Special Council - 17 Apr 2019 - Agenda — North Frontenac News Media

Published April 17, 2019

Word Count 37333 words

Reading Time 176 min read

Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Special Date: April 17, 2019 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Regular Council/2019/Special Council - 17 Apr 2019 - Agenda.pdf)

Document Text

Special Council Meeting (Joint Meeting of the County and Township Councils) Wednesday, April 17, 2019 – 5:00 p.m. The Kingston Frontenac Rotary Auditorium, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON

AGENDA Page Call to Order Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

3 - 20

Options for the Future of Waste Management in Frontenac a) Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

21 - 126

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Management Review Recommendation: Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive for information and except as final, the Frontenac Waste Management Review dated April 11, 2019, prepared by Cambium Inc. And Further That a copy of the Frontenac Waste Management Review be forwarded to the Frontenac Townships for their review and consideration and that Frontenac County Council defer further discussion on the matter to the June 19, 2019 meeting in order allow for discussion at the Township level.

127 - 172

Regional Roads a) Staff Briefing: Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will provide a presentation on a Regional Roads Network Comparison.

173 - 189

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report Recommendation: Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Chief

Page 1 of 191

Page Administrative Officer report – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac request that each member Council review and consider this report by May 31, 2019. And Further That each member Council formally endorse a petition to the Province of Ontario to remove Section 6.2 from The County of Frontenac/City of Kingston Restructuring Order, 1997 related to the prohibition of County involvement in roads. And Further That the County engage a consulting team to assist with the development of a business plan for both options 3 and 5, including consultation with each Council and the study be to a maximum upset limit of $40,000 to be funded from the County portion of the recently announced Municipal Modernization Fund (MMF). And Further That the report be reviewed at a joint meeting of all Councils and a preferred option be finalized prior to the end of September 2019 for consideration during the 2020 budget cycle. Public Question Period By-Laws – General By-laws and Confirmatory By-law

190 - 191

By-Laws To Confirm All Actions and Proceeding of County Council at its special meeting on April 17, 2019 [Proposed By-law No. 2019-0021] Adjournment

Page 2 of 191

APRIL 17, 2019

CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management ReviewPage 3 of 191

FRONTENAC WASTE MANAGEMENT REVIEW COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING

• Objectives

• State of Waste in Ontario • Waste Management Review Highlights

• “Made in Frontenac” Path Forward

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management ReviewPage 4 of 191

WHAT WE’LL COVER

Overall • Phase I – develop a detailed understanding of waste management across the 4 municipalities • Phase II – explore longer term strategies for a “post landfill” era (separate project)

Phase I • Explore opportunities to work closer together to: – Increase waste diversion – Reduce net operating costs for waste management – Reduce the environmental impact associated with waste management

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management ReviewPage 5 of 191

OBJECTIVES

• Waste Free Ontario Act – opportunity & uncertainty – Used tires, electronics, hazardous, Blue Box

– Extended Producer Responsibility - in discussion – potential implementation 2022

• BB Materials – China “National Sword” (Malaysia, Vietnam) – Market Instability / Evolving Tonne – Contamination / Complicated Packaging Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management ReviewPage 6 of 191

STATE OF WASTE IN ONTARIO

• Rising Costs – Diversion Programs – Price increases from processors - CF / NF

• Stratford, ON – $90/tonne to $185/tonne (+$250K/yr.) – Less acceptable items – no laminated containers (milk, ice cream) or tetra paks,

• Haliburton, ON – Costs increase of $19K (Highlands East) – Cost increase of $27K (Minden Hills) Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management ReviewPage 7 of 191

STATE OF WASTE IN ONTARIO

• Provincial Landfill Life – 10 - 14 Years – Michigan factor – 16 new landfills by 2050

• Provincial Government – uncertainty – Environment Plan

• Focus on single-use plastics & organics

• Shift towards circular economy

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management ReviewPage 8 of 191

STATE OF WASTE IN ONTARIO

• State of Ontario waste sector • Frontenac program comparisons • Frontenac cost comparisons

• Fronteanc performance comparisons • How Datacall works (and doesn’t) • List (inventory) of options – impact on objectives • Collaboration opportunities Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management ReviewPage 9 of 191

WHAT YOU KNOW NOW – THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE

• CF – amended amnesty days • CF – waste characterization study • FI - new waste compactor @ Wolfe Island • FI – new hauling contract / potential use of KARC for recycling

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 10 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

THINGS ARE HAPPENING!

Waste Disposal Site Summary Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

Number of Operating 2* 0 Landfills Number of Transfer 1 2 Stations Total 3 2 *Oso landfill scheduled to close in 2022 **Hazardous Waste Transfer Station

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Total

1**

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 11 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

WMR HIGHLIGHTS

Landfill Capacity Central Frontenac Site

North Frontenac Site

Oso

Years Left1 4.5

Olden

34.0

Combined

34.1

South Frontenac

506

Years Left1 34.0

Portland

Years Left1 27.1

Kashwakamak

44.0

Loughborough

7.6

Mississippi

38.0

Bradshaw

9.5

Plevna

32.0

Salem

9.5

Green Bay

14.7

Combined

20.3

Combined

36.0

Site

Frontenac County – Combined Years Remaining: 25 1 Remaining Site Life as of October 2017.

Source: 2017 Annual Reports for Waste Disposal Sites

• City of Toronto would use capacity in 1 month • City of Barrie would use capacity in 2 years Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 12 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

WMR HIGHLIGHTS

Figure 1 - Waste Diversion Rates

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014 – 2016

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 13 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

WMR HIGHLIGHTS

Cost of Waste Management Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

Total Expenses*

$358,630

$324,285

$205,790

$232,589

$545,165

$502,089

$2,008,335

$2,154,538

Total Revenues*

$198,112

$178,187

$25,806

$89,361

$172,589

$137,611

$535,899

$652,505

Net Cost*

$160,519

$146,097

$179,984

$143,228

$372,576

$364,478

$1,472,436

$1,502,129

Population* *

4,695

4,708

1,860

2,911

2,973

19,910

19,924

Net Cost per Capita

$34

$31

$97

$77

$128

$123

$74

$75

Net Cost per HH

$39

$35

$132

$105

$103

$142

$144

*Source: Municipal Financial Records **Source: 2017 Datacall entry sheets

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 14 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

WMR HIGHLIGHTS

Cost of Blue Box Program Blue Box Central Summary of Frontenac Costs 2016

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Total Waste Mgmt Cost

$358,630

$205,790

$545,165

$2,008,335

Blue Box Cost

$178,434

$70,919

$184,344

$627,259

Blue Box % of Cost

50%

34%

31%

Source: Datacall 2016

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 15 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

WMR HIGHLIGHTS

Summary of Findings • State of waste sector – uncertainty & rising costs • Concern over impact of new legislation & state of waste • Collaborative, unified approach is favourable • Clearer understanding of tonnages & costs is needed • Consistent approach to Datacall is preferred – revenue maximization strategy Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 16 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

CURRENT WASTE MGMT. SERVICES

Summary of Findings • Frontenac landfill life > Province landfill life • Cost of diversion rising & will continue to rise • Achieving all 3 objectives at same time – shortterm possibility but long term challenge • Short-term focus is prudent

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 17 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

CURRENT WASTE MGMT. SERVICES

• Consistency in policy, process and practice • Implement collective approach • Report collectively and annually • Remain fully engaged in evolving waste sector

• Explore opportunities for greater collaboration

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 18 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

“MADE IN FRONTENAC” PATH

• Options inventory • Short-term focus - collaboration

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 19 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

“MADE IN FRONTENAC” PATH

Frontenac Waste Management Review - Phase I CAMBIUM | Environmental | Geotechnical | Construction Monitoring | Building Sciences

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 20 of 191 Presentation by Cambium on Frontenac County Waste Management Review

QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Report 2019-045 Council Recommend Report To:

Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac

From:

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk

Date of meeting:

April 17, 2019

Re:

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer – Frontenac Waste Management Review

Recommendation Be It Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive for information and except as final, the Frontenac Waste Management Review dated April 2, 2019, prepared by Cambium Inc. And Further That a copy of the Frontenac Waste Management Review be forwarded to the Frontenac Townships for their review and consideration and that Frontenac County Council defer further discussion on the matter to the June 19, 2019 meeting in order allow for discussion at the Township level. Background In June of 2014, County Council adopted a Strategic Plan facilitated by Performance Concepts Consulting Inc., which included public consultation and meetings with each member Council. The approved Strategic Plan included three specific goals that centred on the following:   

Seniors and the Aging Tsunami The Future of Waste Management Long Range Financial Planning and Economic Development

The implementation plan for Councils goals set out the following with respect to the future of waste management: Goal #2: Meet the emerging “post landfill” Solid Waste Management challenge for Frontenac residents:  Coordinate the establishment of a “Made in Frontenac” position and financial plan to be executed by the end of the current Council term, to

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 21 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

inform the Eastern Ontario Wardens caucus on solid waste management solutions, including energy-from-waste.  Frontenac’s position will be supported by technical data and financial planning in collaboration with local municipalities. In February of 2017, Council directed staff to investigate options to assist Council to make progress with the Frontenac County Waste Strategic Goal and report back their findings, including considering such programs as recently approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to divert all organic material to a local Anaerobic Bio-digester on Wolfe Island and current energy-from-waste technologies for nonorganic waste. Public Works Managers and Cambium determined the best course of action would be to complete the recommended study in order to take full advantage of the changes coming under Bill 151, Waste Free Ontario Act, which addresses the options to assist Council with progress towards the Frontenac County Waste Strategic Goal. A grant submission to the Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF) to fund a study that identifies opportunities to develop a regional approach to optimize waste diversion in Frontenac County resulted in the County receiving a grant. The study was focused on Central Frontenac, but will provide our member municipalities with an understanding of both their blue box program and waste stream which will allow them to make decisions regarding optimization and/or negotiations with producers regarding recyclables. The report is intended to provide each municipality with the data and tools necessary to develop further strategies for addressing the needs of their citizens, while also providing recommendations for continuing to work together on matters such as procurement and data collection. Comment After extensive work and data collection with the four Public Works Managers, the Frontenac CAO’s group met on April 4, 2019 with Cambium and were presented with updates based on previous meetings with both the CAO’s as well as the Public Works Managers. Attached is a copy of the final draft report from Cambium. The draft report has been completed based on the comments provided. Staff are recommending that a copy of the Frontenac Waste Management Review be forwarded to the Frontenac Townships for their review and consideration and that Frontenac County Council defer further discussion on the matter to the June 19 Council meeting in order allow for discussion at the Township level. Sustainability Implications The Cambium report is structured such that each municipality can select best practices and recommendations based upon their priorities under the headings of:

Maximum Environmental Benefit
Extending Life Expectancy
Low Cost Recommend Report to Council Office of the Chief Administrative Officer – Frontenac Waste Management Review April 17, 2019

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 2 of 3

Page 22 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

The report will provide each municipality with the ability to select a local solution that reflects their needs and resources, while providing baseline data to prepare for the new reality under the Waste Free Ontario Act. In particular, the data collection portion report will provide each municipality to prepare for the changes contemplated by the Act and/or prepare for alternative service delivery. Finally, our appreciation is extended to the four Public Works Managers who have diligently worked with Cambium to collect data and formulate the made in Frontenac recommendations contained in the report. Their time, dedication and skills are appreciated. Financial Implications To be determined locally. There are no further financial considerations for the County associated with this report. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Frontenac CAO’s Group Frontenac Public Works Managers

Recommend Report to Council Office of the Chief Administrative Officer – Frontenac Waste Management Review April 17, 2019

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 3 of 3

Page 23 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review

Cambium Reference No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11 Prepared for: County of Frontenac

Cambium Inc. P.O. Box 325 52 Hunter Street East, Peterborough Ontario, K9H 1G5 Telephone: (866) 217.7900 Facsimile: (705) 742.7907 cambium-inc.com

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 24 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Executive Summary An executive summary of this report has been provided as a separate document.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page i

Page 25 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table of Contents 1.0

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….6

1.1

State of Waste in Ontario ……………………………………………………………………………….. 6

1.2

WMR Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

1.3

WMR Approach …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

1.4

Potential Impact of Waste Related Legislation …………………………………………………… 9

2.0

Review of Current Waste Management Programs ………………………………. 11

2.1

Waste Disposal Site Summary ………………………………………………………………………. 11

2.2

Landfill Capacity Summary ……………………………………………………………………………. 12

2.3

Waste Program Summary …………………………………………………………………………….. 13

2.4

Waste Bylaw Summary ………………………………………………………………………………… 16

3.0

Review of Current Waste Management Practices ……………………………….. 17

3.1

Waste Collection …………………………………………………………………………………………. 17

3.2

Waste Transportation …………………………………………………………………………………… 19

3.3

Waste Processing ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

3.4

Promotion & Education …………………………………………………………………………………. 22

3.5

Waste Management Contracts ………………………………………………………………………. 24

3.6

Sharing Effective Programs & Practices ………………………………………………………….. 26

4.0

Waste Performance Review ………………………………………………………………. 27

4.1

What is Datacall? ………………………………………………………………………………………… 27

4.2

Total Waste Generated ………………………………………………………………………………… 27

4.3

Average Waste Generated ……………………………………………………………………………. 32

4.4

Waste Per Capita ………………………………………………………………………………………… 33

4.5

Waste Stream Tonnage Breakdown ……………………………………………………………….. 34

4.6

Blue Box Tonnage ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 36

4.7

Diversion Rates …………………………………………………………………………………………… 39

5.0

Financial Review……………………………………………………………………………….. 43

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page ii

Page 26 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

5.1

Cost of Waste Management ………………………………………………………………………….. 43

5.2

Cost of Blue Box Program …………………………………………………………………………….. 44

5.3

Revenues from Blue Box program …………………………………………………………………. 46

5.4

Cost of Diversion Programs…………………………………………………………………………… 50

6.0

Summary of Waste Free Ontario Act ………………………………………………….. 51

6.1

Used Tires Program …………………………………………………………………………………….. 51

6.2

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ……………………………………………………… 52

6.3

Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste …………………………………………………………… 52

6.4

Blue Box …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

6.5

Organics …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

7.0

Summary of Findings – Current Programs, Policies, Practices …………… 55

8.0

Review of Options & Opportunities ……………………………………………………. 56

8.1

Competing Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………….. 56

8.2

Options Review Process ………………………………………………………………………………. 56

8.3

Options Analysis - Impact on Objectives …………………………………………………………. 65

8.4

Options Rating as Short, Medium, or Long Term ……………………………………………… 72

8.5

Graphical Summary of Options Analysis …………………………………………………………. 72

9.0

Our ‘Made in Frontenac’ Path Forward ………………………………………………. 75

9.1

Guiding Strategies ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 75

9.2

Short Term Options – Years 1 – 2 ………………………………………………………………….. 76

9.3

Medium and Long Term Options – Years 3+……………………………………………………. 77

9.4

Sample Annual Report …………………………………………………………………………………. 78

10.0

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 79

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page iii

Page 27 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Glossary of Terms List of Inserted Figures Figure 1 – Waste Disposal Sites – Frontenac County …………………………………………………….. 12 Figure 2 - Average Waste Generated…………………………………………………………………………… 32 Figure 3 – Average Waste Generated per Capita ………………………………………………………….. 33 Figure 4 - Average Waste Generated per Household …………………………………………………….. 34 Figure 5 - Blue Box Marketed Tonnage………………………………………………………………………… 37 Figure 6 - Blue Box Tonnage Annual Breakdown ………………………………………………………….. 38 Figure 7– Breakdown of Blue Box Marketed Tonnage per Municipality (2016) …………………… 39 Figure 8 - Waste Diversion Rates………………………………………………………………………………… 40 Figure 9 - Average Diversion Rate vs. Datacall Category ……………………………………………….. 41 Figure 10 - Blue Box - Net Costs per Tonne …………………………………………………………………. 45 Figure 11 - Historical Market Prices Paid for Blue Box Materials ……………………………………… 49 Figure 12 Graphical Summary of Options Analysis ………………………………………………………… 74

List of Inserted Tables Table 1 - Waste Disposal Site Summary ………………………………………………………………………. 11 Table 2 - Landfill Capacity Summary……………………………………………………………………………. 13 Table 3 - Waste Diversion Programs Summary …………………………………………………………….. 15 Table 4 - Summary of Waste Bylaws …………………………………………………………………………… 16 Table 5 - Summary of Waste Program Components ………………………………………………………. 17 Table 6 - Summary of Operating Hours………………………………………………………………………… 18 Table 7 - Summary of Waste Collection Methods ………………………………………………………….. 19 Table 8 - Summary of Transportation Methods ……………………………………………………………… 20 Table 9 - Summary of Waste Processing Methods ………………………………………………………… 21 Table 10 - Summary of Waste Management Contracts…………………………………………………… 25 Table 11 - Total Waste Generated ………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Table 12 - Central Frontenac – Waste Generated Breakdown …………………………………………. 29 Table 13 - Frontenac Islands - Waste Generated Breakdown ………………………………………….. 29 Table 14 - North Frontenac - Waste Generated Breakdown ……………………………………………. 29

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page iv

Page 28 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 15 - South Frontenac - Waste Generated Breakdown……………………………………………. 30 Table 16 - 2016 Population Figures & Sources ……………………………………………………………… 31 Table 17 – Waste Stream Tonnage Collected ……………………………………………………………….. 35 Table 18 - Source of Landfill Waste Tonnage ……………………………………………………………….. 36 Table 19 – 2017 Waste Management Operating Costs per Capita …………………………………… 43 Table 20 Blue Box - Summary of Costs ……………………………………………………………………….. 44 Table 21 – 2015 Blue Box Costs per Tonne versus Category ………………………………………….. 46 Table 22 - 2016 Blue Box Funding Summary ………………………………………………………………… 47 Table 23 - Cost Description for Diversion Programs ………………………………………………………. 50 Table 24 - Comparison of Used Tire Programs ……………………………………………………………… 52 Table 25 – Summary of Options – Impact on Objectives ………………………………………………… 66

List of Appendices Appendix A Operating Hours of Waste Disposal Sites Appendix B Datacall Diversion Calculations Appendix C Prioritization of Options Appendix D Sample Annual Report

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page v

Page 29 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

1.0 Introduction Cambium Inc. (Cambium) was retained to assist the municipalities of Frontenac County (County) in completing a Waste Management Review (WMR). The review was initiated by the County, through its 2014 “Wildly Important Goal” of working with its municipalities to develop a “Made in Frontenac” position and financial plan on solid waste management. Additional factors supporting the WMR include: increasing waste management costs, decreasing landfill capacity, the County’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plan and the recently enacted Waste Free Ontario Act. The four (4) municipalities included in the WMR are: the Municipality of Central Frontenac, the Municipality of Frontenac Islands, the Municipality of North Frontenac and the Municipality of South Frontenac. Each municipality has a unique set of circumstances (i.e. size, density, island community) that has influenced the design of their waste management program. In addition, each municipality currently operates their waste management program entirely independently of the others, and there is no involvement by the County in any of the programs.

1.1 State of Waste in Ontario This WMR is being undertaken at a time where a relatively high level of both uncertainty and opportunity exists in the waste arena. The Waste Free Ontario Act, enacted in 2016, represents an opportunity to move the province toward the circular economy (where waste is essentially eliminated) and shift the responsibility for waste from municipalities to the producers (see Section 1.4 for further discussion). However, the recent change in provincial government has caused uncertainty in the province’s commitment to fully implement the act. The market for recycled waste streams, mainly Blue Box items, has become unstable following the implementation of China’s National Sword program in January 2018. The program has either banned various streams entirely, or reduced the acceptable contamination rate to such a level that it is not achievable by most municipalities. Other markets for these Blue Box

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 6

Page 30 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

materials (e.g. Vietnam, Malaysia) are following suit which is severely limiting to places where these items are sent. The result has been stories of diversion cost increases, stockpiling of various streams, and sending others directly to landfill. The cost of municipal diversion programs continues to rise. New products and materials are entering the market quicker than the waste/recycling industry is able to develop management strategies for them. In the interim, they are disposed of via landfill or incineration. In addition, the amount of heavy materials (e.g. newspapers, magazines and glass jars) in the Blue Box has been declining, while the amount of light, thin and complex plastics has been rising. Manufacturers often prefer lighter products and packaging, which can save them money, consume fewer raw materials and require less energy to transport. But these lighter, thinner, more complex plastics and other packaging materials also increase recycling costs. This trend of “the evolving tonne” continues, whereby lighter plastic and combination packaging are replacing heavier cardboard, glass and fibre materials. The result is a higher cost per tonne. The overall landfill life remaining in Ontario is approximately 14 years, which is quite short given the requirements and time necessary to open new landfills.1 While the current Blue Box funding structure remains in place, disagreement will likely continue between the municipalities and the producers on the calculation for 50% coverage of the program’s cost. Status quo is expected to continue for the short to medium term. Food waste is becoming a very high profile; both from a social point of view and a greenhouse gas emissions point of view (food waste in the landfill generates GHG emissions). A growing effort is underway to reduce food waste for both reasons stated. In addition, the federal government’s mandate to reduce GHG emissions has the potential to impact the food waste issue and possibly waste related transportation.

Source: Ontario Waste Management Association, 2017

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 7

Page 31 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

1.2 WMR Objectives Based upon discussion with the County and the Municipal Public Works managers, the objective for the project was to explore opportunities for the four municipalities to collaborate to achieve one or more of the following (listed in order to priority): 

Increase waste diversion;



Reduce the net costs for waste management; and



Reduce the negative environmental impacts associated with waste management.

