 .9              3 2 .9         3 3 .4

 F u n d in g S o u r c e s
 R e se rv e s & R e se rv e F u n d s                                                                                                                                   6 .5                7 .7                6 .8                6 .8                7 .5                7 .5                0 .0           0 .0
 D ebt                                                                                                                                                                 3 3 .1              6 2 .0              5 3 .6              3 2 .4              3 4 .9              3 5 .4              3 2 .9         3 3 .4
                                                                                                                                                                       3 9 .7              6 9 .8              6 0 .4              3 9 .2              4 2 .4              4 2 .9              3 2 .9         3 3 .4

 A n n u a l I m p a c t o n O p e r a tin g B u d g e t
 O p e ra tin g C o s ts ( in 2 0 0 4 d o lla rs )                                                                                                                       4 .0                5 .6              1 4 .9              1 8 .5              2 8 .0              3 7 .1              4 3 .5         5 1 .1
 D e b t C h a rg es                                                                                                                                                     1 .2                6 .8              1 5 .2              2 2 .0              2 6 .6              3 1 .5              3 6 .4         4 1 .0
                                                                                                                                                                         5 .2              1 2 .4              3 0 .1              4 0 .4              5 4 .5              6 8 .6              7 9 .9         9 2 .1



 O p e ra tin g I m p a c ts (2 0 0 4 $ )*
 E x is tin g C a p ita l P r o g r a m                                                                                                                                  3 .8                2 .8                1 .9                3 .1                3 .2                3 .2                3 .2           3 .3
 N e w D iv e rs io n In itia tiv e s                                                                                                                                    0 .2                2 .8              1 3 .0              1 5 .4              2 4 .8              3 4 .0              4 0 .4         4 7 .9
                                                                                                                                                                         4 .0                5 .6              1 4 .9              1 8 .5              2 8 .0              3 7 .1              4 3 .5         5 1 .1
 F T E R eq u est
 E x is tin g C a p ita l P r o g r a m                                                                                                                                     3                  3                 10                  10                  10                  10                  10             10
 N e w D iv e rs io n In itia tiv e s                                                                                                                                       3                 30                125                 136                 166                 182                 182            182
                                                                                                                                                                            6                 33                135                 146                 176                 192                 192            192
 R e s id u a l W a s te M a n a g e m e n t F a c ilitie s (N e w & E m e rg in g )
 C a p a c ity in T o n n e s                                                                                                                                                           2 0 ,0 0 0         2 0 ,0 0 0          4 0 ,0 0 0        1 2 0 ,0 0 0        2 0 0 ,0 0 0        3 0 0 ,0 0 0    4 0 0 ,0 0 0
 N e t O p e ra tin g C o s ts o v e r D is p o s a l C o s ts @ $ 7 5 /to n n e in 2 0 0 4 d o lla rs (O p e ra te d b y p riv a te c o n tra c to r s )                                      1 .5               1 .5                   3                   9                 15               2 2 .5             30




                                                                                                                                                                    106

								
To top