INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL AND … Stakeholder...RPT Stakeholder Engagement Report IFU 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Lethbridge (City), Waste & Recycling (W&R) retained

CITY OF LETHBRIDGE

INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL ANDCONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE DIVERSIONSTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROJECT

REPORT

MARCH 2014ISSUED FOR USEEBA FILE: C22503014-01

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech CompanyRiverbend Atrium One, 115, 200 Rivercrest Drive SE

Calgary, AB T2C 2X5 CANADAp. 403.203.3355 f. 403.203.3301

This page intentionally left blank.

LETHBRIDGE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROJECT

EBA FILE: C22503014-01 | MARCH 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE

i

RPT Stakeholder Engagement Report IFU

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Lethbridge (City), Waste & Recycling (W&R) retained EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA)1,

to conduct a Stakeholder Engagement Project for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) and

Construction and Demolition (C&D) sectors. EBA partnered with sonnevera international corp.

(sonnevera) and Ipsos Reid (Ipsos) to complete the stakeholder engagement sessions and analysis.

Stakeholders from the C&D industry, as well as the ICI industry were consulted regarding the

implementation of potential waste diversion programs for the Lethbridge area. A range of voluntary,

economic, and regulatory waste diversion options were presented to the stakeholders. A preliminary

engagement session with the C&D and ICI stakeholders was held on June 26, 2013, with a total of 21

and 33 participants, respectively. The first C&D session involved the discussion of 10 waste diversion

program options, along with the concept of a baseline study, and the first ICI session discussed 13 program

options. The stakeholders were asked to rate their support for each option on a scale of 1 to 10. On average,

the voluntary program options were rated very highly by stakeholders, scoring greater than 5 out of 10.

Economic program options were also well received, with scores greater than 5 out of 10, including

differential tipping fees, which rated the highest amongst the ICI stakeholders. Regulatory program options

were the least supported by stakeholders often receiving scores less than 5 out of 10, especially by the C&D

stakeholders.

Current challenges preventing stakeholders from participating in waste diversion programs were also

recorded in the first session. For both C&D and ICI stakeholders, a lack of incentives, cost implications, and

lack of education were all significant barriers preventing their participation in waste diversion programs.

The final session for the consultation process was held September 12 and had a total of 14 C&D

participants and 23 ICI participants. This session involved a much more in-depth discussion of the top

ranking options from the first session, as well as regulatory program options that may be considered in the

longer term, or have particularly high diversion results. Detail in regards to the stakeholders’ opinions on

program implementation, such as the City’s Role, key stakeholders’ roles, and keys to successful

implementation, were recorded. For any waste diversion program to be successful, it was clear that there

needs to be a working relationship with the City and key stakeholders. Stakeholders felt it was the

responsibility of the City to set environmental goals and initiate the education and awareness of waste

diversion programs to the industry and the public. It is also the responsibility of key stakeholders to

communicate with their internal stakeholders and customers, as well as actively participate in the

programs and share their success stories within the industry.

1 As of January 1, 2014, EBA is now Tetra Tech EBA Inc.



ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ........................... 1

2.1 Process Overview..................................................................................................................................1

2.1.1 Challenges Limiting the Participation of Stakeholders in Construction and Demolition Waste

Diversion Programs ..................................................................................................................1

2.1.2 Waste Diversion Construction and Demolition Program Options.............................................2

2.2 Key Stakeholder Findings......................................................................................................................3

2.2.1 Baseline Study..........................................................................................................................4

2.2.1.1 Stakeholder’s Opinion on the City’s Role ....................................................................4

2.2.1.2 Roles of Key Stakeholders ..........................................................................................4

2.2.1.3 Keys to Successful Program Implementation..............................................................4

2.2.2 Differential Tipping Fees...........................................................................................................4




2.2.3 Develop an Education and Awareness Program for Construction and Demolition Diversion..5




2.2.4 Infrastructure Development Facilities .......................................................................................7




2.2.5 Deposit Refund Program ..........................................................................................................8

2.2.5.1 Program Feasibility ......................................................................................................8


3.0 INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL .......................................................... 8

3.1 Process Overview..................................................................................................................................8

3.1.1 Challenges Limiting the Participation of Stakeholders in Industrial, Commercial, and

Institutional Waste Diversion Programs....................................................................................9