Increasing diversion entails increasing the success of the current diversion programs and/or adding new diversion programs. Reducing net costs can be accomplished through increasing the revenue derived from the current waste management programs and/or reducing operating costs (increasing efficiency, eliminating programs). Reducing negative environmental impacts involves diverting more environmentally hazardous waste and reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated from the waste management programs. Most of the municipalities were in agreement on the prioritization order of the objectives; however, North Frontenac did rank the environmental objective slightly ahead of the financial one. In addition, the best options were anticipated as those which helped achieve more than one objective while not adversely impacting the other(s).

1.3 WMR Approach The approach to the WMR involved four phases:

Complete a detailed review of current waste management programs and practices.
Complete a detailed review of the performance of the four waste management programs.
Complete a financial review of the four waste management programs.
Develop, analyze and prioritize options and opportunities that would assist in achieving the WMR goals. The approach involved a considerable amount of data gathering, research, site visits and engagement of the municipal Public Works Managers. It was important to gain a very clear

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 8

Page 32 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

understanding of the current waste management situation in the municipalities, including: program similarities and differences, waste performance and how it was measured, and the financial costs associated with the four programs.

1.4 Potential Impact of Waste Related Legislation In November 2016, the province of Ontario introduced the most progressive waste legislation in decades – The Waste Free Ontario Act (WFOA). With the vision of creating a “circular economy”, the WFOA sets out two bold objectives: zero waste and zero greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector. The zero waste objective has the potential to extend landfill life by diverting more waste away from them and the zero greenhouse gas emissions objective has the potential to reduce negative environmental impact of landfills. The associated WFOA strategy established aggressive targets for waste diversion (i.e. waste being “diverted” from landfills through reuse and recycling): 30% diversion by 2020, 50% diversion by 2030 and 80% diversion by 2050. A foundational component of the WFOA is extended producer responsibility (EPR), whereby the producers must take on greater responsibility (financial and operational) to recover their products, specifically paper and packaging. This will potentially have significant impacts on municipalities, particularly pertaining to the Blue Box Program (BBP). Municipalities may have the opportunity to receive full (100%) funding for their BBP operation. Municipalities may also have the option to leave BBP altogether for the producers to develop and deliver their own program. In completing the WMR, the potential impacts of the Waste Free Ontario Act were considered and highlighted. In December 2018, the Province unveiled its new environment plan - Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations. In respect to waste, the following actions were proposed: 

Reduce and divert food and organic waste from households and businesses;



Reduce plastic waste;



Increase opportunities for Ontarians to participate in waste reduction efforts;

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 9

Page 33 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11



Make producers responsible for the waste generated from their products and packaging;



Explore opportunities to recover the value of resources in waste;



Provide clear rules for compostable products and packaging;



Support competitive and sustainable end markets for Ontario’s waste; and,



Reduce litter in our neighbourhoods and parks.

Specific details on the above actions are still to come. Of particular interest was the action related to extended producer responsibility, which indicates support of movement in that direction.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 10

Page 34 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

2.0 Review of Current Waste Management Programs This section provides a summary of the current landfill capacity, along with an overview of the waste streams accepted by each municipality at both their landfills and transfer stations. The section also provides a summary of each municipality’s waste management bylaws.

2.1 Waste Disposal Site Summary Each municipality in the County has a unique combination of landfills and transfer stations. In total, there are 11 operating landfills and five (5) transfer stations, as shown in Table 1. Frontenac Islands has no operating landfills, following the closure of their Wolfe Island landfill in 2015. Table 1 - Waste Disposal Site Summary Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac**

South Frontenac

Total

Number of Operating Landfills

Number of Transfer Stations

1***

Total

Oso landfill scheduled to close in 2022. ** Addington Highlands (AH) and North Frontenac share the Cloyne waste disposal site, but AH waste is collected, transported and tracked separately. AH residents can only utilize the 506 waste disposal site for household hazardous waste, which is also tracked & invoiced separately. *** Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Depot

Figure 1 below highlights the locations of all waste disposal sites in the County and denotes landfills with a yellow dot and transfer stations with a red dot.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 11

Page 35 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Figure 1 – Waste Disposal Sites – Frontenac County

2.2 Landfill Capacity Summary Landfill capacity is the estimated number of years remaining before the landfill is full. It is calculated using the landfill’s remaining volume of capacity and its current annual waste generation figures. It does not consider the impact of future potential waste diversion improvements - in other words, it’s a “business as usual” scenario.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 12

Page 36 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 2 provides a summary of the landfill capacities for each municipality and for the County combined. Note that Frontenac Islands has no operating landfills. Table 2 - Landfill Capacity Summary Central Frontenac

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Site

Years 1 Remaining

Site

Years 1 Remaining

Oso

4.5

506

34.0

Portland

27.1

Olden

34.0

Kashwakamak

44.0

Loughborough

7.6

Mississippi

38.0

Bradshaw

9.5

Plevna

32.0

Salem

9.5

Green Bay

14.7

Combined

36.0

Combined

20.3

Combined

34.1

Frontenac County – Combined Years Remaining: 25 1

Remaining Site Life as of October 2017. Source: 2017 Annual Reports for Waste Disposal Sites: Oso, Olden, 506, Kashwakamak, Mississippi Station, Plevna, Portland, Loughborough, Bradshaw, Salem, and Green Bay.

The landfill capacities are updated yearly during the completion of annual monitoring reports. The “years remaining” may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors. In the case of Central Frontenac, it is projected that the Oso WDS will close in 2022; therefore, the calculation considered the waste volume that will be added to the Olden WDS following closure. Overall, if waste practices and diversion follow the current trend, Frontenac County is estimated to have a combined site life of 25 years, meaning it will meet landfill capacity by the end of 2042. As the municipalities look to work more closely together, the option of sharing landfills could be explored. Point of Interest – it takes 5-10 years to receive approval for the creation of a new landfill.

2.3 Waste Program Summary All four (4) municipalities offer a combination of waste management programs involving both garbage (waste to landfill) and diversion (re-use, recycle) programs. Garbage programs are

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 13

Page 37 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

offered at all municipalities while diversion programs vary somewhat, even within the municipalities themselves, as outlined in Table 3 below. Although all of the municipalities provide a Blue Box recycling program, only South Frontenac, due to its larger population, is required to do so, as any municipality over 10,000 that provides curb side garbage collection must provide Blue Box collection. All other diversion programs offered by the municipalities are “voluntary”. However, the benefits of these programs include extending the life of the landfill, reducing environmental impacts, generating revenue and meeting residents’ expectations.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 14

Page 38 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 3 - Waste Diversion Programs Summary DIVERSION PROGRAM OFFERED

Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Mixed Containers (Plastic , Aluminum)

Yes

Mixed Fibres/Paper

Yes

Cardboard/OCC

Yes

Glass

Yes

Household Hazardous Waste

Yes

Organics

Yes (Wolfe Is)

Appliances, Scrap Metal

Yes

Leaf & Yard

Yes

Construction

Yes

Bulky Plastics

Electronics, Tires Textiles (Clothing) Styrofoam

Returnable Bottles Mattresses

Re-Use Centre

Yes

Yes (Wolfe Is)

Yes

Notes: 1

All municipalities accept plastics #1 through #7, except South Frontenac which does not accept PVC (#3), colored Styrofoam (#6), and other plastics (#7) 2

All municipalities accept clear and coloured glass; glass must be clean and food grade bottles/jars only. Wolfe Island also accepts mirrors, windows, and broken glass. 3

All municipalities accept bulky rigid plastics. Central Frontenac adds bulky plastics to the landfill; South Frontenac currently stockpiles bulky plastics until a hauler is contracted to remove this waste from the site. 4

White Styrofoam packaging (no “peanuts”).

All municipalities accept mattresses; mattresses are landfilled in South Frontenac.

NF accepts household garbage and Blue Box recycling at all WDSs and accepts Construction / Demolition waste and large household items at Plevna, 506 and Mississippi. NF also offers a battery recycling program. Batteries are collected at the 506, Plevna, and Mississippi Sites, then transported and processed by KIMCO.

North Frontenac plans to open a Re-Use Centre in 2019 at their 506 waste disposal site. The centre will serve both North Frontenac and Addington Highlands’ residents. Impact of Waste Free Ontario Act – will attempt to harmonize the eligible Blue Box items across the province.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 15

Page 39 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

2.4 Waste Bylaw Summary Each municipality has one or more current waste related by-laws in place, which dictate how waste is to be handled. Table 4 provides a high-level by-law summary. Table 4 - Summary of Waste Bylaws Municipality

Bylaw

Year

Areas of Focus

Central Frontenac

#2012-10

2012

Waste site logistics and provisions. Various waste schedules including accepted/prohibited materials, recycling and burning policies and tipping fees.

Frontenac Islands

#07-2016

2016

Waste site logistics and information on accepted/prohibited materials, tipping fees, and direction on the disposal of HHW in Kingston.

North Frontenac

#60-17

2017

Waste site logistics and provisions. Various waste schedules, including accepted/prohibited materials, accepted materials by site, and recycling and burning policies.

North Frontenac

#61-17

2017

Landfill Tipping Fees

South Frontenac

#2005-98

2005

Waste site logistics and provisions. Various waste schedules, including accepted/prohibited materials, HHW agreement, Provincial Offences Act & Fines, and tipping fees.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 16

Page 40 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

3.0 Review of Current Waste Management Practices Waste management practices are the methods in which the waste programs are delivered. Practices include the collection, transportation, and processing of the various waste streams as well as the promotion and education of the programs. The sections below provide a summary of collection, transportation and processing by waste stream and municipality.

3.1 Waste Collection Waste collection is the process by which the waste stream is gathered. The main methods include curbside pickup and depot/landfill drop-off. Each municipality offers a slightly different approach to waste collection, as noted in Table 5. Table 5 - Summary of Waste Program Components Central

Frontenac

North

South

Frontenac

Islands

Frontenac

Curbside or Depot

Depot

Both

Depot

Both

Permit Required to Access Site

Yes*

Yes

Bag Limit – Garbage

Bag Tag Program

Yes**

Yes

Clear Bag Required

Yes***

Yes

Bag Inspection

Yes

*Proof required from contractors **Each clear bag of waste accompanied by an equivalent Blue Box recycling bag is free ***Municipal bags only

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 17

Page 41 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Operating Hours The total operating hours for each municipality’s waste disposal sites are provided in Table 6 along with the total number of waste disposal sites. The specific operating hours for each municipality’s WDS is detailed in Appendix A. Table 6 - Summary of Operating Hours Central

Frontenac

Islands

Winter Hours (per week)

Summer Hours (per week)

37.5

123

Total Annual Hours per WDS

4,160

1,590

4,380

2,912

Total # Waste Disposal Sites

MUNICIPALITY

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Frontenac Islands and North Frontenac reduce operating costs by reducing their waste disposal site hours during the winter months. Central and South Frontenac should consider a similar approach. Collection Method The specific waste collection methods by municipality for each waste stream are provided in Table 7.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 18

Page 42 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 7 - Summary of Waste Collection Methods PROGRAM

WASTE COLLECTION METHOD Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Garbage

Drop-off

Drop-off - Wolfe Curbside - Howe

Drop-off

Curbside (municipal roads only)

Plastic, Cans, Paper, Cardboard, Glass

Drop-off

Curbside (municipal roads only)

Electronics

Drop-off

Drop-off*

Household Hazardous

Not offered

Drop-off

Drop-off*

Organics (Kitchen)

Not offered

Drop-off – Wolfe Not offered – Howe

Not offered

Appliances, Scrap Metal

Drop-off

Leaf & Yard

Drop-off

Not offered

Drop-off

Construction

Drop-off

Not offered

Drop-off

Bulky Plastics

Drop-off

Drop-off – Wolfe Island only

Drop-off

Tires

Drop-off

Textiles**

Not offered

Drop-off

Not offered

Styrofoam

Drop-off

Drop-off – Wolfe Island only

Drop-off

Curbside (white only)

Returnable Bottles

Drop-off

Drop-off – Wolfe Island only

Drop-off

Not offered

Mattresses

Drop-off

Drop-off – Wolfe Island only

Drop-off

*Drop-off at Keeley Rd. facility only **North Frontenac textiles are placed in the KIMCO bin with the bulky items. Cost is included in the KIMCO costs. North Frontenac transports all mixed containers to their Plevna site to be compacted, before transporting it to HGC for processing.

3.2 Waste Transportation Waste transportation is the manner in which the waste stream is moved from its initial collection point to its place of processing or its final resting place. The two main methods are municipal transport or 3rd party contractor transport. Table 8 provides a summary of the transportation methods by municipality for each waste stream.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 19

Page 43 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 8 - Summary of Transportation Methods PROGRAM

WASTE TRANSPORTATION METHOD Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Garbage

In-house; transfer to landfill

Manco (Wolfe Is.); Island Property Mgmt. (Howe)

In-house

In-house & 3 party (various)*

Plastics, Cans, Paper, Cardboard, Glass

In-house**

Manco

In-house***

Percy Snider / Brian Larmon

Electronics

Waste Management

Tomlinson

Dumpy’z

Goat Transport

Household Hazardous

Not offered

Drain-All & KIMCO (batteries)

Brendar Environmental

Organics

Not offered

Debruin Farms (Wolfe Is.)

Not offered

Appliances, Scrap Metal

KIMCO

Manco (Wolfe Is.); Kimco (Howe Is.)

KIMCO

Snider / Whaley

Leaf & Yard

In-house

Not offered

In-house

Construction

In-house

Not offered

In-house

Bulky Plastics

In-house

Manco (Wolfe Is.)

KIMCO

In-house

Tires

OTS****

OTS

Textiles

Not offered

Canadian Diabetes Assoc. (Wolfe Is.)

Not offered

Styrofoam

In-house

Manco

In-house

Snider/Larmon

Returnable Bottles

Lion’s Club

Various Community Groups

Lion’s Club

Not offered

Mattresses

KIMCO

Manco (Wolfe Is.)

KIMCO

In-house

*South Frontenac – uses in-house haulers for Portland area garbage and Percy Snider / Brian Larmon for the rest **Central Frontenac – in-house haulers transport BB items from each site directly to HGC (Belleville) for processing. ***North Frontenac – in-house haulers transport BB items to Plevna site for compacting, then to HGC (Belleville) for processing ****Ontario Tire Stewardship

Transportation of diverted materials represents a significant cost for the municipalities, particularly Central and North Frontenac who handle transportation in-house. The municipalities could consider partnering on transportation to processors of diverted materials.

3.3 Waste Processing Waste processing is the manner in which the waste stream managed once it is transported. Generally, garbage is sent to a landfill (municipally-owned or 3rd party-owned) where it remains. Divertible materials are generally sent to processing facilities (materials recovery

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 20

Page 44 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

facilities or MRFs) where they are sorted, bundled and either processed on site or sold to a processor elsewhere. MRFs can also be municipally owned or 3rd party owned. Table 9 - Summary of Waste Processing Methods PROGRAM

WASTE PROCESSING METHOD Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Garbage

Own landfill

Waste Management

Own landfill

Own landfill & 3 party (Storrington area)

Plastics, Cans, Paper, Cardboard, Glass

HGC Belleville

Manco

HGC Belleville

KARC*

Electronics

Waste Management

Tomlinson

Dumpy’z

GOAT Transport

Household Hazardous

Drain-all

Not offered

Drain-all & KIMCO

Brendar Environmental

(batteries)

Organics

Not offered

Debruin Farms

Not offered

Appliances / Scrap Metal

KIMCO

KIMCO (Wolfe Is.)

KIMCO

Leaf & Yard

In-house; burned

Not offered

In-house; burned w/ brush

In-house; chipped and added as cover

Construction

In-house; stockpiled or chipped and used as cover (Olden)

Not offered

In-house; compacted and landfilled

Drywall & shingles – stockpiled Other – grinded

Bulky Plastics

In-house; landfilled

KIMCO

Stockpiled – Portland Landfill

Tires

OTS**

Textiles

Not offered

Canadian Diabetes Assoc.

Not offered

Styrofoam

HGC Management

Manco Recycling

HGC Management

KARC*

Returnable Bottles

LCBO, Beer Store

Not offered

Mattresses

KIMCO

Waste Connections

*KARC – Kingston Area Recycling Centre ** OTS – Ontario Tire Stewardship

It is noted that Central Frontenac brought in a compactor to increase the lifespan of their sites as well as a shredder to reduce piles of materials. This could become a shareable practice for processing waste onsite.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 21

Page 45 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Impact of Waste Free Ontario Act – if extended producer responsibility is implemented it will partially or fully eliminate the responsibility for municipalities to collect, transport, and process Blue Box streams.

3.4 Promotion & Education Internal and external promotion and education (P&E) of municipal waste management programs is crucial to their success, particularly when trying to increase diversion. P&E works best when the message is consistent and the delivery method is creative. Currently, each municipality has their own P&E program. Common methods of communication utilized include flyer handouts, websites, site signage and one-on-one conversations with residents at the WDSs. More unique methods include in-person school education sessions and reaching new homeowners through local real estate agents. Potentially, the best education option involves the one-on-one conversation with residents with the combination of a clear bag policy and thorough bag inspections by site staff. While clear bags are considered a best practice in the industry, not all municipalities are in favour of the option. A summary of each municipality’s P&E program is provided below. Central Frontenac Currently, the municipality offers various handouts to its residents, either online or as a physical copy, including: 

Central Frontenac Recycling Guidelines – Outlines the acceptable and prohibited materials for each recyclable waste stream;



Waste Disposal Overview – Details logistic information such as operating hours/days, site locations, associated fees, and waste programs and policies;

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 22

Page 46 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11



E-Waste and Battery Recycling – Provides several locations accepting e-waste and dry cell batteries free of charge; and



A Waste Site Location Map.

In addition to these handouts, each waste policy (i.e. recycling and hazardous waste) is provided on the municipal website. Frontenac Islands Currently, the Wolfe Island WDS and Howe Island WDS offer different waste programs, including their P&E programs. P&E material offered by each site is as follows: 

Wolfe Island: Handout flyers outlining accepted/prohibited items for recycling and for organic waste.



Howe Island: Handout flyers outlining accepted/prohibited items for recycling, operational hours and waste disposal data/information on the WFOA.

In addition, the Wolfe Island site attendant has been teaching proper recycling and its benefits at the local elementary schools and plans to add a lesson on organic composting in the future. Past P&E events on Howe Island include the Pitch-In and Open House events. However, those events are no longer offered. North Frontenac North Frontenac’s waste diversion rate has more than doubled since 2014 and the staff feel that their P&E program is a major reason. Their P&E is consistent at each site across their municipality and includes handouts, a website, and site signage. Their website information in particular is very thorough, and not only includes the common waste information but also the benefits of recycling and the various uses for recycled products and packaging. Recently, the municipality has begun working through local realtors to distribute P&E material to new homeowners. Staff feel that this is also a major contributor to their strong waste diversion rate.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 23

Page 47 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

South Frontenac Given that South Frontenac is the only municipality that provides curbside pick-up of garbage and Blue Box recyclables, their P&E program is somewhat different. The municipality provides the following to residents: 

A Recycle Calendar, to establish which recyclables are picked up and on which day;



Notices to residents when their Blue Box recyclables are not picked up, explaining why it was rejected and how to fix the issue;



A waste handout, detailing accepted/prohibited materials and how they should be grouped (i.e. bagged, bundled, or boxed);



An online explanation of each plastic recycling symbol;



Information and tips on backyard composting;



An online explanation of the Household Hazardous Waste program and a list of accepted hazardous and e-waste;



Information on tire recycling and communal bins; and,



Local newspaper ads that serve to remind residents of proper waste disposal practices, update them on changes to waste programs, inform the transient community on waste policies and additional ways they can Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.

In addition, South Frontenac offers a Communal Bin & Recycle Station Assistance program (which includes a 50/50 cost share) to encourage seasonal residents to use curbside collection.

3.5 Waste Management Contracts All four municipalities use 3rd party contractors for a portion of their waste management programs. In some cases, the contracts are formal while in other cases they are a continuation of previous agreements and based on a historical working relationship. Table 10 summarizes the waste contracts that are currently in place.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 24

Page 48 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 10 - Summary of Waste Management Contracts Contract Details Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Contractor(s)

Expiry

Termination Rights

Automotive Materials Stewardship Inc.

N/A

Yes

Garbage – Transfer Station – Wolfe Island

Haulage & Processing – Island Property Management

N/A

Garbage – Curbside Pickup – Howe Island

Haulage & Processing – Manco

N/A

Organics – Transport / Processing (Wolfe Island only)

Debruin Farms

N/A

Electronics

Dunphy’s

Month to Month

N/A

Hazardous Waste

Drain-All

November 15, 2018

Yes

Appliances / Scrap Metal / Textiles / Mattresses

KIMCO

Month to Month

N/A

Garbage – Pickup / Transport

Brian Larmon Percy Snider

August 31, 2020

Yes

Recyclables – Curbside Pickup

Brian Larmon, Percy Snider

August 31, 2020

Yes

KARC

Year to Year

Automotive Materials

Blue Box Processing

Both Central and North Frontenac use HGC (Belleville) for the processing of their Blue Box waste streams; however, there is no contract in place for this service. Frontenac Islands currently uses Manco to transport and process their Blue Box items, however, there is no contract in place for this service. South Frontenac currently uses Kingston Area Recycling Centre to process their Blue Box materials. The contract originated in 2006 and remains in place until terminated by either party.

