GUELPH – Wellington County is planning to transition its waste facilities into “diversion centres,” in an effort to extend the life of its current landfill site at Riverstown in Wellington North.
On Feb. 28 county council approved a solid waste committee recommendation to begin the transition to a diversion centre model.
Council also directed staff to further investigate the best future use of the county’s transfer stations, as part of an overall solid waste services strategy.
The recommendation to move to a diversion model was based on a report to the committee by solid waste services manager Das Soligo.
The report states the model is the most efficient potential use of the county’s waste facility infrastructure at this time.
“This approach provides opportunities to increase diversion from landfill which will extend the operating life of the Riverstown landfill site, while also allowing for future assessments of the optimal number and location of waste facilities in the county,” Soligo states in the report.
The report indicates a provincial document (Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy) indicates future “producer responsibility programs” will mandate producers deal with waste from materials like small appliances, electrical tools, batteries, fluorescent bulbs and tubes, mattresses, carpets, clothing and textiles, furniture and other bulky items.
“There are often financial incentives for organizations to collect and manage these obligated materials,” Soligo pointed out.
“The diversion centre model allows for the ability to separate additional materials from the waste stream, divert them from landfill, and potentially receive funding for doing so.”
While endorsing the diversion centre concept, county councillors questioned some of the elements of the transition plan, including a proposed $5 minimum fee for waste taken directly to transfer stations.
Soligo explained the minimum was designed to encourage people to use curbside pickup, which results in waste going directly to landfill at Riverstown, rather than filling up transfer stations. That space, he said, would allow transfer stations to be used for storage and sorting of new materials which could potentially be diverted or recycled.
“In order to free up capacity to manage new materials, there has to be less household materials coming into the site,” Soligo pointed out.
Councillor Gregg Davidson, chair of the solid waste services committee, stressed the $5 minimum fee is important, as the introduction of county-wide curbside pickup in 2016 has not been as effective as anticipated at curbing use of transfer stations.
“However, we still need to press forward and there are redundancies within our current system as well as a desire to reduce new materials, such as leaves, yard waste and shingles, from our landfill.”
Davidson noted the extension of capacity at the Riverstown site means cost savings for the county.
“It is estimated that by reducing just leaves and yard waste, we can add two extra years to our landfill capacity and that’s significant,” he said. “For each year we add to landfill capacity we should also see financial savings anywhere from $300,000 to $1 million per year.”
Some members of council were unclear how the minimum would work and how it would factor in such elements as county issued user-pay garbage bags, or if the minimum would replace the per-bag fee at the site.
“If I show up with 25 bags am I still going to pay only five bucks?” wondered councillor Chris White.
Councillor Diane Ballantyne asked if the minimum fee would also apply to recycling delivered to transfer stations.
“It’s not my understanding that the recycling is going to be given that $5 fee,” said Davidson.
Soligo explained that under the proposed system, anyone bringing county issued user-pay bags to the sites would be credited for the $2 bags as part of the minimum fee and only required to top up to the minimum if less than three bags were delivered.
For non user-pay garbage bags, for which residents are charged $2 at transfer stations, the minimum would also apply for anyone bringing less than three bags. For three bags or more, only the regular $2 fee would apply to each bag.
Councillor Earl Campbell asked if the impact of introducing a minimum fee on the cost of curbside pickup had been considered.
“If our motivation – and I support it, don’t get me wrong – is to drive our residents out of the transfer stations and back to the end of their driveway, what is the impact going to be on the cost of the current service?” Campbell asked.
Though Soligo initially indicated to council the $5 minimum is integral to the move to a diversion centre model, councillors agreed to direct staff to make consideration of the fee part of the further investigation referenced in a motion, which eventually passed unopposed.
“I think this is the way to go; there’s not going to be much pushback from the people once they figure it out,” said councillor George Bridge.
He continued, “I’ll take the political heat I guess, if somebody’s worried about 50 cents or a dollar here and there. But at the end of the day it’s about reducing the amount of garbage that’s coming in.”
Warden Kelly Linton said, “I think George makes a really good point and I think there’s a sequence there.
“I think if we come out right now without getting the information out there about why we’re doing this, if we just come out now and say five bucks now to go to the transfer station, the message isn’t going to get out.”
Linton continued, “All people are going to hear is that the county’s increased taxes, the towns have all increased taxes and now you’re also increasing the fee that we have to go to the dump.
“So the communication has to be there. There has to be a big communications strategy behind this.”
Councillor Mary Lloyd suggested the minimum fee didn’t go far enough and that a $10 fee should be imposed.
“And I think we need to educate our frontline staff … to start encouraging people to start using our roadside pickup – ‘Yes you can brings your bags here today, but please don’t bring them back, that’s not what this station is for,’” said Lloyd.
“Most of what they receive in Elora on a Saturday is yellow bags.”
Soligo’s report indicated further study is needed to determine the best use of county facilities, including transfer stations.
“Determining the best use of the county’s waste facility infrastructure is complicated by how integrated these sites are with the curbside collection services, and the operation and capacity of the Riverstown landfill site,” the report states.
“The decision of whether to open, close or maintain the current number and location of waste facilities, has a wide array of potential service level, financial, environmental, and system flexibility impacts,” the report states.
The report also points out that closing or opening waste facilities “will very likely lead to significant public opposition and may lead to financial and environmental impacts in unforeseen or indirect ways.”
Soligo indicated future flexibility was an important consideration in the decision to recommend the diversion centre model.
“As the industry, residents’ expectations and the legislative environment may change over time, freeing up capacity at the waste facilities to manage and divert new materials will allow for greater adaptability in addressing these issues,” Soligo stated.
“This system will allow for a continual assessment of services, where the service level can be adjusted to meet future needs, including deciding whether there should be more, fewer or the same number of sites.”
Aside from the diversion centre model, other approaches to the future operation of the county’s waste facilities considered in the report included:
– status quo;
– explore the feasibility of a new waste facility, in order to improve access in the eastern part of the county (Guelph-Eramosa and Erin);
– assess the impacts of ceasing operations at one or more waste facilities; and
– evaluate and redistribute waste facilities.
The report notes the “diversion centre model” is unique in that it can be applied to any of the other four scenarios.