WFOA Impact: with the planned move to extended producer responsibility, it is suggested that municipalities avoid long term contracts and ensure that any contracts entered into have a termination right for the municipality.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 25

Page 49 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

3.6 Sharing Effective Programs & Practices Through the analysis of the current waste management programs and practices of all four municipalities, a number of sharable options were identified which can be adopted by one or more of the municipalities. These include options in collection, transportation, processing and P & E. This is one strategy for achieving the WMR objectives (with the other being the adoption of new programs, policies and practices). A detailed review of the sharable options can be found in Section 8.0.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 26

Page 50 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

4.0 Waste Performance Review The waste performance review evaluated the performance of the various waste management programs in recent years and compares the findings across the four (4) municipalities. The main source for the waste performance review involved the provincial Datacall information. In addition, supplemental information was gathered directly from each municipality and their various third party contractors. The analysis presented several significant (and sometimes unexpected) differences in performance between the municipalities. However, it was noted that each municipality uses a variety of methods and sources, particularly for Datacall submissions, to determine the various waste performance metrics. Thus, while comparison across the four municipalities was helpful in determining opportunities for improvement, the results, in some cases, were taken as an opportunity to explore a more consistent or uniform approach.

4.1 What is Datacall? Datacall is a program operated by the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (RPRA), which collects data annually to determine the net Blue Box cost and allocation of funding under the Blue Box Program Plan. The annual Datacall is also the source of information used by RPRA to determine the residential waste diversion rates by municipal program, municipal grouping and the province overall. It should be noted that for 2016, the Short Form Datacall (SFD) form was introduced and offered to all municipal programs with a population under 30,000. With the SFD, only limited Blue Box data is required to be submitted by eligible municipalities. Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands have begun using the SFD submission; therefore, 2016 data for these two (2) municipalities is limited.

4.2 Total Waste Generated One aspect of the waste performance assessment was the total waste generated by each municipality. The total waste generated consists of the waste sent to landfill and the waste diverted from landfill. The 2013 - 2016 totals for each municipality are presented in Table 11. Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 27

Page 51 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Diverted waste includes any waste that is not disposed in a landfill while landfilled waste is all waste sent to landfill because it cannot be diverted anywhere else. Examples of diverting materials may include: burning clean wood, sending blue box material to a recycling facility, donating bottles through LCBO/Beer Store programs and donating clothing. Landfill waste can consist of garbage bags, treated wood, construction material and mattresses. Table 11 - Total Waste Generated Total Waste Generated (Tonnes) Central Frontenac

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017*

1,259

1,420

1,536

Frontenac Islands

737

735

726

North Frontenac

1,019

1,319

1,312

2,758

2,113

South Frontenac

7,829

7,720

8,397

6,340

5,391

Total

10,844

11,194

11,971

9,098**

7,504**

*Source: 2017 Datacall entry sheets (not final report) ** Total waste for Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands is not available due to use of the short-form Datacall Source: Datacall Reports: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

South Frontenac produced the most waste each year while Frontenac Islands produced the least, both of which were expected based on the population of each municipality. Two items of note from the table include the significant jump in North Frontenac’s numbers from 2015 to 2016 and the significant drop in South Frontenac’s numbers over the same two years. In addition, the total waste generated shows an increasing trend over the 2013-2015 period; however, data is not available for Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands in 2016 due to their switch to Datacall’s Short Form report. A more detailed breakdown for each municipality is presented below. Central Frontenac Table 12 provides the breakdown for Central Frontenac, which has shown an increasing trend in diverted tonnage, specifically between 2013 to 2014 when it increased by approximately 35%. Their diversion rate increased by 7.6% over that same period.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 28

Page 52 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 12 - Central Frontenac – Waste Generated Breakdown Central Frontenac

Landfill (tonnes)

2013

2014

2015

2016

773

765

857

Not Available

Diverted (tonnes)

486

655

679

Not Available

Total (tonnes)

1,259

1,420

1,536

Not Available

Diversion Rate

38.6%

46.2%

44.2%

Not Available

Source: Datacall

Frontenac Islands Table 13 shows a detailed breakdown for Frontenac Islands. From 2013 to 2014, Frontenac Islands saw a decrease of 45% in diverted materials and an increase of 22% in landfilled waste. Over the three years, diverted tonnage and the corresponding diversion rates have declined. Table 13 - Frontenac Islands - Waste Generated Breakdown Frontenac Islands 2013

2014

2015

2016

Landfill (tonnes)

432

525

Not Available

Diverted (tonnes)

305

210

201

Not Available

Total (tonnes)

737

735

726

Not Available

Diversion Rate

41.4%

28.6%

27.7%

Not Available

Source: Datacall

North Frontenac Table 14 provides a detailed breakdown for North Frontenac. Between 2015 and 2016, North Frontenac showed a significant increase in its landfilled waste (up 44%), diverted waste (up 227%) and its diversion rate (up 55%). Table 14 - North Frontenac - Waste Generated Breakdown North Frontenac Landfill (tonnes)

2013

2014

2015

2016

772

1,021

838

1,210 1,549

Diverted (tonnes)

247

298

474

Total (tonnes)

1,019

1,319

1,312

2,758

Diversion Rate

24.2%

22.6%

36.1%

56.1%

Source: Datacall

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 29

Page 53 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

In 2016, North Frontenac experienced a large increase in both its landfilled waste and its diverted tonnage. The change in diverted tonnage was due mainly to their improved tracking of diverted waste streams, specifically wood. The wood tonnage consists of clean (untreated) construction waste wood and trees/brush, both of which are estimated in cubic yards by the site attendant and converted to tonnes. In 2016, North Frontenac reported 1,158 tonnes of diverted wood waste (no wood waste was reported the previous year), which made up the majority of the 227% increase in total diverted tonnes. All clean wood is burned at the end of the season as a training opportunity for the Fire Department, and thus is diverted from landfill. South Frontenac Table 15 shows the breakdown for South Frontenac. In 2016, South Frontenac experienced a decrease of 34% in landfilled material and an increase of 11% in diverted materials; resulting in a diversion rate increase of almost 10%. Table 15 - South Frontenac - Waste Generated Breakdown South Frontenac 2013

2014

2015

2016

Landfill (tonnes)

6,530

6,081

6,709

4,461

Diverted (tonnes)

1,299

1,639

1,688

1,879

Total (tonnes)

7,829

7,720

8,397

6,340

Diversion Rate

16.6%

21.2%

20.1%

29.6%

Source: Datacall

According to the municipality, the drop in landfilled tonnes from 2015 to 2016 was due in part to a miscalculation in 2015 reporting, where IC&I tonnage was included. For diverted materials, between 2015 and 2016, the municipality collected roughly the same amount of blue box recyclables; however, they collected an additional 193 tonnes of non-blue box recyclables. These non-blue box materials consisted of bulky goods (303 tonnes), scrap metal (100 tonnes) and wood (150 tonnes). Prior to 2016, there was no wood tonnage recorded, and as such it appears to be the main reason for the diverted waste increase.

4.2.1 Impact of Population The population of a municipality plays a key role in waste generation and waste statistics. Generally, the higher the population, the higher the total waste generated. In addition, the

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 30

Page 54 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

municipal population is used to determine various “per capita” figures, which allow for comparison of waste performance across various municipalities. The Datacall population utilizes the population figures (both permanent & seasonal) supplied by the municipalities and applies a formula to determine the full-time equivalent population, as follows: 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 +

𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠 2.4

The Reported Seasonal Households is divided by 2.4 because it is assumed that seasonal residents are only in the specified municipality for 5 months of the year. Table 16 provides a summary of each municipality’s calculated population and its source. Table 16 - 2016 Population Figures & Sources Municipality

Reported 2016 Population*

Seasonal Population

Full-time Equivalent Population

% Seasonal

Population Source

Central Frontenac

3,841

854

4,695

18%

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Frontenac Islands

1,649

211

1,860

11%

Ministry of Municipal Affairs

North Frontenac

1,842

1,069

2,911

37%

Statistics Canada

South Frontenac

18,646

1,263

19,909

6%**

Statistics Canada

*Source: 2016 Municipal Datacall Input Sheets While the Datacall figures indicate a 6% increase, the municipality itself estimates a population increase of almost 50% in the summer, greatly increasing the demand for waste services.

It is noted that three different sources for the population numbers are used across the four municipalities. In pursuing a more consistent approach, the municipalities may consider using the same source for their population data. It is also noted that North Frontenac has the highest percentage of seasonal residents. Further on in our report (Figure 3), it is noted that North Frontenac generates more total waste per capita (landfilled + diverted) than the other three municipalities and the province. These two factors may be linked: seasonal residents generate more waste than permanent residents. It is recommended that this connection be explored.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 31

Page 55 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

One factor that may not be captured by the current population calculations is the use of the waste disposal sites by the institutional, commercial and industrial (ICI) sector – particularly campgrounds, trailer parks and resorts. This would be less prevalent in South Frontenac, which offers curbside pickup.

4.3 Average Waste Generated For comparison, the average annual waste generated over the 2014 – 2016 period (2014-2015 in the case of Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands) was calculated. The results are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 - Average Waste Generated

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014 - 2016

The results generally fall in line with the municipal populations – meaning the higher the population the higher the waste generated. The exception to that is North Frontenac whose average waste was higher, but population was lower, than Central Frontenac.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 32

Page 56 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

4.4 Waste Per Capita The waste distribution among the four municipalities was further illustrated by assessing the waste generated per capita (Figure 3) and the waste generated per household (Figure 3). The provincial average of waste generated per capita is 361 kilograms (kg). Frontenac Islands (385 kg) and South Frontenac (383 kg) generally align with the Ontario average. Central Frontenac (315 kg) has consistently produced less waste per capita than the average Ontarian, while North Frontenac (624 kg) generates more. The provincial average for waste generated per household is 661 kilograms. Central Frontenac generated the least at 359 kilograms per household (kg/HH). North Frontenac generated 511 kg/HH, Frontenac Islands generated 526 kg/HH and South Frontenac generated the most waste per household, 738kg/HH. Figure 3 – Average Waste Generated per Capita

WASTE GENERATED PER CAPITA - 2014-2016 700 600

kg/capita

500 400 CENTRAL FRONTENAC 300 200 100

FRONTENAC ISLANDS NORTH FRONTENAC SOUTH FRONTENAC ONTARIO

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014 - 2016

In North Frontenac, each property receives two (2) access passes to their waste disposal sites. However, since 2017, it was noted that a considerable number of additional passes have been

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 33

Page 57 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

issued for various reasons to property owners in the municipality. It is possible that these passes are being used by patrons from short term recreational property rentals. This increased occupancy is not reflected in the per capita analysis. The occurrence should be confirmed and quantified if possible. Figure 4 - Average Waste Generated per Household

WASTE GENERATED PER HOUSEHOLD - 2014-2016 800 700

kg/household

600 500

Central Frontenac Frontenac Islands

400

North Frontenac 300

South Frontenac

200

Ontario

100 0 Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Ontario

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014-2016

4.5 Waste Stream Tonnage Breakdown Each waste stream is displayed below in Table 17 and includes total tonnage for 2016 and 2017. The tonnages were drawn from several sources including Datacall, 3rd party contractors and the municipalities themselves.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 34

Page 58 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 17 – Waste Stream Tonnage Collected CF

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

Garbage*

1,016

1,036

267

355

1,210

893

4,461

3,538

Mixed Containers (Plastics, Aluminum, Metals)**

272

278

Mixed Fibres**

122

111

498

467

Cardboard / OCC**

121

123

Mixed Glass**

119

112

Electronics***

Hazardous***

Not Available

Not Offered

Scrap Metal/Appliances**

100

Leaf/Yard (Organics)***

Not Reported

207

199

Wood***

Not Reported

1,158

1,219

150

131

160

303

418

1.3

1.7

0.7

1.0

3.3

Construction / Mattresses / Bulky Items**

Tires

Generally Not Tracked.

Styrofoam (Polystyrene)

0.2

0.5

*Source: FI tonnage based on 3 party weigh scale tonnage. NF, SF tonnage based on Datacall (2017 unaudited). CF tonnage based on landfill assessment conversion (volume to tonnage). rd ** Source: 3 Party Waste Contractors *** Source: Datacall and/or Municipal Staff

As would be expected, South Frontenac had the highest tonnages in 2016 and 2017 for each waste stream, while Frontenac Islands generally had the lowest. Items of note include: 

North Frontenac’s wood tonnage in both years



Frontenac Island’s high construction/mattress/bulky item tonnage relative to its size and the other municipalities



all four municipalities showed a noticeable increase in construction/bulky items in 2017

Differing Approaches to Landfill Waste Tonnage Landfill waste tonnage is a key number used in the calculation of performance metrics (i.e. diversion rate) and landfill life. However, the source and method of calculating the tonnage varies across the municipalities, as outlined in Table 18.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 35

Page 59 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 18 - Source of Landfill Waste Tonnage Municipality

Source

Central Frontenac

Based on estimate of annual volume of landfill waste (completed through annual topographic survey) which was converted to tonnage

Frontenac Islands

Based on weigh scale tonnage supplied by 3 party landfills

North Frontenac

Based on estimated number of bags disposed, multiplied by average weight per bag. Previously, it was (prior to 2016) based on estimate of annual volume of landfill waste which was converted to tonnage

South Frontenac

Based on weigh scale tonnage of their landfill and a 3 party landfill. Was previously (prior to 2017) based on estimate of annual volume of landfill waste, which was converted to tonnage

In addition, the landfill waste (or waste disposed), as reported in the Datacall records, adds a residual waste figure to that reported by the municipalities. The residual waste is comprised of the estimated portion of the diverted waste tonnage that was not “recyclable” or “reusable” essentially the contamination. Other Recyclables Tonnage Estimate In addition, each municipality has a different means of estimating “other recyclables” tonnage (including textiles, bulky goods, scrap metal, drywall, wood, brick and concrete, other C&D recyclables). Based on available Datacall records, the following examples were noted: 

South Frontenac uses weigh scales to estimate bulky goods and scrap metal



North Frontenac uses weigh scales to estimate scrap metal and bulky goods



North Frontenac also uses volume estimates for drywall and wood material.

4.6 Blue Box Tonnage The Blue Box program holds particular interest for the municipalities due to its increasing operational costs and its pending changes as a result of the WFOA. Blue Box items are generally grouped into four categories: paper, plastic, metal and glass. The total “marketed” tonnage of those categories over the past 3 years is shown in Figure 5Error! Reference source not found.. Marketed tonnage is calculated by subtracting the total of all Blue Box materials collected with the non-recyclable items, or “contaminants”. In cases where the municipality does not have its marketed tonnage available, the residual figure is calculated through the Datacall system based on the collection type. If the collection Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 36

Page 60 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

type is multi-stream, then it’s calculated as 7% of the collected tonnage. If the collection type was single stream, it’s calculated as 11% of the collected tonnage. Figure 5 - Blue Box Marketed Tonnage

Blue Box Tonnage - 2014-2016 1,000 900 800

Tonnage

700 600

CENTRAL FRONTENAC

500

FRONTENAC ISLANDS

400

NORTH FRONTENAC

300

SOUTH FRONTENAC

200 100 0 2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014 - 2016

Looking at the combined Blue Box tonnage by year and material (Figure 6) between 2014 and 2016, two important trends are noted: 

a decrease in the total tonnage collected over the past 3 years, and



a shift in materials collected – paper and metal are decreasing, while plastic is increasing.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 37

Page 61 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Figure 6 - Blue Box Tonnage Annual Breakdown

Blue Box Tonnage - By Year and Material 1,800 1,600 1,400

Tonnes

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200

2014

2015

2016

Year Total Paper

Total Plastic

Total Metal

Total Glass

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014 - 2016

Both trends align with what is happening across the province and beyond, where there has been a shift from the traditional packaging materials of metal, paper and glass to lightweight plastics and laminates. This is referred to as the “evolving tonne” and results in lighter blue box loads that are more expensive to sort and transport. The analysis also observed the breakdown of Blue Box materials by municipality, as shown in Figure 7. Paper constitutes printed materials and paper packaging such as newsprint, magazines and catalogues, gable top and aseptic containers, paper laminates, corrugated cardboard, boxboard and other paper packaging. Plastic constitutes plastic packaging such as PET bottles, HDPE bottles and jugs, LDPE/HDPE film, expanded polystyrene, non-expanded polystyrene and plastic laminates. Metal constitutes aluminium packaging such as aluminium food and beverage containers, aluminium aerosol containers and other aluminium packaging. Metal also constitutes steel and other metal packaging such as steel aerosol containers, steel paint cans, other steel and metal containers and packaging. Glass constitutes clear and coloured glass packaging.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 38

Page 62 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Figure 7– Breakdown of Blue Box Marketed Tonnage per Municipality (2016)

CENTRAL FRONTENAC

FRONTENAC ISLANDS 10%

11%

Paper Plastic

17%

68%

Glass

SOUTH FRONTENAC 3%

Plastic

22%

Metal

56%

16%

Paper

12%

11%

Paper

59%

Glass

NORTH FRONTENAC

Plastic 26%

Metal

13%

Paper 43%

Metal Glass

Plastic Metal

33%

Glass

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014 – 2016

Generally, the tonnage of Blue Box materials for each municipality in order from greatest to least was: paper, plastic, metals, glass. The only exception was South Frontenac, whose glass tonnage was higher than its metal tonnage. Each municipality saw the greatest tonnage in paper; however, all have had an increasing tonnage of plastics, as previously discussed.

4.7 Diversion Rates The diversion rate is the key metric used in the waste industry to measure the success of waste diversion programs. It is the percentage of the total waste generated that is diverted from a landfill through diversion programs (Blue Box, composting, etc.) and is determined by the following formula: 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =

𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 + 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 39

Page 63 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Based on Datacall information, Ontario diverts nearly half of its residential waste (49.2% in 2016), a rate which has hovered in that range over the past 5 years (2012 – 2016)2 In comparison, the 2013 - 2016 diversion rates for each of the four municipalities are shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 - Waste Diversion Rates

WASTE DIVERSION RATES - 2013-2016 60.00% 55.00% 50.00% 45.00%

CENTRAL FRONTENAC

40.00%

FRONTENAC ISLANDS

35.00%

NORTH FRONTENAC SOUTH FRONTENAC

30.00%

ONTARIO AVERAGE

25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: RPRA Datacall 2014 – 2016

The wide variation and yearly fluctuation in diversion rates for the municipalities, versus the more stable Ontario rate, indicates that changes in reporting, tracking or measuring may have occurred. North Frontenac’s more detailed tracking of wood waste as of 2016 is one such example. Figure 9 compares the average diversion rate (2013-2016) of each municipality with the respective Datacall category averages. With the exception of Central Frontenac, all municipalities are running below their category average. However, it should be noted that the

Source: https://rpra.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2016-Residential-Diversion-Rates.pdf

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 40

Page 64 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands figures are only three year averages, as the 2016 data is not available as a result of the short call. Figure 9 - Average Diversion Rate vs. Datacall Category

Average Diversion Rate- 2013-2016 50.00% 45.00% 40.00%

kg/capita

35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

4.7.1 Datacall Diversion Rate Calculation This section summarizes the methods that Datacall uses to calculate diverted tonnage, disposed tonnage, and the diversion rate (see Appendix B for a more in depth discussion). Note that the values of each waste stream are largely dependent on the type of information that each municipality entered into Datacall; therefore, these explanations are more of an overview. It is suggested to conduct further investigation of the similarities and differences between those municipalities in each of the two relevant municipal groupings (i.e. year-round versus seasonal residents). Calculation of Diverted Tonnage Datacall calculates diverted tonnage using the following formula: Diverted Tonnage = D. 1 + D. 2 + D. 3 + D. 4 + D. 5 + D. 6 Each component is explained below. Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 41

Page 65 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

D.1 =

Residential Component Deposit, Return and Stewardship Program

Datacall calculates at 5.51 kg/capita.

D.2 =

Residential Reuse

Tonnage collected through municipally sponsored or supported activities.

D.3 =

Residential On-Property Management

Mainly backyard composting (100 kg/composter distributed). Also includes grasscyling, in-home burning and onsite (open) burning.

D.4 =

Residential Recyclables Diverted

Blue Box, scrap metal, WEEE, bulky items, and used tires (7.1 kg/capita). Also includes energy from waste residuals.

D.5 =

Residential Organics Diverted

Yard and kitchen waste

D.6 =

MHSW Treatment

Hazardous waste recycled or reused

Calculation of Disposed Tonnage Datacall calculates disposed tonnage using the following formula: Disposed Tonnage = D. 7 + D. 8 + D. 9 Each component is explained below. D.7 =

Energy from Waste (EFW) Mass Reduction

D.8 =

Hazardous Waste Disposal

Hazardous materials that were not reused or recycled.

D.9 =

Landfill of Residential Waste

A combination of landfill waste quantities, EFW related waste, and processing residues from diversion programs.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 42

Page 66 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

5.0 Financial Review Our financial review looked at the total costs for each municipality’s waste management program. In addition, we reviewed the specific costs associated with each municipality’s Blue Box program.

5.1 Cost of Waste Management Table 19 provides a summary of the 2016 & 2017 net waste management operating costs for each municipality, as well as the net cost per capita and per household. The values do not include capital items. Table 19 – 2017 Waste Management Operating Costs per Capita Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

2016

2017

Total Expenses*

$358,630

$324,285

$205,790

$232,589

$545,165

$502,089

$2,008,335

$2,154,538

Total Revenues*

$198,112

$178,187

$25,806

$89,361

$172,589

$137,611

$535,899

$652,505

Net Cost*

$160,519

$146,097

$179,984

$143,228

$372,576

$364,478

$1,472,436

$1,502,129

Population**

4,695

4,708

1,860

2,911

2,973

19,910

19,924

Households**

4118

4128

1361

1368

3554

3553

10336

10425

Net Cost per Capita

$34

$31

$97

$77

$128

$123

$74

$75

Net Cost per HH

$39

$35

$132

$105

$103

$142

$144

*Source: Municipal Financial Records **Source: 2017 Datacall entry sheets

The table indicates a wide variation in the net operating costs, which translates to variation in cost per capita and cost per household figures. Central Frontenac operates at a lower cost per capita and per household than the other three (3) municipalities. Part of the reason may be the fact that the municipality operates only three (3) WDS’s, which leads to lower operating costs versus those operating more sites. It’s interesting to note the difference between net cost per capita and net cost per household. Three of the four municipalities have a higher figure for net cost per household, while North

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 43

Page 67 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Frontenac’s figure is lower as a result of their number of households being higher than their population. This situation requires further investigation. South Frontenac’s higher expenses are driven by its curbside pick-up service and much larger population. Given the small population of Frontenac Island, expenses are relatively high because the island locations result in added costs for transportation (time and ferry crossings).

5.2 Cost of Blue Box Program The cost of each municipality’s Blue Box program is outlined below. Table 20 Blue Box - Summary of Costs 2014*

2015*

2016*

2017**

$213,821

193,858

$178,434

Not Available

$736

$713

$686

$629

$55,786

$65,606

$70,919

Not Available

$443

$573

$571

$589

$125,349

$206,231

$184,344

Not Available

$706

$1,211

$1,177

$1,149

$576,718

$598,802

$627,259

Not Available

$617

$652

$686

$655

Central Frontenac Net Cost Net Cost per Tonne Frontenac Islands Net Cost Net Cost per Tonne North Frontenac Net Cost Net Cost per Tonne South Frontenac Net Cost Net Cost per Tonne

Source: 2014 – 2016 - Datacall annual reports ** Source: 2017 – estimated from Datacall entry sheets

As shown in Figure 10, the net costs per tonne for all four municipalities are significantly higher than their category average. Central Frontenac, North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands are part of the “Rural Depot – South” category, while South Frontenac is part of the “Rural Collection – South” category. The 2017 category averages were not available at the time of the report.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 44

Page 68 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Figure 10 - Blue Box - Net Costs per Tonne

2016 & 2017 - Blue Box Cost per Tonne $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

2016

Rural Depot South

South Frontenac

Rural Collection South

2017

Net costs per tonne for the Blue Box program are driven by two factors: the net costs and the marketed tonnes. In seeking to understand the reasons for the higher Blue Box costs relative to their categories, a comparison of both categories was completed. The year 2015 was chosen for the comparison as it is the last year that all municipalities completed the long form Datacall. The results are shown in Table 21.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 45

Page 69 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 21 – 2015 Blue Box Costs per Tonne versus Category Blue Box Program - 2015 Municipality

Marketed Tonnes

Net Costs

Net Costs / Tonne

Tonnes / Capita

Net Cost / Capita

Central Frontenac

272

$193,858

$713

.058

$41

Frontenac Islands

114

$65,606

$573

.061

$35

North Frontenac

170

$206,231

$1,211

.060

$72

Datacall Category 9 Average

288

$145,651

$506

.055

$28

South Frontenac

919

$598,802

$652

.047

$31

Datacall Category 7 Average

579

$248,543

$429

.048

$20

Central Frontenac, Frontenac Islands, and North Frontenac are part of Datacall Category 9. South Frontenac is part of Datacall Category 7

All municipalities, except South Frontenac, reported less marketed tonnes than their category average, but more marketed tonnes per capita. All municipalities, except Frontenac Islands, reported higher net costs than their category average. However, all municipalities are higher than their category average from a net cost per capita point of view.

5.3 Revenues from Blue Box program Revenue from Stewardship Ontario The Blue Box program is eligible for funding from the stewards (producers) of the Blue Box items. The complex revenue calculation is completed by Stewardship Ontario and is outlined below. Total Blue Box Funding Allocation

Net Cost Allocation + Recovered Cost Allocation + Best Practices Allocation

Funding Component

Maximum

Description

Allocation re Net Cost

50%

Based on municipal percentage of provincial total net costs (up to a maximum cost threshold for each grouping)

Allocation re Recovered Cost

35%

Based on municipal percentage of provincial total tonnage collected

Allocation re Best Practices

15%

Based on Best Practices Score

Table 22 provides a summary of the 2016 Blue Box funding for each municipality, along with percentage of net Blue Box costs funded.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 46

Page 70 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 22 - 2016 Blue Box Funding Summary Allocation Component

Municipality Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

Net Cost (50%)

$ 42,703

$ 16,972

$ 41,113

$ 129,776

Recovered Tonnage (35%)

$ 12,945

$ 6,184

$ 7,793

$ 45,532

Best Practices (15%)

$ 10,020

$ 2,238

$ 12,701

$ 32,161

Total Blue Box Funding

$ 65,668

$25,394

$ 61,607

$ 207,469

Total Net Blue Box Costs

$178,434

$70,918

$184,342

$609,832

% of Net Blue Box Cost Recovered

37%

36%

33%

34%

It should be noted that each year’s funding is based on results from 2 years prior. Therefore, the 2018 funding reimbursement is based on the costs and performance from the 2016 Blue Box program. Funds are paid out by Stewardship Ontario in equal quarterly installments. Revenue opportunities noted from the analysis include: 

Increasing best practice scores. In 2016, North Frontenac scored 83% while Central Frontenac, Frontenac Islands and South Frontenac scored 59%, 24% and 63%, respectively.



Keeping net costs within the category threshold. In 2016, North and South Frontenac’s net costs were over their category threshold by $12,000 (7%) and $60,000 (12%) respectively, meaning those costs were not eligible for reimbursement.



Increasing recovered tonnage from diversion programs.

Revenue from the Sale of Blue Box Materials In addition to revenue from Stewardship Ontario, municipalities have historically received funds from the sale of various Blue Box items (e.g. plastic, aluminum, cardboard) to recycling processors. Over the years, these rebates have fluctuated based on prices paid by the endusers of the recycled waste streams, or in other words, based on “market conditions.” In 2018, market conditions changed significantly with the world’s largest end-user, China, banning or placing severely limiting acceptable contamination rates on many recycled waste streams. In recent months, other countries (e.g. Vietnam) have also placed bans on these

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 47

Page 71 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

materials. The result is that most, if not all Blue Box streams, are now strictly an expense, with no associated rebate. All four municipalities have seen the impact, with processors eliminating rebates and or increasing costs on waste streams such as cardboard and mixed plastics. An illustration of the changing market is presented in Figure 11. The fibre market (mixed paper, cardboard) in particular has seen a dramatic decrease in market price, while other streams, such as steel and aluminum cans have maintained or increased their market price. The municipalities should explore the possibility of source separating higher value streams such as aluminum, in order to generate additional revenue.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 48

Page 72 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Figure 11 - Historical Market Prices Paid for Blue Box Materials

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 49

Page 73 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

5.4 Cost of Diversion Programs Some municipal diversion programs generate revenues (through rebates per tonne), while others are strictly an expense. In addition, some waste streams are eligible for full or partial funding from industry stewardship organizations. Below is a summary of each. Table 23 - Cost Description for Diversion Programs Waste Stream

Details

Mixed Containers (Plastic, Aluminum) Mixed Fibres/Paper Cardboard/OCC

Total costs sometimes reduced by material rebate (fluctuates). Total net cost eligible for 50% funding through Stewardship Ontario.

Glass

All program costs are paid for by municipality. Total net cost eligible for 50% funding through Stewardship Ontario

Household Hazardous Waste

Collection & transportation costs are paid for by the municipality. Processing costs are partially paid for by producer organizations (i.e. Stewardship Ontario, Product Care)

Appliances, Scrap Metal

Total costs sometimes reduced by material rebate (fluctuates).

Electronics

All program costs are paid for by the producers through the Ontario Electronics Stewardship (OES)

Tires

Collection costs are paid for by the municipality. Transportation and Processing costs are potentially paid for the producer organization (Ontario Tire Stewardship)

Leaf & Yard Construction & Demolition Bulky Plastics Textiles Styrofoam Mattresses Re-Use Centre Organics

All program costs are paid for by municipality

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 50

Page 74 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

6.0 Summary of Waste Free Ontario Act The implementation of the WFOA continues, with four programs in particular being transitioned toward the extended producer responsibility model: used tires, waste electronics and electrical equipment, municipal hazardous & special waste, and Blue Box. An overview of each is described below.

6.1 Used Tires Program The Ontario Tire Stewardship wound up its operations in December 2018. A new tire regulation came into effect on January 1 2019. Under the new regulation, tire producers will be required to meet mandatory collection and management targets. Collection refers to collecting used tires at their end of life and management refers to reusing, retreading or processing used tires after they have been collected. A producer’s annual collection target is based on the producer’s tire supply and the tire management target is calculated based on what a producer actually collects in the year. The tire collection and management targets must be met according to the Tire Regulation. Producers have the option of setting up and managing their own collection and management systems to achieve their targets or engaging the services of a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to set up and manage the required collection and management systems. At the time of writing, six (6) PRO’s had been established in Ontario. A comparison summary between the two programs is provided below:

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 51

Page 75 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 24 - Comparison of Used Tire Programs ITEM

CURRENT

WFOA

Materials

New & Used Tires

Same

Funding

Producers paid fee/tire to OTS

Producers paid fee/tire to PROs

Responsibility

OTS

PROs

Collection

OTS registered Collector

RPRA Registered Collector

Management

OTS

PROs

P&E

OTS, Processors

PROs Municipalities

Obligations

None

Collect at WDS- charge/no charge – OTS pick up

Redirect to local collectors

Process

No registration required Sign up with PRO for pick-up

Costs

 Space for collecting tires  Labour time re paperwork

Ad/Sign on website/Collection site redirecting users to bring their tires elsewhere

 Service to residents  Revenue source

 Zero responsibility  Safety: Zero

Common Practice

Advantages

Also at the time of writing, all four municipalities were planning to continue to collect tires as a service to their residents and avoid improper disposal of tires (i.e. left on vacant properties).

6.2 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment The Ontario Electronic stewardship currently operates and oversees the collection and recycling of end-of-life electronics. In February 2018, the provincial government issued directions to wind up the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Program on June 30, 2020. This will enable the transition of electronic waste to individual producer responsibility under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act 2016. This new “outcomes based” producer responsibility regime holds responsible persons accountable for recovering resources and reducing waste associated with their products and packaging.

6.3 Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste In April 2018, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change issued direction to Stewardship Ontario to wind up the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste (MHSW) program on December 31, 2020. This wind up will allow the transition of materials collected under the

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 52

Page 76 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

program to individual producer responsibility under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act 2016. In December 2018, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks amended the timelines for the wind up of single-use batteries. The waste diversion program for single-use batteries will now cease operation on June 30, 2020, to allow for coordination with waste electrical and electronic equipment. Programs for other MHSW materials will continue to cease operation on December 31, 2020.

6.4 Blue Box On August 2017, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change issued directions to the Authority and Stewardship Ontario to work collaboratively with stewards, municipalities and affected stakeholders to develop a proposal for an amended Blue box Program plan and if approved, to submit the proposal by February 2018 for the Minister’s consideration. The amended Blue Box plan reflects those elements that stewards have been advocating for some time, such as: 

A transition from the current shared responsibility model to full Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is achieved in a thoughtful, orderly and step-wise manner that ensures no disruption to residential recycling services;



The transfer of operational control over recycling decision occurs as producers’ financial obligations increase;



A consistent recycling experience is provided for all Ontario residents by establishing a broad and uniform set of paper products and packaging to be collected across the province.

6.5 Organics In addition to the four programs above, the WFOA has also focused on addressing food waste (organics). In April 2018, the Ontario government released the Food and Organic Waste Framework. The framework aimed to reduce food waste, redistribute surplus food, compost organics and restore healthy soils. It also included government commitments related to

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 53

Page 77 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

organics, and policy statements that directed municipalities and private businesses to take action. For smaller municipalities, the direction was focused on a “best efforts” to reduce organics. At the time of writing, the current provincial government had not taken any further steps to implement an organics strategy.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 54

Page 78 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

7.0 Summary of Findings – Current Programs, Policies, Practices Given the review of the policies, programs, and practices of the four municipalities, along with the current state of the waste in Ontario (Section 1.1), a number of high level findings are noted below. 

A small rural municipal waste management program may be at a disadvantage when weathering the current uncertainty in the provincial waste sector. A collaborative, unified approach across the county and even beyond represents an opportunity to reduce operating costs through efficiencies, and strengthen their “bargaining” position for any pending changes.



The municipalities would benefit from having a clearer understanding of tonnages and full costs for each waste stream. Better and more accurate data tracking is needed. This is echoed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Stewardship Ontario (via the Continuous Improvement Fund) in anticipation of potential changes driven by the Waste Free Ontario Act.



A detailed review of the Datacall information revealed low confidence in the relevance of reporting due to questionable completeness of data and an inconsistent approach (e.g. the inclusion of North Frontenac’s wood waste tonnage in 2016 resulted in an artificially high diversion rate). Going forward, the Datacall program should be used as a vehicle to achieve maximum funding for the Blue Box program, but not necessarily as a performance reporting tool.



Collectively, the four municipalities have an estimated landfill life beyond that of the province.



If the province does not push forward on extended producer responsibility in the near future, it will likely remain “business as usual” for the next five to ten years. As such, the cost of the Blue Box or other diversion programs will continue to rise.



Increasing diversion while lowering waste management costs will not be possible over the medium to long term, and municipalities may have to choose one or the other.



The four municipalities are not receiving 50% recovery of their eligible Blue Box costs.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 55

Page 79 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

8.0 Review of Options & Opportunities 8.1 Competing Objectives One of the challenges encountered in the project was the “competing” nature existing between the three objectives (increase diversion, reduce net operating costs and reduce environmental impact) in that there are few options that assist in achieving all three at the same time. Increasing diversion (and extending landfill life) and/or reducing environmental impact generally results in higher net operating costs. A focus on reducing net operating costs will likely impede efforts to increase diversion and reduce environmental impact. In the short term (1-2 years), some movement forward on the three objectives may be achievable, particularly if the four municipalities work collectively. However, over medium and longer terms (3+ years), it may prove difficult to achieve the highest diversion rate, the lowest environmental impact, and the lowest net costs. Therefore, a decision will likely have to be made on which to pursue.

8.2 Options Review Process The options for achieving the WMR objectives have been derived from two categories: 1) sharable options currently in use by one or more of the Frontenac municipalities, and 2) new options currently not in use by any of the Frontenac municipalities (and which generally involve working collectively). The options review process involved two steps:

The options were reviewed according to their ability to achieve the objectives
With Step 1 in mind, the options were categorized by each municipality as short term, medium term, or long term. Following that the options were recommended as either short-term (Years 1 – 2) or medium / long-term (Years 3+).

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 56

Page 80 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

8.2.1 Options Review - Impact on Objectives The review of each option’s impact on the WMR objectives includes the following two components: 

A listing of all options considered along with a brief description (Section 0 & 0)



An analysis of each option in terms of its impact on each of the WMR objectives (Section 8.3)

The options are not listed in any particular order. Description of Sharable Options - Programs, Practices and Policies

Implement a County Wide Textile/Clothing Recovery Program A simple way to combat large quantities of textiles from entering landfills is to provide textile collection bins at Waste Disposal sites, community centers, municipal offices, local businesses, etc. Third party contractors could be used to collect, maintain and transport clothing to thrift stores such as The Salvation Army or Value Village (via Diabetes Canada). Frontenac Islands currently provides this program.
Implement a Returnable Liquor Bottles Program Diverting returnable bottles (i.e. liquor and beer bottles) can increase diversion and reduce operating costs. The income gained could be returned to the community as well, which could incentivize recycling. Currently, North Frontenac, Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands have such a program in place. Third party, non-profit organizations (e.g. service clubs) could be used to collect, maintain and transport returnable bottles in return for being able to inject the deposit monies into their organizations.
Implement Construction & Demolition (C & D) Waste Re-use Program A program that requires contractors or building owners to source separate aggregates, roof shingles, wood, drywall, metals, glass, plastics, carpeting and all other forms of construction waste could be implemented. Emphasis must be placed on source separating construction waste at the time of loading or unloading. In addition, adding a “deconstruction process” requirement to demolition permits could further reduce waste to landfill by encouraging reuse Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 57

Page 81 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

of construction materials where possible. Such a process would require the owner of the permit to leave the building ‘open’ for a specified time period to allow reusable materials to be salvaged prior to the demolition. 4. Add Re-Use Centres at Waste Disposal Sites Consider installing a re-use centre at all waste disposal sites (WDS) that allows residents to drop off gently used items and others to pick them up - all free of charge. This program has the potential to increase diversion and extend landfill life. Currently, South Frontenac offers this program and North Frontenac is preparing to launch this year at their 506 waste disposal site. 5. Reduce WDS Operating Hours for Winter Season Both North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands reduce their operating hours in the winter to reflect the lower seasonal population during that time of year. Both Central and South Frontenac may want to consider a similar approach given that they also have significant seasonal populations. This change would lower operating costs with minimal impact on diversion performance. 6. Implement A Clear Bag Policy With Inspection/Enforcement Clear bag policies for waste often assist in increasing diversion, even more so when combined with a clear bag inspection policy. With reference to Section 4.0 of this WMR, it is noted that Central Frontenac and North Frontenac have both clear bag and inspection policies, and also have the highest diversion rates of the four municipalities. South Frontenac and Frontenac Islands may want to consider implementing these types of policies. 7. Encourage Greater Use of Backyard Composting Backyard composting offers the potential to increase diversion, reduce environmental impact and lower net operating costs. Currently, North Frontenac, South Frontenac, and Frontenac Islands offer subsidized composters. Central Frontenac could benefit by adding the program, and all four municipalities could benefit from a stronger, county-wide promotion & education push to increase the use of backyard composters for residents and businesses.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 58

Page 82 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Implement ‘Bag for a Bag’ Program North Frontenac recently implemented a unique “bag tag” program which has the potential to increase diversion in each municipality. Residents of North Frontenac are required to purchase a bag tag ($2.00) for each bag of garbage they wish to dispose of. However, for every bag of recycling brought to a WDS, the resident receives one free bag tag for their garbage. If they bring in recycling, they would receive one free bag tag for any additional bags of recycling compared to the number of bags of waste. In municipalities without bag tag programs (Central and Frontenac Islands), it may be worthwhile to initiate one.
Utilize a Permit Policy for Access to WDSs Central and North Frontenac have implemented a permit policy, whereby residents and/or contractors must present a permit in order to use the WDS. This option can reduce waste by preventing residents from other municipalities from using their WDS.
Eliminate Waste Amnesty Days A popular, previous program involved waste amnesty days, where tipping fees at WDSs for various streams were temporarily waived, but current best practices have eliminated this offering. By doing so, municipalities can increase diversion and lower their net operating costs. Central Frontenac continues to offer this program, and should consider eliminating it. Description of New Options - Programs, Practices and Policies
Implement Mattress Recycling Events With this option, each municipality would carry out one annual mattress recycling event, utilizing one of several mattress recyclers that currently operate in the province. Mattresses could be dropped off at each WDS over a 2 day period (Sat/Sun) and stored in delivery trucks. Residents would be required to a pay mattress recycling fee that would be set to cover the costs of collection and transportation. All the mattresses collected from this event would be delivered to the recycler.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 59

Page 83 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Improve Consistency of Waste Disposal Site Experience Maintaining consistency throughout the sites (diversion programs, disposal process, staff training, etc.) allows residents to become better educated in diversion, thereby increasing diversion and reducing the need for hands-on assistance from site staff, which will reduce costs.
Implement Shared / Combined Transportation of Blue Box Items All municipalities would work together to transport and/or store their Blue Box streams. For example, as commingled recyclables in front end bins. These bins would then be serviced by a single truck that would carry out a “milkrun” across all WDSs across the County of Frontenac. Costs would be shared by all four municipalities, but would likely be lower than the current situation due to economies of scale.
Purchase or Contract out a County-wide Mobile Shredder The municipalities would collectively purchase or contract out a single mobile shredder that would shred all bulky waste. The shredder would be used across all four municipalities equally. Shredded waste would vastly reduce the volume of material being sent to landfill.
Improve Tracking of WDS User Behaviour North Frontenac’s extensive tracking system (tracking each vehicle and different waste streams; counting number of bags) has allowed them to measure more accurately the amount of waste users bring in to the depot. Once further reduction and recycling programs are set in place, this system will aid in measuring the overall success of a program. The other municipalities may want to consider this option.
Hire a Part-time County Wide Waste Management Coordinator It would be very difficult to work collectively without such a role. A Waste Coordinator would be responsible for coordinating and overseeing efficiency of waste management operations, reporting to RPRA, creating a “Made in Frontenac” playbook, tendering contracts, researching options, implementing shareable practices, etc.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 60

Page 84 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

The role would be funded jointly by the four municipalities, and could be a contract or permanent position. 17. Develop a Datacall “Playbook” with a Consistent and Simplified Approach to Quantifying Waste Most of the Datacall information is based on estimates, which vary between the municipalities. A standardized approach would be used by all four municipalities to estimate the weight of various materials. A similar format would be used for determining population and seasonal population. For example, counting the number of bags dropped off at each WDS could 1) assist in estimating the weight of materials sent to landfill and 2) measure success of various diversion programs. 18. Implement Fully Costed Tipping Fees for Waste Disposal Fully costed tipping is an emerging best practice for municipal waste operations.3 Often, tipping fees do not reflect the long term cost of ownership for landfill and transfer station operations, such as annual monitoring programs and future closure costs. Fully costed tipping fees tend to be higher, and can improve waste diversion and lower operating costs. The first step in implementing fully costed fees involves detailed analysis of the net costs of waste management operations and a survey surrounding municipalities and private transfer stations. 19. Implement Rotating Two-Season Waste Audits Waste audits provide insight into the success and opportunities for waste diversion programs. The municipalities should consider rotating 2-season waste audits for two municipalities per year. Alternatively, they could lobby Stewardship Ontario’s Continuous Improvement Fund to include Frontenac in its future annual audits.

Ecofiscal Commission Report, 2018

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 61

Page 85 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Implement a More Market-Based Approach to the Collection & Processing of Blue Box Streams Given the market uncertainty for Blue Box waste streams, the municipalities should consider working to cater their programs to market conditions and projections, and focus on getting high value streams to market, while possibly stockpiling, landfilling or shredding other streams as necessary.
Enforce Recycling Practices at IC&I Centres Across all Four Municipalities Collection may be carried out by a private hauler, but waste from the IC&I sector is brought to the same landfill. The municipalities should consider introducing a PAYT program for IC&I sectors with greater enforcement.
Lead by Example The municipalities should lead by example with their internal waste management activities and ensure that proper and consistent diversion program infrastructure is in place at all municipal properties (offices, arenas, community centres, etc.). If working collectively, they could complete group purchases of infrastructure (e.g. multi-stream bins) to achieve economies of scale.
Implement a Disposal Ban on Organics and Textiles A disposal ban could be implemented after backyard composters and textile depots are fully provided across all four municipalities. This is a long term solution and would depend on the provincial direction taken with the Waste Free Ontario Act.
Investigate Possibility of Developing a Centralized, Mini Materials Recovery Facility or a Regional Transfer Station Consider building a regional transfer station or mini material recovery facility that would be used to consolidate materials from all four municipal sites. The transfer station/material recovery facility could be maintained and operated by a third party agency or handled directly by the County. Material collected at the transfer station could be marketed by the agency or directly by the County. Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 62

Page 86 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Implement a County-Wide Promotion and Education Program. All of the Municipalities have promotion and education (P & E) programs in place to better inform its residents of appropriate waste disposal to increase diversion. Many of these practices can be adopted by those municipalities without such a program/practice in place.
Investigate the Possibility of a County-Wide Mobile Compactor for High Value Waste Streams Purchasing or contracting out a front end truck with compaction ability could enable the County to pick up high value waste streams such as aluminium or cardboard. The mobility of the equipment and the ability to have it taken directly to a processor provides an advantage.
Pursue Joint Tenders for Waste Related Contracted Services Consider creating joint tenders for waste related services to reduce costs. Benefits of the services would also be shared between all four municipalities.
Explore the Use of Norterra Or Debruin Farms to Support an Organics Diversion Program Norterra has two facilities in the Kingston area that have the capacity to support composting for up to 20,000MT. The company has advised that it would welcome organics collected by the County. Debruin Farms currently accepts a portion of Wolfe Island’s organics but has the capacity to accept more.
Investigate Possibility of Crushing Glass and Sending to Landfill Glass is costly to transport and to process. However, it does not biodegrade or create greenhouse gas emissions, and thus could be crushed and mixed with landfill cover material. This avoids transportation and processing costs from recycling.
Use the Capacity of Smaller Landfills First, Then Close Them By closing smaller landfills first, human resources could be shifted from one landfill to another. It would also spur increase in cost to dispose and improve diversion.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 63

Page 87 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Investigate the Benefits of All Municipalities Using the Same Processor Using the same processor could result in economies of scale and lower operating costs.
Develop a More Detailed Understanding of Net Costs for Each Diversion Program A detailed understanding of net costs can improve the search for inconsistencies with each program. Better solutions can be found if cost is brought into the equation.
Implement Front-end Bins Instead of Roll-off Bins Most waste disposal sites currently have Roll-off bins to collect recyclable materials. Implementing front-end bins can reduce costs by at least a third, if not more, of the total cost of transportation. It will also increase the serviceability of each site.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 64

Page 88 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

8.3 Options Analysis - Impact on Objectives Each option was reviewed for its impact on the three objectives and rated as positively impacting the objective (given a “+”), negatively impacting the objective (given a “-“), or no impact on the objective (given a “0”). The results of the analysis are shown in below. A brief overview of each objective is as follows: Increase Waste Diversion

Decreasing the amount and percentage of waste sent to landfill by reducing, reusing, recycling, repairing, etc.

Reduce Net Waste Management Costs

Decreasing the net operating costs of waste management programs. Could be increasing waste related revenue or reducing waste related costs. Does not include capital expenditures.

Reduce Environmental Impact

Reduces environmental impact in three ways: a) prevents hazardous waste from entering landfill b) reduces greenhouse gas emissions from landfill and c) reduces greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 65

Page 89 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Table 25 – Summary of Options – Impact on Objectives Option No.

IMPACT ON THE 3 OBJECTIVES OPTIONS

Increase

Reduce Net

Reduce

Waste

Operating

Environmental

Diversion /

Costs for

Impact

Extend Landfill SHAREABLE OPTIONSWaste Mgmt. Life

Implement County Wide 1

Implement Returnable Liquor

All collection costs at expense of processor.

Bottles Program Currently practicing: CF & FI

Implement C&D Waste Reuse Program 3

Textile/Clothing Recovery Program Currently practicing: FI.

Currently practicing: CF, NF & FI

Less glass to be processed.

Construction waste diverted from landfill. Resident/Contractor must source separate. Less C&D reduces transportation & processing costs.

Add Re-Use centres at waste

disposal sites These centres could include re-usable construction waste,

toys, books, souvenirs and re-usable furniture. Long term cost Currently practicing: CF & SF

savings from reduced disposal of C&D and bulky waste overshadow cost of building a re-use centre. Frequency of bulk waste pickups decrease and decrease in amount of

Reduce WDS operating hours 5

waste sent to landfill.

during winter season Currently practicing: NF & FI

Reducing operating hours at all waste disposal sites can reduce operation costs.

Implement clear bag policy +

inspection / enforcement

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 66

Page 90 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Option No.

IMPACT ON THE 3 OBJECTIVES OPTIONS

Increase

Reduce Net

Reduce

Waste

Operating

Environmental

Diversion /

Costs for

Impact

Extend Landfill Mgmt. organics, hazardous or Clear bags will indicateWaste if recyclables,

Currently practicing: CF & NF

electronic Lifematerial is in the garbage

Encourage greater use of

backyard composting Currently practising: All

Reduced presence of organics in landfill and extended landfill

municipalities have voluntary purchase program. Consider using FCM Funding to procure backyard composters for all residents

Implement ‘Bag for a Bag’ program

life. One time initial expenditure on backyard composter. Extended landfill life saves money long term. Reduced methane gas from landfill, replenished nutrients into soil.

Residents are required to purchase a bag tag to dispose of

one bag of waste. However if they bring in recycling, they will

Currently practising: NF

receive one free bag tag for any additional bags of recycling compared to number of bags of waste.

Utilize a permit policy for

access to WDSs

A waste site permit is required to gain access into all of the

Currently practising: CF & NF

waste sites. If a resident is unable to show a permit, access into the waste site will be denied.

Eliminate waste amnesty days

Residents are currently allowed to dispose of a single load of Currently practising: SF, NF & FI

household refuse at no charge (up to $40 limit). Eliminating this will reduce

NEW OPTIONS 11

Implement a rotating mattress recycling event

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 67

Page 91 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Option No.

IMPACT ON THE 3 OBJECTIVES OPTIONS

Increase

Reduce Net

Reduce

Waste

Operating

Environmental

Diversion /

Costs for

Impact

Mattresses have high volume. Recycling them Landfill would see increased diversion and reduced volume Extend Waste Mgmt. use at landfill

Life

Improve the consistency of the 12

waste disposal site experience Consistency at waste disposal sites will ensure increased familiarity of the program for residents. This will lead to an overall decrease in contamination rates

Implement shared/combined

transportation of blue box Group items purchase and/or sharing of truck. Cost reduction due to economies of scale. Transportation related GHG’s reduced due to less trips overall.

Collectively purchase or 14

contract out a mobile shredder

for use on bulky items Reduces volume of waste. Increases landfill life.

Improve tracking of WDS user

behaviour Tracking WDS user behaviour will allow the ability to increase awareness amongst residents about the recyclability of an item. This can increase landfill life.

Hire a part-time waste

management coordinator Higher focus on waste management activities & diversion activities. Potentially cost neutral or minimal cost as a result of savings from economies of scale.

Develop a Datacall “Playbook”

Developing such a playbook will not only allow all four municipalities create a standardized approach but it can also help focus on revenue maximization

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 68

Page 92 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Option No.

IMPACT ON THE 3 OBJECTIVES OPTIONS

Implement full cost of tipping 18

fees for waste disposal

Increase

Reduce Net

Reduce

Waste

Operating

Environmental

Diversion /

Costs for

Impact

Extend Landfill + Life

Waste Mgmt. +

(includes monitoring, expansion, etc.) operation costs, cost of monitoring, etc. Completely covers Implement rotating 2-season 19

waste audits - two

municipalities per year A waste audit is essential for maximizing the effectiveness of a program, measuring success and improving operations.

Implement a more market20

based approach to the

collection & processing of Blue Box

Current diverted streams may end up in landfill. Avoids cost of selling diverted items at a loss.

Enforce recycling practices at IC&I centres across all four 21

municipalities Waste from ICI also going to same landfill. Focus on ICI can reduce waste. Initial cost from P&E towards ICI, but possible source of revenue from establishing bag tag programs and capturing divertible.

Lead by example - township 22

owned facilities & spaces All four municipalities need to lead by example and source separate at their own facilities and spaces.

Consider a disposal ban on organics and textiles across all

four municipalities

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 69

Page 93 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Option No.

IMPACT ON THE 3 OBJECTIVES OPTIONS

Increase

Reduce Net

Reduce

Waste

Operating

Environmental

Diversion /

Costs for

Impact

Wastewill Mgmt. A disposal ban on organics and textiles Extend across allLandfill four municipalities ensure maximum diversion of Life these items, which can lead to increased landfill life and reduced environmental impact. Investigate possibility of developing a centralized, mini 24

materials recovery facility or a

regional transfer station to take advantage of market conditions Developing a centralized MRF or transfer station can greatly reduce operation costs that arise from haulage.

Implement county wide 25

promotion and education

program Would see higher diversion and participation.

Investigate the possibility of a shared mobile compactor for 26

high value waste streams (aluminium, cardboard) A shared mobile compactor for high value waste streams such as aluminium cans can increase revenue.

Pursue joint tenders for waste

related contracted services Pursuing joint tenders for waste related contracted services can reduce operational costs.

Explore the use of Norterra or Debruin Farms to support an

organics program

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 70

Page 94 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Option No.

IMPACT ON THE 3 OBJECTIVES OPTIONS

Increase

Reduce Net

Reduce

Waste

Operating

Environmental

Diversion /

Costs for

Impact

Extendorganics Landfillgenerated Waste Mgmt. Norterra Organics has the capacity to compost from all four municipalities. Life Debruin Farms can partially support such a program. Investigate possibility of crushing glass and sending it 29

to landfill Such a program will reduce operational costs arising from hauling glass. Glass can instead be used as cover.

Use capacity of smaller 30

landfills first then close them Cost of operations will reduce- less landfills to manage; possibility to convert into transfer station and focus on generating revenue from recyclables.

Investigate the benefits of using the same diversion 31

stream processors for all 4 municipalities Using the same processor could result in lower operating costs.

Develop a more detailed understanding of net costs for 32

each diversion program Can improve search for inconsistency with each program.

Implement front-end bins instead of roll-off bins

33 Implementing front-end bins can reduce costs by at least a third, if not more, of the total cost of transportation. It will also increase the serviceability of each site.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 71

Page 95 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

8.4 Options Rating as Short, Medium, or Long Term The second step of the options review involved rating the options as short, medium, or long-term. This step considered the impact of each option on the objectives, but also included subjectivity on the part of the consulting team and the Public Works Managers, based on experience, best practices, and the practicality of implementation. Specifically, if an option achieved all three objectives if wasn’t automatically ranked as a short-term option. For example, Option 23 (Implement a disposal ban on organics and textiles) supports all three objectives but is not feasible in the short-term due to the unavailability of sufficient diversion options for organics and textiles. Similarly, if an option achieved only one objective it was not automatically ranked as a long-term option. Option 27 (Pursue joint tenders for contracted waste services) supports only the “reduce costs” objective but still is feasible sense to pursue in the shortterm. The other consideration involved the desire of the four municipalities to work closer together, and the project team agreed that options which were unanimous were more practical to pursue in the short-term. Based upon feedback received from the municipalities, a number of the options were unanimously chosen for implementation in the short-term. The others were to be considered for implementation in the medium to long term. However, changes in market conditions or individual municipal situations may make it more practical to push off short-term options or expedite longer term options. A summary of prioritization of options by each municipality is shown in Appendix C.

8.5 Graphical Summary of Options Analysis Following the options analysis above, the results were summarized graphically in Figure 12. The figure allows for easy identification of which objectives are achieved by which options, and which options were recommended in the short-term (highlighted by their red font). The graphical summary reveals that, at minimum, all of the short-term options supported the ‘Reduce Costs’ objective. Only three short term options supported all three objectives.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 72

Page 96 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

The result of the analysis led to the creation of an approach that is unique to the region, and forms the “Made in Frontenac” path forward found in Section 9.0.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 73

Page 97 of 191

County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

SHAREABLE OPTIONS

Figure 12 Graphical Summary of Options Analysis

NEW OPTIONS

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Waste Management Review

Cambium Inc.

Page 74

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page 98 of 191

1 Implement county wide textile/clothing recovery program 2 Implement returnable liquor bottles program 3 Implement C&D waste reuse program 4 Add re-use centres at waste disposal sites 5 Reduce WDS operating hours during winter season 6 Implement clear bag policy + inspection / enforcement 7 Encourage greater use of backyard composting 8 Implement ‘Bag for a Bag’ program 9 Utilize a permit policy for access to WDS’s 10 Eliminate waste amnesty days 11 Implement mattress recycling event 12 Improve consistency of waste disposal site experience 13 Implement shared/combined transportation of blue box 14 Purchase or contract out a county-wide mobile shredder 15 Improve tracking of WDS site user behaviour 16 Hire a part-time waste management coordinator 17 Develop a datacall “Playbook” in a consistent and simplified 18 Implement full cost of tipping fees for waste disposal 19 Implement rotating 2-season waste audits 20 Implement a more market-based approach to the collection 21 Enforce recycling practices at IC&I centres across all four 22 Lead by example - corporate/city owned spaces. 23 Implement a disposal ban on organics and textiles 24 Investigate possibility of developing a centralized, mini 25 Implement county wide promotion and education program 26 Investigate the possibility of a county-wide mobile 27 Pursue joint tenders for waste related contacted services 28 Exploration of use of Norterra or Debruin farms to support 29 Investigate possibility of crushing glass and sending it to 30 Use up capacity of smaller landfills first then close them 31 Investigate the benefits of all municipalities using the same 32 Develop a more detailed understanding of net costs for each 33 Implement front-end bins instead of roll-off bins

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

9.0 Our ‘Made in Frontenac’ Path Forward This WMR was initiated by the County, through its 2014 “Wildly Important Goal” of working with its municipalities to develop a “Made in Frontenac” position and financial plan for solid waste management. There was desire expressed by the municipalities to take control of their own destiny, which included working more closely together on waste management. In addition, throughout the review the municipalities expressed an openness to trying new approaches to waste management. Given the current uncertainty of the state of waste in Ontario, this willingness to break away from the status quo can bode well. As expressed by one Public Works Manager during the WMR, “the current waste management procedures, specifically the Blue Box program, were developed during a different time with different conditions. It doesn’t mean that they make sense now”.

9.1 Guiding Strategies As noted in the WMR, it is nearly impossible to achieve all three objectives: the highest diversion rate, the lowest environmental impact, and the lowest net operating costs. In the short-term (1 – 2 years), some movement forward on the three objectives may be achievable, particularly if the four municipalities work together. However, over the medium to long term (3+ years), a decision will likely have to be made between the objectives, and this may be impacted by changes related to the Waste Free Ontario Act. Thus, the path forward begins with a more collective approach among the four Frontenac municipalities. This is also prudent to be better positioned to deal with future changes in the waste sector in Ontario. Our Made in Frontenac approach to waste management will be based on the following guiding strategies: 

Create as much consistency as possible/pragmatic in the policies, processes and practices of all four municipalities



Develop a collective approach, where possible/pragmatic, to waste collection, transportation, processing and promotion & education

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 75

Page 99 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11



Report collectively and annually to municipal Council & the communities



Develop a Frontenac approach to waste performance reporting including Datacall reporting



Continue to improve the understanding of the performance and costs of waste management programs



Remain fully engaged in evolving waste management legislation in Ontario



Explore opportunities to work with others beyond Frontenac County



Begin exploring opportunities to support the transition to a circular economy

9.2 Short Term Options – Years 1 – 2 The short term options will centre on developing the ability for the four municipalities to work more closely together and to implement the actions that will have the most impact on the three objectives: increase waste diversion/increase landfill life, reduce net operating costs and reduce environmental impact. Recommended Options 

Implement county wide textile/clothing recovery program



Implement returnable liquor bottles program



Encourage greater use of backyard composting



Improve tracking of WDS site user behaviour



Develop a Datacall “Playbook” to standardize the approach & focus on revenue maximization



Lead by example



Pursue joint tenders for waste related contracted services



Investigate the benefits of using the same diversion stream processors for all 4 municipalities



Develop a more detailed understanding of net costs for each diversion program

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 76

Page 100 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11



Implement a more market-based approach to the collection & processing of Blue Box.

9.3 Medium and Long Term Options – Years 3+ The medium term options will be partially dictated by how the state of the waste industry evolves over the next three years – in particular, individual producer responsibility and the Blue Box program. Over the medium to long term (3+ years), it may prove very difficult to achieve all three objectives as diversion program costs will continue to rise. In that case, a choice between the objectives or prioritization will have to be made. Recommended Options 

Hire part-time county wide waste management coordinator



Add Re-Use Centres at waste disposal sites



Reduce WDS operating hours during winter season



Implement clear bag policy and/or bag inspection/enforcement



Eliminate waste amnesty days



Investigate the possibility of a county-wide mobile compactor for high value waste streams(aluminium, cardboard)



Investigate possibility of crushing glass and sending it to landfill



Implement Front-end bins instead of Roll-off bins



Implement rotating 2-season waste audits – two municipalities per year to short term from medium term.



Implement shared/combined transportation Blue Box items



Improve the consistency of the WDS experience



Utilize a permit policy for access to WDSs



Implement C&D Waste Reuse Program



Implement fully costed tipping fees for waste disposal (includes cost of monitoring, expansion, etc.)

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 77

Page 101 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11



Investigate possibility of developing a centralized, mini materials recovery facility or a Regional Transfer Station to take advantage of market conditions



Explore the use of Norterra or Debruin Farms to support an organics program



Implement a strategy of using up capacity of smaller landfills first, then closing them



Implement ‘Bag for a Bag’ program



Implement a rotating mattress recycling event



Collectively purchase or contract out a mobile shredder for use on bulky items



Enforce recycling practices at IC&I centres across all four municipalities



Implement County Wide Promotion and Education program

9.4 Sample Annual Report One of the guiding strategies calls for annual collective reporting on waste management. A sample annual report can be found in Appendix D

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 78

Page 102 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

10.0 Conclusion The County of Frontenac’s waste management review looked at the current policies, programs, practices and costs of all four municipalities. It identified options for a more efficient and effective approach in managing waste. These options place emphasis on improving the performance of existing waste diversion programs and include future initiatives that will further increase their diversion efforts. The objectives of reducing costs, increasing diversion and reducing environmental impact were used to analyse these initiatives. This analysis, which included significant input from the municipalities, produced a series of short-term recommendations and longer term options. Overall, greater collaboration amongst the municipalities was the consistent message, particularly in light of the current state of waste in Ontario. The result was a ‘Made in Frontenac’ path forward on waste management, which includes all four municipalities working more closely together.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 79

Page 103 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Glossary of Terms Bag Tag

A clearly identifiable sticker approved for sale by resolution of the Council of the Municipality and used to indicate that a fee has been paid for the disposal of the tagged waste.

Best Practices

Waste system practices concerning diversion programs that result in the attainment of provincial and municipal material diversion goals in the most costeffective way possible.

Blue Box

A plastic container, often blue in colour, for conveying acceptable recyclable materials. Also refers to a municipal curbside or transfer station recycling program.

Capture Rate

The amount of materials diverted from the waste stream for recycling expressed as a percentage of the total quantity generated of those materials.

Co-mingled

Recycling programs where a number of different materials are mixed together, not collected separately.

Composting

The controlled microbial decomposition of organic matter, such as food and yard wastes, in the presence of oxygen, into humus, a soil-like material. Compost can be used in vegetable and flower gardens, hedges, etc.

Construction &

Solid waste produced in the course of residential, commercial, industrial, or

Demolition Waste

institutional building construction, demolition or renovation (e.g. lumber,

(C & D)

concrete, brick, plaster, glass, stone, drywall, wire, paint, etc.).

Continuous

Provides grants and loans to municipalities to execute projects that will increase

Improvement Fund

the efficiency of municipal Blue Box recycling and help boost system

(CIF)

effectiveness.

Disposal

Final placement or destruction of wastes. Disposal is typically accomplished through the use of approved sanitary landfills or incineration with or without energy recovery.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 80

Page 104 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Diversion

The process of reducing, recycling, or reusing materials with the purpose of keeping waste out of landfills.

Diversion Rate

The percentage of waste diverted from landfill through means of diversion programs (Blue Box, composting, etc.). The diversion rate is determined by dividing the total quantity of waste diverted by the total amount diverted and disposed. Also known as the waste diversion rate.

Environmental

A license or permit issued by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and

Compliance of

Parks for the operation of a waste management site/ facility or system.

Approval (ECA) Extended Producer

A policy to shift the responsibility of a product’s life cycle away from the

Responsibility

municipality to the producers and to provide incentives for producers to consider

(EPR)

the environmental impacts in the selection of materials and the design of their product(s).

Federation of

A national organization that represents the interests of municipalities in Canada.

Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal

A funding program established by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to

Fund (GMF)

support municipal sustainability initiatives, including waste management projects and studies.

Hazardous Waste

Any residual hazardous materials which by their nature are potentially hazardous to human health and/or the environment, as well as any materials, wastes or objects assimilated to a hazardous material. Hazardous waste is defined by Ontario Regulation 347 and may be explosive, gaseous, flammable, toxic, radioactive, corrosive, combustive or leachable.

Landfill

An approved, engineered site/facility used for the long-term or permanent disposal of waste.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 81

Page 105 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Municipal

Includes the following materials that are considered hazardous waste materials

Hazardous or

generated from the municipal sector (paints, solvents, adhesives, pesticides,

Special Waste

acids/bases, aerosols, fuels and batteries). Also sometimes referred to as

(MHSW)

Household Hazardous Waste.

MOLOK™

A patented type of container used to hold source separated organics.

Ontario Electronic

The Industry Funding Organization (IFO) for Waste Electrical and Electronic

Stewardship (OES)

Equipment. Companies that are designated as stewards for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment can discharge their legal obligations under the Waste Diversion Act by registering, reporting and paying fees to OES.

Ontario Tire

The Industry Funding Organization established to develop a diversion program

Stewardship (OTS)

for used tires. Companies that are designated as stewards for used tires can discharge their legal obligations under the Waste Diversion Act by registering, reporting and paying fees to OTS.

Organic Waste

Waste of animal or plant origin, typically food, yard waste, and paper. It is what feeds a compost site.

Pay As You Throw

A program in which every individual bag or container of waste to be disposed of

/ User Pay

is paid for directly by the resident, commonly by the purchase of bag tags.

Plastics #1

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE or PET): typically used to make soda/water bottles, mouthwash/peanut butter containers, etc. This plastic can be safe, but is known to allow bacteria to accumulate.

Plastics #2

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE): typically opaque plastic that is used to make milk jugs, juice bottles, shampoo bottles, etc. One of the 3 plastics considered to be safe.

Plastics #3

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC): typically used to make food wrap, plumbing pipes, detergent bottles, etc. It is linked to several health issues and contains the carcinogen, DEHA.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 82

Page 106 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Plastics #4

Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE): typically found in squeezable bottles, shopping bags, clothing, carpet, bread bags, etc.

One of the 3 plastics

considered to be safe. Plastics #5

Polypropylene (PP): typically found in yogurt containers, ketchup bottles, medicine bottles, etc. Considered one of the safer plastics.

Plastics #6

Polystyrene (PS): Styrofoam; found in egg cartons, meat trays, and disposable plates/cups.

This plastic poses a health risk, leaching potentially toxic

chemicals, especially when heated. Plastics #7

Other/miscellaneous plastic; typically found in sunglasses, iPod and computer cases, hard plastic toys, etc. Includes polycarbonate, which contains the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), linked to several health issues.

Promotion &

Materials prepared and distributed by a municipality to help promote the proper

Education

participation in waste management and waste diversion programs.

Materials (P&E) Recyclables

Any material destined for recycling, often through the Blue Box program. Includes materials such as: glass, metal food and beverage cans, aluminum foil, rigid shell plastic, containers, newspaper, cardboard, fine paper, boxboard.

RPRA

The Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority.

The regulatory authority

supporting the new Waste Free Ontario Act. Source Separated

This includes residential organic waste such as food waste and non-recyclable

Organics (SSO)

paper that is segregated for composting or other organic waste processing. Some municipalities have widened the definition of SSO to include diapers, sanitary products and pet waste.

Stewardship

The Industry Funding Organization (IFO) that operates the Blue Box (recycling)

Ontario

and Orange Drop (municipal hazardous & special wastes) programs.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 83

Page 107 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Transfer Station

A depot-style location where residents of a Municipality may come to dispose of their wastes; residents generally separate wastes into designated areas. Accumulated wastes are transferred to a disposal site or diversion facility.

Waste

A general term that describes all waste generated including “garbage,” recyclables, organic waste, leaf and yard waste, MHSW, and WEEE.

Waste Audit

Exercise of determining the quantity and composition of waste which is disposed.

Waste Diversion

A non-crown corporation created under the Waste Diversion Act (WDA) on June

Ontario (WDO)

27, 2002. WDO was established to develop, implement and operate waste diversion programs for a wide range of materials (Blue Box Waste, Used Tires, Used Oil Material, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste) under the WDA.

Waste Electrical

Any broken or unwanted electrical or electronic appliances including computers,

and Electronics

phones and other items that have reached the end of their usable life.

Equipment (WEEE) Waste

A plan designed to help an organization, such as municipality, achieve goals and

Management Plan

best practices in the area of waste management.

(WMP) Waste Stream

The waste output of a community, region, or facility. Total waste can be categorized into different waste stream components (e.g., organic waste, construction waste, household hazardous waste, or white goods).

White Goods

Refers to larger home appliances (e.g. refrigerators, washing machines, etc.) that are often finished in white enamel. It is becoming more common for these items to have different finishes, however the name still refers to these types of appliances.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 84

Page 108 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Appendix A Operating Hours of Waste Disposal Sites

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 109 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

10.1.1 Municipality of Central Frontenac Table 26 - CF Operating Hours Winter/Summer

Oso

Olden

Hinchinbrooke

MONDAY

8 AM - 12 PM

CLOSED

1 PM - 5 PM

TUESDAY

1 PM - 5 PM

CLOSED

8 AM - 12 PM

WEDNESDAY

CLOSED

8 AM - 5 PM

CLOSED

THURSDAY

CLOSED

8 AM - 5 PM

CLOSED

FRIDAY

8 AM - 12 PM

8 AM - 5 PM

1 PM - 5 PM

SATURDAY

8 AM - 12 PM

8 AM - 5 PM

1 PM - 5 PM

8 AM - 5 PM

8 AM - 12 PM

20 hours

40 hours

20 hours

SUNDAY SITE TOTAL

Notes: All sites are closed between 12 – 1 PM.

10.1.2 Municipality of Frontenac Islands Table 27 - FI Operating Hours Winter/Summer

Wolfe Island

Howe Island

MONDAY

9 AM - 5 PM

CLOSED

TUESDAY

CLOSED

6 PM - 8 PM

WEDNESDAY

9 AM - 5 PM

CLOSED

THURSDAY

CLOSED

6 PM - 8 PM

FRIDAY

CLOSED

SATURDAY

9 AM – 5 PM

8:30 AM – 12 PM

SUNDAY

9 AM – 5 PM

CLOSED

22.5/30 hours

5.5/7.5 hours

SITE TOTAL Notes:

All sites are closed between 12 – 12:30 PM. 1

Summer operating hours: June – September (Wolfe Island) or May – September (Howe Island).

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 110 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

10.1.3 Municipality of North Frontenac Table 28 - NF Winter Operating Hours Winter

506

Kashwakamak

Mississippi

Plevna

Ompah

Cloyne

MONDAY

9 AM - 1 PM

CLOSED

TUESDAY

CLOSED

10 AM - 2 PM

CLOSED

WEDNESDAY

CLOSED

10 AM - 4 1 PM

CLOSED

1 PM - 4 PM

THURSDAY

9 AM - 1 PM 1 PM - 4 PM 9 AM - 1 PM

CLOSED

Closed

CLOSED

10 AM - 4 1 PM

CLOSED

9 AM - 12 PM

CLOSED

10 AM - 2 PM

CLOSED

12 PM - 4 PM

CLOSED

12 PM - 4 PM

9 AM - 4 PM

15 hours

4 hours

8 hours

4 hours

12.5 hours

Plevna

Ompah

Cloyne

FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY SITE TOTAL

10 AM - 4 1 PM 16.5 hours

Notes: New operating hours effective March 2017. Winter hours: October – May. 1

Select sites are closed between 1 – 1:30 PM.

Table 29 - NF Summer Operating Hours Summer

Kashwakamak

506

Mississippi

MONDAY

9 AM - 2 PM

CLOSED

9 AM - 4:30 1 PM

TUESDAY

9 AM - 2 PM

CLOSED

10 AM - 2 PM

CLOSED

WEDNESDAY

9 AM - 6 PM

CLOSED

8:30 AM – 1 4:30 PM

10 AM - 2 PM

9 AM - 1 PM

THURSDAY

CLOSED

12 PM - 5 PM

CLOSED

9 AM - 2 PM

CLOSED

Closed

FRIDAY

1 PM - 5 PM

CLOSED

9 AM - 5 PM

12 PM - 4 PM

9 AM - 1 PM

SATURDAY

12 PM - 5 PM 10 AM - 3 PM 32.5 hours

9 AM - 1 PM

10 AM - 4 1 PM

CLOSED

9 AM - 2 PM

CLOSED

9 AM - 5 PM

1 PM - 5 PM

9.5 hours

27.5 hours

12 hours

SUNDAY SITE TOTAL

10 AM - 4 PM 14.5 hours

9 AM - 4:30 1 PM 27 hours

Notes: New operating hours effective March 2017. Summer hours: May – September. 1

Select sites are closed between 1 – 1:30 PM.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 111 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

10.1.4 Municipality of South Frontenac Table 30 - SF Operating Hours Winter/Summer

Portland

Loughborough

Bradshaw

Salem

Green Bay

MONDAY

CLOSED

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

CLOSED

TUESDAY

CLOSED

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

CLOSED

WEDNESDAY

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

CLOSED

THURSDAY

CLOSED

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

CLOSED

FRIDAY

CLOSED

8:30 AM – 1 4:30 PM

SATURDAY

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM

CLOSED

SUNDAY

CLOSED

16 hours

8 hours

SITE TOTAL

12:30 PM – 2 4:30 PM 8 hours

Notes: 1

Winter operating hours shown. Summer operating hours: June – October; 8:30 AM – 12:30 PM.

Summer operating hours: June – October.

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 112 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Appendix B Datacall Diversion Calculations

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 113 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Datacall Diversion Rate Calculation This section summarizes the methods that Datacall uses to calculate diverted tonnage, disposed tonnage, and the diversion rate. Note that the values of each waste stream are largely dependent on the type of information the municipality entered into Datacall; therefore, most explanations are high level. Calculation of Diverted Tonnage Datacall calculates diverted tonnage using the following formula: Diverted Tonnage = D. 1 + D. 2 + D. 3 + D. 4 + D. 5 + D. 6 Where: 

D.1 = Residential Component Deposit, Return and Stewardship Program



D.2 = Residential Reuse



D.3 = Residential On-Property Management



D.4 = Residential Recyclables Diverted



D.5 = Residential Organics Diverted



D.6 = MHSW Treatment/Refuse/Recycling

D.1 Residential Component Deposit-Return and Stewardship Program 

Refers to activities where certain components of the residential waste stream are managed through programs that are independent or parallel to the municipal waste management system. i (i.e. The Beer Store deposit return program)



Tonnage is his is input by the municipality.

D.2 Residential Reuse

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 114 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11



Refers to tonnages collected through municipally sponsored or supported activities such as bins in drop off areas or during special collection days to allow people to drop off used items, or municipal reuse centers such as the Halton Reuse Centre



Tonnage is estimated by municipality and input into Datacall. If no municipally sponsored program exists, the value is zero.

D.3 Residential On-Property Management 

Refers to the combination 6 factors: o backyard composting - tonnage estimated by multiplying number of composters x an average composter diversion rate of 100kg/unit/year. The resulting tonnage is considered diverted. o grasscycling – grass clippings as a percentage of leaf & yard waste stream. Tonnage is estimated based on municipal policies on grass clippings. The resulting tonnage is considered diverted. o garburators – tonnage estimated by multiplying number of garburators x 72 kg/units/year. Tonnage could be considered diverted or disposed depending on end use. o evapotranspiration – refers to the weight reduction that occurs when transporting organics from the house and the curb. It is only applicable where municipalities use aerated carts for source separation organics collection. This would be estimated by the Municipality. The resulting tonnage is considered diverted. o in-home burning – tonnage burned in fireplace. This tonnage is considered disposed (garbage) o onsite (open) burning – tonnage burned in barrel or fire pit. This tonnage is considered disposal (garbage)



Tonnage is estimated by municipality and input into Datacall

D.4 Residential Recyclables Diverted

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 115 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11



Refers to a combination of factors: o Residential Recyclables Marketed (Blue Box, Bulky Goods, Scrap Metal, WEEE, Other), o Residential Waste Incineration & EFW, Bottom Ash Recycled; GAP C.6, o Residential Waste Incineration & EFW, and o Residential Tonnes, Used Tires Program.



All are input by the Municipality.

D.5 Residential Organics Diverted 

Refers to the combination of yard and kitchen waste, and is calculated by deducting Residue from Processed. This is input by the Municipality.

D.6 MHSW Treatment/Refuse/Recycling 

Refers to MHSW that is reused and/or recycled. If MHSW is recycled/reuse then is considered diverted. Otherwise it is considered disposed. Tonnage is input by the municipality based on documentation.

Note on Marketed Tonnage The diverted tonnage used to calculate the diversion rate is the marketed tonnes, as opposed to collected tonnes. The collected tonnage is described as the entirety of the material collected, and the marketed tonnage is described as the total material collected minus residue/non-recyclables. Therefore, the collected tonnage will always be greater than the marketed tonnage. According to the RPRA, many municipalities do not know their marketed tonnage. As a result, RPRA calculates marketed tonnes using a Municipal Funding Allocation Model. Calculation of Disposed Tonnage At a high level, Datacall calculates disposed tonnage using the following formula: Disposed Tonnage = D. 7 + D. 8 + D. 9

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 116 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Where: 

D.7 = Residential Energy from Waste (EFW) Mass Reduction



D.8 = Hazardous Waste Disposal



D.9 = Landfill of Residential Waste

D.7 Residential Energy from Waste (EFW) Mass Reduction Residential Energy from Waste (EFW) Mass Reduction comes from Garbage, Residential Garbage Disposed, total of column Tonnes Disposed at EFW Facilities or at Other Facilities as Fuel less total of GAP Questions p) if disposed or recycled, q), r) and s). D.8 Hazardous Waste Disposal 

Refers to materials such as paint, pesticides, used oil, etc.



Tonnage is input by municipality based on documentation. If documentation shows tonnage reused and recycled, then HSW is diverted. Otherwise HSW should be considered disposed.

D.9 Landfill of Residential Waste 

Refers to a combination of garbage including: 

Landfilled waste quantities



EFW related waste (ash, residue)



Processing Residues from diversion program (Blue Box, WEEE, textiles, bulky goods, scrap metal, drywall, wood, C & D)



Tonnage is input by municipalities based on documentation and estimates.

Calculation of Diversion Rate 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 117 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Appendix C Prioritization of Options

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 118 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

NEW OPTIONS

SHAREABLE OPTIONS

MUNICIPALITY D

Short Term 1-2 Years Medium Term 3-5 Years Long Term 5+ Years

MUNICIPALITY C

MUNICIPALITY B

Options

MUNICIPALITY A

Legend

1 Implement county wide textile/clothing recovery program Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 2 Implement returnable liquor bottles program Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 3 Implement C&D waste reuse program Medium Term Medium Term Medium Term Medium Term 4 Add re-use centres at waste disposal sites Short Term Long Term Long Term Long Term 5 Reduce WDS operating hours during winter season Short Term Short Term Short Term Long Term 6 Implement clear bag policy + inspection / enforcement Short Term Long Term Short Term Short Term 7 Encourage greater use of backyard composting Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 8 Implement ‘Bag for a Bag’ program Short Term Long Term Medium Term Long Term 9 Utilize a permit policy for access to WDS’s Short Term Long Term Medium Term Long Term 10 Eliminate waste amnesty days Short Term Long Term Short Term Short Term 11 Implement mattress recycling event Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term 12 Improve consistency of waste disposal site experience Medium Term Medium Term Medium Term Short Term 13 Implement shared/combined transportation of blue box Medium Term Medium Term Short Term Long Term 14 Purchase or contract out a county-wide mobile shredder Medium Term Long Term Long Term Medium Term 15 Improve tracking of WDS site user behaviour Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 16 Hire a part-time waste management coordinator Medium Term Medium Term Short Term Medium Term 17 Develop a datacall “Playbook” in a consistent and simplified Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 18 Implement full cost of tipping fees for waste disposal Medium Term Long Term Medium Term Medium Term 19 Implement rotating 2-season waste audits Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term 20 Implement a more market-based approach to the collection Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 21 Enforce recycling practices at IC&I centres across all four Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term 22 Lead by example - corporate/city owned spaces. Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 23 Implement a disposal ban on organics and textiles Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term 24 Investigate possibility of developing a centralized, mini Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term 25 Implement county wide promotion and education program Medium Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 26 Investigate the possibility of a county-wide mobile Medium Term Long Term Medium Term Long Term 27 Pursue joint tenders for waste related contacted services Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 28 Exploration of use of Norterra or Debruin farms to support Medium Term Long Term Medium Term Short Term 29 Investigate possibility of crushing glass and sending it to Short Term Long Term Medium Term Medium Term Long Term Short Term Short Term Long Term 30 Use up capacity of smaller landfills first then close them 31 Investigate the benefits of all municipalities using the same Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 32 Develop a more detailed understanding of net costs for each Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term 33 Implement front-end bins instead of roll-off bins Long Term Medium Term Medium Term Long Term

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 119 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Waste Management Review County of Frontenac Ref. No.: 6164-001 2019-04-11

Appendix D Sample Annual Report

Cambium Inc.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 120 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac - Solid Waste Services 2017 Annual Report (Sample)

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 2017 ANNUAL REPORT

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 121 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac - Solid Waste Services 2017 Annual Report (Sample)

1.0 State of Waste in Ontario – Review & Preview The Waste Free Ontario Act, enacted in 2016, represents an opportunity to move the province towards the circular economy (where waste is essentially eliminated) and shift the responsibility for waste from municipalities to the producers (see section 1.4 for further discussion). However, the recent change in provincial government has resulted in uncertainty in the province’s commitment to fully implement the act. The market for recycled waste streams, mainly Blue Box items, has become unstable following the implementation of China’s National Sword program in January 2018. The program has either banned various streams entirely, or reduced the acceptable contamination rate to such a level, that it is not achievable by most municipalities. Other markets for these materials (e.g. Vietnam, Malaysia) are following suit which is severely limiting places where these items can be sent. The result has been stories of diversion cost increases, stockpiling various streams, and sending others straight to landfill. The cost of municipal diversion programs continues to rise. For years, the amount of heavy materials (like newspapers, magazines and glass jars) in the Blue Box has been plunging, while the amount of light, thin and complex plastics has dramatically risen. Manufacturers often prefer lighter products and packaging, which can save them money, consume fewer raw materials and require less energy to transport. But these lighter, thinner, more complex plastics and other packaging materials also increase recycling costs. The overall landfill life remaining in Ontario is approximately 14 years, which is quite short given the requirements and time necessary to open new landfills. (OWMA 2017) While the current Blue Box funding structure remains in place, disagreement will likely continue between the municipalities and the producers on the calculation for 50% coverage of the program’s cost. Status quo is likely to continue. New products and materials continue to enter the market quicker than the waste industry is able to develop ways to deal with these new materials. In the interim they are disposed of via landfill or incineration. The trend of “the evolving tonne” continues, whereby lighter plastic and combination packaging are replacing heavier cardboard, glass, and fibre materials. The result is a higher cost per tonne. Food waste is becoming very high profile, both from a social point of view and a greenhouse gas emissions point of view (food waste in the landfill generates GHG emissions). A growing effort is being made to reduce food waste for both reasons stated. In addition, the federal government’s mandate to reduce GHG emissions has the potential impact the food waste issue, and possible waste related transportation.

2.0 Financial Review Our financial review looked at the total costs for each municipality’s waste management program over the past year. In addition, we reviewed the specific costs associated with each municipality’s Blue Box program.

2.1

Net Cost of Waste Management

Figure 1 provides a summary of the 2017 net waste management operating costs, as well as the net cost per capita. The values do not include capital items.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 122 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac - Solid Waste Services 2017 Annual Report (Sample) Figure 1 - 2017 Net Waste Management Costs Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

County Total

2017

Total Expenses*

$324,285

$232,589

$502,089

$2,014,147

$3,073,110

Total Revenues*

$178,187

$89,361

$137,611

$369,018

$774,177

Net Cost*

$146,097

$143,228

$364,478

$1,645,129

$2,298,933

Population**

4,708

1,860

2,973

19,924

29,465

Net Cost per Capita

$31

$77

$123

$83

$78

The table indicates a wide variation in the net operating costs and the costs per capita. Central Frontenac operates at a significantly lower cost per capita, while North Frontenac is significantly higher. One key difference of note between those two municipalities is that Central Frontenac operates three (3) waste disposal sites, while North Frontenac operates six, likely resulting in higher operating costs (e.g. wages). South Frontenac’s higher expenses are driven by its curbside pick-up service and much larger population. Given their much smaller population, Frontenac Island’s expenses are relatively high; however, their island locations result in added cost for transportation (time and ferry crossings).

2.2

Cost Per Tonne - Blue Box Program

As shown in Figure 2, the net costs per tonne for all four municipalities are significantly higher than their category average. Central Frontenac, North Frontenac and Frontenac Islands are part of the “Rural Depot – South” category, while South Frontenac is part of the “Rural Collection – South” category. The 2017 category averages were not yet available at the time of the report. Figure 2 - Blue Box Cost per Tonne

2016 & 2017 - Blue Box Cost per Tonne $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $Central Frontenac North Rural South Rural Frontenac Islands Frontenac Depot - Frontenac Collection South

South 2016

2017

Source: Datacall Reports

2.3

Revenues from Blue Box program (Stewardship Ontario)

Figure 3 provides a summary of the 2016 Blue Box funding for each municipality, along with percentage of net Blue Box costs funded.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 123 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac - Solid Waste Services 2017 Annual Report (Sample)

Figure 3 - 2016 Blue Box Revenue Allocation Component

Municipality Central Frontenac

Frontenac Islands

North Frontenac

South Frontenac

County Total

Net Cost (50% Maximum)

$ 42,703

$ 16,972

$ 41,113

$ 129,776

$230,564

Recovered Tonnage (35% Maximum)

$ 12,945

$ 6,184

$ 7,793

$ 45,532

$72,454

Best Practices (15% Maximum)

$ 10,020

$ 2,238

$ 12,701

$ 32,161

$57,120

Total Blue Box Funding

$ 65,668

$25,394

$ 61,607

$ 207,469

$360,138

Total Net Blue Box Costs

$178,434

$70,918

$184,342

$609,832

$1,043,526

37%

36%

33%

34%

35%

% of Net Blue Box Cost Recovered

It should be noted that each year’s funding is based on results from 2 years prior – so the 2018 funding reimbursement is based upon the costs and performance from the 2016 Blue Box program. Funds are paid out by Stewardship Ontario in equal quarterly installments. Revenue opportunities noted from the analysis include: 

Increasing best practice scores. In 2016 North Frontenac scored 83% while Central Frontenac, Frontenac Islands, and South Frontenac scored 59%, 24%, and 63% respectively.



Increasing recovered tonnage from diversion programs.

2.4

Revenue from the Sale of Diverted Materials

In addition to revenue from Stewardship Ontario, municipalities have historically received funds from the sale of various Blue Box items (e.g. plastic, aluminum, cardboard) to recycling processors. Over the years, these rebates have fluctuated based on prices being paid by the end-users of the recycled waste streams, or in other words based on “market conditions.” In 2018 market conditions changed significantly with the world’s largest end-user, China, banning or placing severely limiting acceptable contamination rates on many recycled waste streams. In recent months, other countries (e.g. Vietnam) have also placed bans on these materials. The result is that most, if not all Blue Box streams, are now strictly an expense, with no associated rebate. All four municipalities have seen the impact, with processors eliminating rebates and or increasing costs on waste streams such as cardboard and mixed plastics. The fibre market (mixed paper, cardboard) in particular has seen a dramatic decrease in market price, while other streams, such as steel and aluminum cans have maintained or increased their market price. The municipalities should explore the possibility of source separating higher value streams such as aluminum, in order to generate additional revenue.

3.0 Waste Performance Review The waste performance review looked at how the various waste management programs have performed in recent years, and compares the findings across the four (4) municipalities.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 124 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac - Solid Waste Services 2017 Annual Report (Sample) The main source for the waste performance review was the provincial Datacall information. In addition, supplemental information was gathered directly from each municipality and their various third party contractors.

3.1

Total Waste Generated & Diverted

One aspect of the waste performance assessment was the total waste generated by each municipality. The total waste generated consists of the waste sent to landfill plus the waste diverted from landfill. The 2013 2016 totals for each municipality are shown in Table 1.5. Diverted waste includes any waste that is not placed in a landfill while landfilled waste is classified as all waste that cannot be diverted somewhere else. Examples of diverted materials may include: burning clean wood, sending blue box material to a recycling facility, donating bottles through LCBO/Beer Store programs, and donating clothing. Landfill waste can consist of garbage bags, treated wood, construction material, and mattresses. Figure 4 - Total Waste Generated 2017 Waste Performance

Central Frontenac

Landfilled Waste

Diverted Waste

Total* Waste

1,536

Frontenac Islands

726

North Frontenac

1,312

2,758

2,113

South Frontenac

8,397

6,340

5,391

County Total

11,971

9,098**

7,504**

Diversion Rate

*Source: 2017 Datacall entry sheets (not final report) ** Total waste for Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands is not available due to the short-form Datacall being used. Source: Datacall Reports: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

In addition, the total waste generated shows an increasing trend over the 2013-2015 period, however, data is not available for Central Frontenac and Frontenac Islands in 2016, due to their switch to Datacall’s Short Form report. A more detailed breakdown for each municipality is shown below.

3.2

Blue Box Tonnages

Looking at the combined Blue Box tonnage by year and material (Error! Reference source not found.) between 2014 and 2016, two important trends are noted: 

a decrease in the total tonnage collected over the past 3 years, and



a shift in materials collected – paper and metal are dropping, while plastic is increasing.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 125 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

County of Frontenac - Solid Waste Services 2017 Annual Report (Sample) Figure 5 - Breakdown of Blue Box Tonnage

Blue Box Tonnage - By Year and Material 2,000

Tonnes

1,500 1,000 500 2014

2015

2016

Year Total Paper

Total Plastic

Total Metal

Total Glass

Source: Datacall 2014 - 2016

Both trends are in line with what is happening across the province and beyond, where there has been a shift away from the traditional packaging materials of metal, paper and glass and towards lightweight plastics and laminates. This is referred to as the “evolving tonne”, and the result is lighter blue box loads that are more expensive to sort and transport.

4.0 Challenges & Opportunities One of the challenges encountered in the project was the “competing” nature existing between the three objectives (increase diversion, reduce net operating costs, and reduce environmental impact) in that there are few options that assist in achieving all three. Increasing diversion (and extending landfill life) generally results in higher operating costs. Reducing environmental impact also generally results in higher operating costs. And thus, a focus on reducing net operating costs will likely impede efforts to increase diversion and reduce environmental impact. In short, it’s nearly impossible to have the highest diversion rate, the lowest environmental impact, and the lowest net costs. So over the medium to long term (5+ years), a decision will have to be made on which to pursue. In the short-term (1 – 5 years) some movement forward on the three objectives may be achievable, particularly if the four municipalities work collectively. The options for achieving the WMR objectives have been derived from two categories: 1) sharable options currently being used by one or more municipalities, and 2) new options currently not being used by any of the Frontenac municipalities.

2019-045 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Frontenac Waste Mana…

Page 126 of 191

April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Regional Roads Network Comparison

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 127 of 191

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Purpose – To respond to Motion #136-18 July 2018

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 128 of 191

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Background • The City of Kingston/County of Frontenac Restructuring Order (February 1997 – Article 6.2) states that Frontenac “… is not deemed to be a county for road purposes and shall not own, maintain, repair or construct road” Link R.O.

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 129 of 191

• Builds upon two prior regional roads reports completed (C.N. Watson 2011 and D.M. Wills 2014) • This presentation has been reviewed and endorsed by the CAO’s, Public Works Managers and Treasurers

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Purpose of the Presentation • Provide context for regional roads discussions • Compare the road infrastructure/funding for: 1. 2. 3. 4.

• Hastings & Frontenac do not have County Roads Network • The 5 Counties include a total of 45 municipalities, • East to west geography and weather are generally similar

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 130 of 191

United Counties of Leeds & Grenville (UCL&G), County of Lanark, County of Frontenac, County of Lennox & Addington (L&A) County of Hastings

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 131 of 191

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Process Municipal Financial Information Returns for the last three years (2015-17) provided data for 13 parameters:

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 132 of 191

Number of Households
Population
Road Grants
Assessment
Tax Levy
Roads Expenditures
Total Book Value for Roads
Total Reserves
Dedicated Roads Reserves 10.Number of Public Works Employees 11.Lane km (Paved and Unpaved) 12.Total Bridges & Culverts 13.Total km of Roads Rated Good+

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 133 of 191

Base Data and Grants

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Roads as % of Total Assessment

15% 30% 15%

24%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 134 of 191

16%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Lane km and % of Regional Lane km

5,316, 23%

5,698, 25%

3,768, 16%

4,407, 19%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 135 of 191

3,871, 17%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Number and % of Total Regional Bridges & Culverts

208, 22%

211, 23%

170, 18% 224, 24%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 136 of 191

121, 13%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Relative % of Grants Received in Regional Comparison

15,134,959, 27%

8,568,384, 15%

15,481,635, 28%

11,410,647, 20%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 137 of 191

5,742,120, 10%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

% of Total Land Area (km2)

3,573, 19% 5,517, 29%

3,186, 17% 2,972, 15%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 138 of 191

3,754, 20%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Grant $/Lane km (2015-17) $3,000

$2,847 $2,717 $2,589

$2,500

$2,274 $2,000

$1,483

$1,500

$1,000

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 139 of 191

$500

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Pct of Roads Rated Good+ (2017) 90%

85%

80%

71% 70%

60%

51%

54%

50%

40%

31% 30%

10%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 140 of 191

20%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Base Data Summary • Grants per lane KM, Frontenac received: $1,364 less/KM than Hastings $1,234 less/KM than UCL&G $1,106 less/KM than Lanark $791 less/KM than L&A

• Only 54% of Frontenac Roads are rated Good+ (L&A = 85%) AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 141 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Frontenac has:

16%

• Of the total assessment

20%

• Of the total land area

13%

• Of the total bridges & culverts

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

But only receives 10% of the grant dollars

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 142 of 191

17%

• Of the total road network

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties? Three Year Summary

Frontenc if $ Frontenac Actual $

UCL&G 10,517,622 5,742,120

Lanark 10,022,831 5,742,120

L&A 8,802,605 5,742,120

Hastings 11,020,961 5,742,120

Difference $

4,775,502

4,280,711

3,060,485

5,278,841

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 143 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties? Three Year Summary

Frontenc if $ Frontenac Actual $

UCL&G 10,517,622 5,742,120

Lanark 10,022,831 5,742,120

L&A 8,802,605 5,742,120

Hastings 11,020,961 5,742,120

Difference $

4,775,502

4,280,711

3,060,485

5,278,841

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 144 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties? Three Year Summary

Frontenc if $ Frontenac Actual $

UCL&G 10,517,622 5,742,120

Lanark 10,022,831 5,742,120

L&A 8,802,605 5,742,120

Hastings 11,020,961 5,742,120

Difference $

4,775,502

4,280,711

3,060,485

5,278,841

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 145 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties? Three Year Summary

Frontenc if $ Frontenac Actual $

UCL&G 10,517,622 5,742,120

Lanark 10,022,831 5,742,120

L&A 8,802,605 5,742,120

Hastings 11,020,961 5,742,120

Difference $

4,775,502

4,280,711

3,060,485

5,278,841

LOW

HIGH

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 146 of 191

Average = $4.34M

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

A Deeper Dive

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 147 of 191

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Tax $’s Gen/$ of Assess. (Front. = $1, 2017) $1.60

$1.47 $1.40

$1.30

$1.24 $1.20

$1.10 $1.00

$1.00

$0.80

$0.60

$0.40

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 148 of 191

$0.20

Millions

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Total Tax Levy ($M 2017) $100

$91 $90

$83 $80

$70

$59

$60

$54

$50

$43

$40

$30

$10

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 149 of 191

$20

Millions

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Total Road Expenditures (2015-17) $160

$140

$134

$120

$105 $98

$100

$81 $80

$67 $60

$40

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 150 of 191

$20

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Road Exp. as a Pct of Total Budget (2017) 30%

28% 26%

25%

22% 20%

15%

13%

10%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 151 of 191

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

70%

Road Exp. As a Pct. Of Total Budget (2017) 59.8%

60%

51.9% 50%

46.6%

48.8%

40%

30%

20%

0.0% 0%

CoF

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 152 of 191

10%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Ave. Annual Exp. by County/Lane KM (2015-17) $10,000

$8,658

$9,000

$8,000

$7,865

$7,955

$7,000

$5,809

$6,000

$5,056 $5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$1,000

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 153 of 191

$2,000

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

$8,000

Road Exp. Per Lane KM (2017) $6,721

$7,000

$5,933

$5,813

$6,000

$4,907

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

CoF

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 154 of 191

$1,000

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

6,000

32% Unpaved

Lane kms Paved/Unpaved (2017) 58% Unpaved

5,000

41% Unpaved 47% Unpaved

4,000

3,887

30% Unpaved

2,221

2,606

3,000

2,090 2,624

2,000

3,095 1,811

1,801

1,781

1,144 0

L&G

Lanark

Frontenac Unpaved

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Paved

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 155 of 191

1,000

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Reserve $ as a Pct of Tax Levy (2017) 120%

111%

110%

108%

100%

80%

79%

75%

60%

40%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 156 of 191

20%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Reserve $ as a Pct of Total Budget (2017) 70%

60%

57%

50%

40%

37%

34% 28%

30%

20%

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 157 of 191

10%

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Dedicated Road Reserves/Lane km (2017) $3,000

$2,551 $2,500

$1,891

$2,000

$1,500

$1,355 $1,028 $884

$1,000

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 158 of 191

$500

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Book Value/Lane km (2017) $60,000

$56,005

$50,000

$43,148 $40,302 $40,000

$30,601 $30,000

$20,874 $20,000

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 159 of 191

$10,000

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Lane km/Employee (2017) 70

In Frontenac, each PW employee is “responsible” for 47 lane KM of road, or 9 KM more than in L&A

47 42

UCL&G

Lanark

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Frontenac

L&A

Hastings

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 160 of 191

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 161 of 191

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Summary Good News

• Frontenac’s over all reserve position is strong • Frontenac’s tax burden is low. All comparators collect more tax dollars/dollar of assessment

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 162 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Summary Not So Good News – Part One

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 163 of 191

• Frontenac is receiving less ($3 to $5M) Grant dollars than the comparator group (per lane km) • Frontenac is only ahead of Hastings in spending per lane KM • Frontenac’s percent of roads rated Good+ is less than UCL&G and L&A • Frontenac is only behind Hastings in the percent of unpaved roads

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Summary Not So Good News – Part Two

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 164 of 191

• Frontenac has the lowest dedicated roads reserve position in the comparator group • Frontenac has the highest percentage of road expenditures/total expenditures • Frontenac Public works employee are “responsible” for more lane KMs than all comparators except Hastings • Frontenac’s book value per lane KM is only ahead Hastings

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Six Options 1

2 Regional Roads – Limited County Involvement

Status Quo

4 Regional Roads – Contracted Engineering – Limited County Involvement

Regional Roads – County Augments Resources at Selected Municipality

Regional Roads – County Resources

Regional Roads – Full County Model

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 165 of 191

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

What Would Option Three Look Like? •

• • • •

•

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 166 of 191

•

No County involvement other than submission of grant prepared by a Consultant in consultation with Public Works Managers and Treasurers Per solicitors advice, the County would secure a 1% ownership stake in the regional roads network, including bridges and culverts Would not involve any on the ground work – no plowing, grading, etc Consultant hired by the County Consultant would be responsible for developing regional priorities, in conjunction with PWMs, the tendering coordination, contract/construction administration of regional roads projects Grant application, administration and reporting completed at the township level Consultant would be responsible for the establishment and reporting of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and regular reporting to all Councils Likely budget estimate ($200K in 2020 - $300K 2021 – phased in over 2 years)

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

What Would Option Five Look Like? • •

• •

•

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 167 of 191

• •

The most “modest” form of regional roads coordination Per solicitors advice, the County would secure a 1% ownership stake in the regional roads network, including bridges and culverts Would not involve any on the ground work – no plowing, grading, etc Similar to L&A would involve the hiring of a “Regional Engineer” (early 2020) + an Engineering Construction Technician (mid/late 2020) Regional Engineer would be responsible for developing regional priorities, in conjunction with PWMs, the tendering coordination, contract/construction administration of regional roads projects Grant application, administration and reporting Establishment and reporting of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and regular reporting to all Councils Likely budget estimate ($200K in 2020 - $300K 2021 – phased in over 2 yrs + consultant for design/project management as required)

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Questions & Discussion • Does Frontenac wish to proceed with consideration of a regional coordination roads model? • If so, are we willing to invest to make it happen? In particular, we do not have the staff necessary to implement a regional model AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 168 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Final Thoughts • While good work is being completed by our municipalities, it is clear that Frontenac roads fall short on a number of different metrics compared to our regional comparators Our resources are stretched and our grants are low

• The establishment of regional roads systems could assist with improving access to funding and coordination of contractors and supplier

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 169 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Next Steps if We … No Action – Remain Status Quo That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the presentation of the Chief Administrative Officer, Regional Roads Network Comparison, and take no further action.

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 170 of 191 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

Next Steps if We … Yes – CAO Recommendation • • •

•

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 171 of 191

•

Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Chief Administrative Officer report – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac request that each member Council review and consider this report by May 31, 2019. And Further That each member Council formally endorse a petition to the Province of Ontario to remove Section 6.2 from The County of Frontenac/City of Kingston Restructuring Order, 1997 related to the prohibition of County involvement in roads. And Further That the County engage a consulting team to assist with the development of a business plan for both options 3 and 5, including consultation with each Council and the study be to a maximum upset limit of $40,000 to be funded from the County portion of the recently announced Municipal Modernization Fund (MMF). And Further That the report be reviewed at a joint meeting of all Councils and a preferred option be finalized prior to the end of September 2019 for consideration during the 2020 budget cycle.

Staff Briefing : Mr. Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer, will pr…

AGENDA ITEM #a)

Page 172 of 191

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Report 2019-046 Council Recommend Information Report To:

Warden and Council

From:

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Prepared by:

Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer

Date of meeting:

April 17, 2019

Re:

Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Recommendation Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Chief Administrative Officer report – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac request that each member Council review and consider this report by May 31, 2019. And Further That each member Council formally endorse a petition to the Province of Ontario to remove Section 6.2 from The County of Frontenac/City of Kingston Restructuring Order, 1997 related to the prohibition of County involvement in roads. And Further That the County engage a consulting team to assist with the development of a business plan for both options 3 and 5, including consultation with each Council and the study be to a maximum upset limit of $40,000 to be funded from the County portion of the recently announced Municipal Modernization Fund (MMF). And Further That the report be reviewed at a joint meeting of all Councils and a preferred option be finalized prior to the end of September 2019 for consideration during the 2020 budget cycle. Background At the July 18, 2018 meeting of County Council the following motion was approved by County Council: Motion 136-18

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 173 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Chief Administrative Officer – Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund – Access to Funding report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac direct staff to fully investigate the process for accessing the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund – Top Up (OCIF-TU) grant for core infrastructure, including consultation with legal counsel, Frontenac County Chief Administrative Officers and other municipalities; And Further That a full report and recommendation be presented to County Council in January 2019, with a view towards a first application to the fund in August 2019. And Further That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the County’s Member Municipalities. The purpose of the above motion1 was to provide direction to staff to investigate methods to access senior level government funding for roads investment that are specific to roads infrastructure, while permitting the County to use Gas Tax Funding allocated to the County (i.e., not member municipality gas tax allocation) for regional purposes such as economic development, the K&P trail or Community Improvement Plans. While the initial emphasis was on the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF), the change in Provincial government means that this program will likely be changed. Following the approval of this motion, the Frontenac CAOs met on September 24, 2018, November 22, 2018, January 31, 2019 and April 4, 2019 to review and discuss the motion. Our meetings also included treasurers and public works managers as appropriate. As part of our review, we examined the following:

The County of Frontenac/City of Kingston Restructuring Order (R.O.), February 1997, Reference Section 6.2 [R.O. Link]
County of Frontenac, Roads Management Study – C.N. Watson, Fiscal Management Plan, March 2011. [Roads Management Study Link]
Frontenac Corridor, Road Needs Study – 2013, D.M. Wills, January 2014 [Roads Needs Study Link]
County of Frontenac Official Plan, January 2016 (Provincial Approval). Reference Section 4.1.1 [Link - Official Plan] See attached Schedule ‘A’ to this report for a map of the regional road network defined by the Official Plan.

1 For further background see Report 2018-097 and the related presentation - Link

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 2 of 15

Page 174 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Municipal Financial Indicator Reports (FIR), Province of Ontario, 2015, 2016, 2017 [FIR Link] In particular, the D.M. Wills report defines the regional road network and needs as of
Should this initiative proceed, an update of this report will be necessary. The purpose of this report is to provide County Council and member municipalities with background necessary to make a determination whether or not to proceed with the establishment of a regional roads system. The Chief Administrative Officer will provide a presentation that highlights the key items in this report, plus a statistical review based upon the 2015-17 FIR (Link #5 above). Comment In 1996-97 the Province undertook a series of initiatives to rationalize municipal service delivery and restructuring. Along with the City of Kingston, Frontenac County entered into negotiations and developed a framework for service delivery and municipal restructuring. The resulting agreement was promulgated by the Province, February 1997 (Link #1 above). Of particular relevance to this discussion is Section 6.2 of the order which states that, “the Board [now County] is not deemed to be a county for road purposes and shall not own, maintain, repair or construct roads”. In reviewing the matter with our solicitor, it was confirmed that an amendment to the order would be required in order to proceed with a regional/County approach to roads involving the County. Further, the solicitor provided advice with respect to the requirement for the County to potentially “own” the road in order to be eligible to apply for grants. In order to meet the ownership requirement, staff would pursue a one percent ownership stake in the proposed County roads infrastructure. Summary of Statistical/Financial Review In preparation for this report, staff reviewed the FIRs (Link #5 above) for five counties and their member municipalities covering the three most recent reporting periods (201517). A total of 13 data points from 45 municipalities were extracted and analyzed including:
Number of Households
Population
Road Grants
Assessment
Tax Levy
Roads Expenditures
Total Book Value for Roads
Total Reserves
Dedicated Roads Reserves
Number of Public Works Employees
Lane km (Paved and Unpaved) Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 3 of 15

Page 175 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Total Bridges & Culverts
Total km of Roads Rated Good+ While it is reasonable to say that there are no perfect comparators for any municipality in Ontario, this group was selected due to proximity, geography and weather patterns. In particular, the municipalities are generally comparable when this region is viewed from an east to west perspective. Attached, Schedule ‘B’ is a map of the five counties. Schedule ‘C’ summarizes each County’s role in roads2. Where the County and member municipalities both operate a roads network, the aggregate data for both tiers is indicated. For Frontenac, the aggregate member municipal data is used. Statistical Summary – High Level Findings A full summary of the data collected will be presented in the presentation at the meeting, but a summary of the most pertinent information is below:
Over the study period (2015-17) Frontenac County municipalities received 10% the senior level grant dollars distributed to the study group, despite operating 17% of the road network, having 15% total assessment, 20% of the total land area and 13% of the bridges and culverts. a. Based upon lane kilometers, if Frontenac received funding at the same level as the other four study areas, the total would have been $3M to $5.3M dollars higher over a three year period
Frontenac is the lowest tax jurisdiction in the study group. Per dollar of assessment, Lennox and & Addington collects 47% more, while Leeds & Grenville collects 10% more than Frontenac.
Collectively Frontenac municipalities expend a larger percentage of their budget than other municipalities. Individually we expend between 47% and 60% of our budgets on roads.
Our expenditure per lane km is the second lowest in the comparator group and $2,849 less than Lennox & Addington.
47% of Frontenac roads are unpaved, while Lennox & Addington has 30% of their total road network unpaved.
While Frontenac total reserves are high, our dedicated road reserves are the lowest.
Frontenac road employees are responsible for more lane kms/employee than all but Hastings

2 The FIRs include the operation of ferries under the road category. In the study area, the County of

Frontenac, Township of Frontenac Islands and Loyalist Township operate ferries. This data study removes all revenues and expenses for ferry operation. Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 4 of 15

Page 176 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

While there are clearly some good news stories contained in the analysis, particularly around reserves and comparative tax position, it is also clear that on many of the road related metrics, Frontenac’s position lags behind the comparator group. Sustainability Implications Expenditures on roads are a necessary and integral part of municipal operations. As well, it is important to ensure that the municipality has sufficient resources and financial flexibility to invest in quality of life resources such as parks and programs in order to attract and maintain youth and seniors in the community. Six options are provided for Council consideration. The options cover the spectrum from continuing with the status quo to a full County roads department. Should Council select to maintain the status quo (Option One), no action would be undertaken by Council or staff for the term of the current Councils. Should any of the other options be selected, County and member municipality staff would be directed to develop a five year Business Plan for consideration. The Business Plan would utilize the standard County of Frontenac Business Plan template. (For example see Link - Business Plan). Caution: While the regional road approach would be most effective with all four member municipalities participating, it may be possible to have a regional roads system with contiguous roads with less than four municipalities participating, although this question has not been asked of the Province who continue to express a preference for regional approaches. Option One: Status Quo – Local Approach (Similar to Hasting County) Description: All roads are local responsibility. No regional road collaboration. Operational Model: No change. Roads remain local. Shared procurement where a business case warrants. No County involvement. Deficiencies: No ability to apply for regional grants. County Impact: No ability to apply for regional roads grants. No increase in grant funding can be anticipated. Member Municipality Impact: No change Governance: No change. All roads decisions continue to be made locally. Recommendation: Not Recommended

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 5 of 15

Page 177 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Option Two: Regional Approach – Limited County Involvement (No Known Precedent) Description: County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project. All grant applications are developed, submitted, managed and reported by the benefitting municipality. Only County role is “signing off” on grant applications. Operational Model: Existing municipal public works managers and treasurers assume a larger role. Deficiencies: There are no County staff or dollars available to support this approach. County may assume some liability for work performed by township employees. County Impact: Increased liability. Could be resolved through an indemnity agreement. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network. Grant dollars received in excess of current County gas tax allocation would be available for County use on regional projects such as trails and community improvement plans. Member Municipality Impact: Now eligible to receive regional grants. Increased work load for public works and treasury staff. Governance: The four public works managers and treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate. Recommendation: Not Recommended

Option Three: Regional Approach – Contracted Engineering, Limited County Involvement (No Known Precedent) Description: County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project and engages an independent engineering firm to lead the program. Operational Model: A contracted engineering firm would be hired by the County to develop a work program that would include maintaining regional road priority schedules, recommending projects, working with township public works managers on project coordination. Working with township treasurers on accounting/reporting. County submits application on behalf of the Township. Deficiencies: There are no County staff or dollars available to support this approach. County may assume some liability for work performed by township employees. May be Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 6 of 15

Page 178 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

cost prohibitive. Consulting fees generally are calculated at 2-2.5x the salary of the consultant. County Impact: No County involvement other than submission of grant applications prepared by the Consultant. Increased liability. Could be resolved through an indemnity agreement. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network. Grant dollars received in excess of current County gas tax allocation would be available for County use on regional projects such as trails and community improvement plans. Member Municipality Impact: Now eligible to receive regional grants. Increased work load for public works and treasury staff. Township may need to engage additional resources to support this model. Governance: The Consultant working with the four public works managers and treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate. Recommendation: Recommended for Further Study

Option Four – Regional Approach – County Augments Resources at a Selected Municipality (No Known Precedent) Description: County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project but would contract with one of the four member municipalities to provide oversight, management of a regional system. Operational Model: County would pay a portion of the Manager of Public Works salary (say 50%), plus an additional FTE dedicated to the regional roads project. Deficiencies: Divided reporting/accounting relationships. May stretch existing municipal resources. County Impact: No County involvement other than submission of grant applications prepared by the contracted municipality. Increased liability. Could be resolved through an indemnity agreement. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network. Grant dollars received in excess of current County gas tax allocation would be available for County use on regional projects such as trails and community improvement plans. Member Municipality Impact: Now eligible to receive regional grants. Increased work load for public works and treasury staff. County to pay for increased staffing required to support the model. Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 7 of 15

Page 179 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Governance: The contracted municipality working with the three public works managers and treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate. Recommendation: Not Recommended Option Five – Regional Approach – County Resources (Similar to Lennox & Addington) Description – County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges. Similar to Lennox & Addington County, the County employs a limited engineering staff complement to administer the program, maintain roads needs study and provide project management/support. Operational Model: All “on the ground” maintenance works would continue to be local and managed in the same manner as currently. Regional Engineer, plus project manager would be employed commencing in early-mid 2020. Adding a .5 FTE in 2021. (Approximately 50% of the L&A Model) Deficiencies: Funding model would need to be developed to address cost sharing and perhaps the cost related with the municipal share of the capital costs. County Impact: Currently, no physical space allocated for new staff. Additional governance/oversight required by Council/CAO. Increased liability. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network. Grant dollars received in excess of current County gas tax allocation would be available for County use on regional projects such as trails and community improvement plans. Member Municipality Impact: Now eligible to receive regional grants. Regional projects administered solely or jointly with member municipality. Current resources will be freed up. Governance: The Regional Engineer working with the four public works managers and five treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate. Consulting engineering will need to be evaluated on a project by project basis, but would be included in the overall project cost. Recommendation: Recommended for Further Study Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 8 of 15

Page 180 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Option Six – Regional Roads – Full County Model (Similar to United Counties of Leeds & Grenville and Lanark County) Description – County assumes 100% ownership in regional roads and bridges. Similar to Lanark and Leeds & Grenville, the County employs a full engineering staff complement, maintenance and operations staff to administer the program, maintain roads needs study, provide project management/support and provide day to day operations and maintenance of the regional roads. Operational Model: Based upon a review of comparators models, would require the employment of 25+ employees, plus related fleet and maintenance facilities. Deficiencies: Highest cost option. Staffing, fleet and property acquisition would be time consuming and protracted. County Impact: This option would require a considerable phase in period, likely involving negotiations regarding staffing/staff sharing, property and fleet acquisition. Member Municipality Impact: Now eligible to receive regional grants. Regional projects administered by the County. Governance: Regional plans centrally developed, with input from member municipalities. Final approval rest with County. Recommendation: Not Recommended It is the consensus recommendation of the five Chief Administrative Officers to further investigate options 3 and 5 with the assistance of a consultant with considerable experience in municipal operations, finance and shared services delivery models. Financial Implications In 2011, the C.N. Watson report (See Link #2) calculated the immediate life cycle cost for regional roads to be between $37.2 and $42.2M (See Sect 3-11). In the interim, a considerable amount of work has been completed on regional roads by member municipalities. No attempt has been made to recalculate the Watson findings, but given inflation and general roads pressures, it would likely be a safe assumption that the figure has not decreased. Should all member Councils opt to enter into the regional roads initiative, the D.M. Wills study could be financed by the County. Likely expenditure of between $25-40,000. Should less than four municipalities elect to participate, each would be responsible for their own share. As noted in the recommendation, the recently announced MMF would be used by the County to complete the business plan.

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 9 of 15

Page 181 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Tony Fleming, David Munday, Cunningham Swan County Chief Administrative Officers, Treasurers and Public Works Managers Chief Administrative Officers, Survey Group Kevin Farrell, Manager of Continuous Improvement

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 10 of 15

Page 182 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use (and Regional Roads) – County of Frontenac Official Plan

Schedule ‘B’ – Regional Map of Five County Comparators Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 11 of 15

Page 183 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 12 of 15

Page 184 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Schedule ‘C’ – Summary of County Roads Involvement

County of Frontenac Role None. No involvement in day to day operations or grants. Identified regional roads in Official Plan Dedicated Staff None. No engineering or public work employees. No skill level present to deliver service. Total Budget (less None. Ferry) United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Role The Roads Department is responsible for 636 kilometres of Source: Link road built over the last one hundred years, and 230 kilometres UCL&G of former Provincial Highway delegated to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville from 1993 thru to 1997 totalling 866 kilometres of paved highway. Road assets also include 85 bridges and 34 major culverts. Work includes:          

Contract Administration of Construction Projects Under County Jurisdiction; Tendering of County Owned Capital Works Projects; Fleet Tendering; Maintenance & Rebuilding of County Roads; Winter Maintenance; Traffic Counts; Issuance of Moving Permits and Entranceway Permits; Pavement Marking; Signage; Preparation of By-laws, Deeds, Road Right-of-Way.

Dedicated Staff 30 FT – 4 PT – Seasonal 22. (From 2017 FIR Tab 80A 0225)) Total Budget $22,736,136 (includes inter-functional adjustments). (From 2017 FIR – Tab 40, 0699)

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 13 of 15

Page 185 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Lanark County Role Source: Link Lanark

The Public Works Department builds, operates, maintains and repairs the County road network consisting of 561 two-lane kilometres of roads, 1 four-lane kilometre of road and 77 bridge and culvert structures with spans greater than three metres. The Department also manages three patrol yards, three gravel pits and two office buildings. The Public Works fleet includes approximately 40 vehicles including light and heavy trucks, heavy equipment, trailers and various tools and equipment. The Department is organized into four divisions: Operations, Construction, Administration and Fleet and Facilities. 26 FT – 6 PT.

Dedicated Staff (From 2017 FIR Tab 80A 0225)) Total Budget $12,952,285 (includes inter-functional adjustments). (From 2017 FIR – Tab 40, 0699)

Lennox & Addington County Role The County of Lennox & Addington spans 2,777 square Source: Link - L&A kilometres: from Lake Ontario in the south, 130 kilometres northward to Renfrew County. In order to allow people who live and work in the county, visitors to the county community, and people involved in trade and commerce to travel safely, the county maintains a significant transportation grid including: 

458 kilometres of urban, semi-urban and rural roads, specifically:    



298 km of hot mix asphalt road1; 150 km of surface treated road; 10 km of concrete road; 50 bridges and 18 major culvert structures;

One roundabout constructed in 2009 at the intersection of County Road 2 and County Road 4 in Loyalist Township; Local municipalities maintain the upper-tier County road system, but these roads remain under the ownership and control of the County. The County is responsible for all costs of the system’s road, bridge, paving, and capital construction program.

Dedicated Staff 5 FT – 2 Seasonal (From 2017 FIR Tab 80A 0225))

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 14 of 15

Page 186 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Total Budget (From 2017 FIR – Tab 40, 0699) Hastings County Role Dedicated Staff Total Budget (less Ferry)

$11,271,640 (includes inter-functional adjustments).

None. No involvement in day to day operations or grants. Identified regional roads in Official Plan. None. No engineering or public work employees. $175,745

Recommend Report to Council Office of the CAO – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report April 17, 2019

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Page 15 of 15

Page 187 of 191

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Frontenac – Regional Roads Discussion – Summary of Options April 17, 2019

Issue Description

Option One Status Quo (Similar to Hastings County) All roads are local responsibility. No regional road collaboration.

Option Two Regional Approach – Limited County Involvement (No Known Precedent) County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project. All grant applications are developed, submitted, managed and reported by the benefitting municipality. Only County role is “signing off” on grant applications.

Operational Model

No change. Roads remain local. Shared procurement where a business case warrants. No County involvement.

Existing municipal public works managers and treasurers assume a larger role.

Deficiencies

No ability to apply for regional grants.

There are no County staff or dollars available to support this approach. County may assume some liability for work performed by township employees.

Option Three Regional Approach – Contracted Engineering – Limited County Involvement (No Known Precedent) County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project and engages an independent engineering firm to lead the program.

Option Four Regional Approach – County Augments Resources at Selected Municipality (No Known Precedent) County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges, but provides no support to the project but would contract with one of the four member municipalities to provide oversight, management of a regional system.

A contracted engineering firm would be hired by the County to develop a work program that would include maintaining regional road priority schedules, recommending projects, working with township public works managers on project coordination. Working with township treasurers on accounting/reporting. County submits application on behalf of the Township. There are no County staff or dollars available to support this approach. County may assume some liability for work performed by township employees. May be cost prohibitive. Consulting fees generally are billed at 2-2.5x the salary of the consultant.

County would pay a portion of the Manager of Public Works salary (say 50%), plus an additional FTE dedicated to the regional roads project.

All “on the ground” maintenance works would continue to be local and managed in the same manner as currently. Regional Engineer, plus project manager would be employed commencing in earlymid 2020. Adding a .5 FTE in 2021. (Approximately 50% of the L&A Model)

Divided reporting/accounting relationships. May stretch existing municipal resources.

Funding model would need to be developed to address cost sharing and perhaps the cost related with the municipal share of the capital costs.

Option Six – Regional Approach – Full County Model (Similar to UCLG and Lanark County) County assumes 100% ownership in regional roads and bridges. Similar to Lanark and Leeds & Grenville, the County employs a full engineering staff complement, maintenance and operations staff to administer the program, maintain roads needs study, provide project management/support and provide day to day operations and maintenance of the regional roads. Based upon a review of comparators models, would require the employment of 25+ employees, plus related fleet and maintenance facilities.

Highest cost option. Staffing, fleet and property acquisition would be time consuming and protracted.

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page 188 of 191 Page 1 of 2

Option Five Regional Approach – County Resources (Similar to Lennox & Addington County) County assumes 1% ownership in regional roads and bridges. Similar to Lennox & Addington County, the County employs a limited engineering staff complement to administer the program, maintain roads needs study and provide project management/support.

2019-046 Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report

Frontenac – Regional Roads Discussion – Summary of Options April 17, 2019

Issue County Impact

Option One Status Quo (Similar to Hastings County) No ability to apply for regional roads grants. No increase in grant funding can be anticipated.

Option Two Regional Approach – Limited County Involvement (No Known Precedent) Increased liability. Could be resolved through an indemnity agreement. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network. Grant dollars received in excess of current County gas tax allocation would be available for County use on regional projects such as trails and community improvement plans.

No change

Now eligible to receive regional grants. Increased work load for public works and treasury staff.

Governance

No change. All roads decisions continue to be made locally.

The four public works managers and treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate. Not Recommended

Recommendation

Not Recommended

Now eligible to receive regional grants. Increased work load for public works and treasury staff. Township may need to engage additional resources to support this model. The Consultant working with the four public works managers and treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate.

Recommended for Further Consideration

Page 2 of 2

Option Four Regional Approach – County Augments Resources at Selected Municipality (No Known Precedent) No County involvement other than submission of grant applications prepared by the contracted municipality. Increased liability. Could be resolved through an indemnity agreement. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network. Grant dollars received in excess of current County gas tax allocation would be available for County use on regional projects such as trails and community improvement plans. Now eligible to receive regional grants. Increased work load for public works and treasury staff. County to pay for increased staffing required to support the model. The contracted municipality working with the three public works managers and treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate.

Not Recommended

Option Five Regional Approach – County Resources (Similar to Lennox & Addington County) Currently, no physical space allocated for new staff. Additional governance/oversight required by Council/CAO. Increased liability. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network. Grant dollars received in excess of current County gas tax allocation would be available for County use on regional projects such as trails and community improvement plans.

Option Six – Regional Approach – Full County Model (Similar to UCLG and Lanark County) This option would require a considerable phase in period, likely involving negotiations regarding staffing/staff sharing, property and fleet acquisition.

Now eligible to receive regional grants. Regional projects administered solely or jointly with member municipality. Current resources will be freed up.

Now eligible to receive regional grants. Regional projects administered by the County.

The Regional Engineer working with the four public works managers and five treasurers prepare an annual report for review by the five chief administrative officers in June of each year for presentation to County Council for consideration in September. The report would highlight works completed in the prior year and recommendations for the following year. County Council approves the final report. Member municipalities would provide input into the plan through their public works manager and CAO as appropriate. Consulting engineering will need to be evaluated on a project by project basis, but would be included in the overall project cost. Recommended for Further Consideration

Regional plans centrally developed, with input from member municipalities. Final approval rest with County.

Not Recommended

AGENDA ITEM #b)

Page 189 of 191

Member Municipality Impact

Option Three Regional Approach – Contracted Engineering – Limited County Involvement (No Known Precedent) No County involvement other than submission of grant applications prepared by the Consultant. Increased liability. Could be resolved through an indemnity agreement. County will incur legal and (perhaps) survey costs to assume 1% ownership in the regional road network.

AGENDA ITEM #

By-Law No. 2019-0021 of The Corporation of the County OF Frontenac being a by-law to confirm all actions and proceedings of County Council on April 17, 2019

Whereas Section 8 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under the Municipal Act or any other Act; and; Whereas Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto provides that a lower-tier municipality and an upper-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in the Table to Subsection 2 subject to certain provisions, and; Whereas Section 5 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 and amendments thereto provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 8 shall be exercised by its council and by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; and; Whereas the Council of the County of Frontenac deems it expedient to confirm its actions and proceedings; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac hereby enacts as follows:

That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its special meeting held on April 17, 2019 be confirmed as actions for which the municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.
That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the County of Frontenac taken at its special meeting held on April 17, 2019 be confirmed as being matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in Subsection 2 of Section 11 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 and amendments thereto.
That all actions and proceedings of the Council of the Corporation of the County of Frontenac taken at its special meeting held on April 17, 2019 except those taken by by-law and those required by by-law to be done by resolution are hereby sanctioned, ratified and confirmed as though set out within and forming part of this by-law.

To Confirm All Actions and Proceeding of County Council at its special m…

Page 190 of 191

AGENDA ITEM #

That this by-law shall come into force and take effect as of the final passing thereof. Read a First and Second Time this 17th day of April 2019. Read a Third Time and Finally Passed, Signed and Sealed this 17th day of April, 2019.

The Corporation of the County Of Frontenac

Ron Higgins, Warden

Jannette Amini, Clerk

By-Law No. 2019-0021 – To Confirm all Actions and Proceedings of County Council April 17, 2019

To Confirm All Actions and Proceeding of County Council at its special m…

Page 2 of 2

Page 191 of 191

Help support independent journalism

If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.