3.1.2 Waste Diversion Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Program Options...........................9

3.2 Key Stakeholder Findings....................................................................................................................11

3.2.1 Differential Tipping Fees.........................................................................................................11

3.2.1.1 Stakeholder’s Opinion on the City’s Role ..................................................................11

3.2.1.2 Roles of Key Stakeholders ........................................................................................11

3.2.1.3 Keys to Successful Program Implementation............................................................11



iii


3.2.2 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation

Requirements .........................................................................................................................11




3.2.3 Waste Diversion Assistance ...................................................................................................12




3.2.4 Landfill Bans ...........................................................................................................................13

3.2.4.1 Feasibility...................................................................................................................13

3.2.4.2 Materials to Ban.........................................................................................................14

4.0 IMPLEMENTING DIVERSION PROGRAMS.............................................................................. 14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 16

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................ 17

7.0 CLOSURE....................................................................................................................................... 19

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 20

FIGURES

Figure 1 Construction and Demolition Program Option Ratings ...........................................................................3

Figure 2 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Program Option Ratings .......................................................10

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

General Conditions

Session Attendees

Engagement Session Summaries and Table Notes



iv


ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

AESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development

BFI BFI Canada Ltd.

C&D Construction and Demolition

BRZ Downtown Lethbridge Business Revitalization Zone

EBA EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

ICI Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional

Ipsos Ipsos Reid

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

sonnevera sonnevera international corp.

City City of Lethbridge

W&R Waste and Recycling (City of Lethbridge)

WM Waste Management Inc.

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

RDN Regional District of Nanaimo



v


LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of the City of Lethbridge and their agents. Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (EBA)

does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or

referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than The City of Lethbridge or for any

Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of

the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in EBA’s Services Agreement. EBA’s General

Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report.



1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The City of Lethbridge (City), Waste & Recycling (W&R) retained EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA)2,

to conduct a Stakeholder Engagement Project for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) and

Construction and Demolition (C&D) sectors. EBA partnered with sonnevera international corp.

(sonnevera) and Ipsos Reid (Ipsos) to complete the stakeholder engagement sessions and analysis.

Engagement, or consultation, sessions were conducted for the C&D sector separately from the ICI sector.

This was done in order to have independent industry focuses and accurately gain insight into material

specific diversion programs.

2.0 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION STAKEHOLDERENGAGEMENT

2.1 Process Overview

A preliminary engagement session with the C&D stakeholders was held on June 26, 2013 and had a total of

21 participants. The first session involved the discussion of 10 waste diversion program options, including

voluntary, economic, and regulatory options, as well as the concept of a baseline study. Each of these

options was explained in detail to the stakeholders, discussing how they could be implemented in

Lethbridge and how the program would work. The stakeholders were then asked to rate their support for

each option on a scale of 1 to 10.

Along with the ranking of programs, stakeholders were asked to identify the current challenges that limit

them from participating in C&D waste diversion programs.

The final session for the C&D consultation process was held September 12 and had a total of

14 participants. This session involved a much more in-depth discussion on the top ranking options from

the first session. Additionally, regulatory program options that may be considered in the longer term, or

have particularly high diversion results in other municipalities, were also discussed, even if they did not

score highly in the first round of sessions. A more focused discussion on the regulations also provided

insight into stakeholders’ true perceptions of waste diversion-focused regulations. Detail in regards to the

stakeholders’ opinions on program implementation, such as the City’s Role, key stakeholders’ roles, and

keys to successful implementation, were recorded.

A list of participants can be viewed in Appendix B.

2.1.1 Challenges Limiting the Participation of Stakeholders in Construction andDemolition Waste Diversion Programs

A number of challenges that stakeholders reported currently preventing them from participating in waste

diversion programs were discussed in the first session. These challenges range from business-specific

issues such as space restrictions or location (e.g., businesses in malls felt restricted by their disposal and

2 As of January 1, 2014, EBA is now Tetra Tech EBA Inc.



2


diversion options) to larger scope issues such as a lack of diversion program options and fluctuating

markets. Other factors reported as limiting stakeholders’ ability to divert their waste included:

Cost of diversion is greater than cost of disposal at the landfill

Labour costs of source separation

Inconvenient to divert waste

Lack of economic benefits/incentives to divert

Lack of knowledge of programs and options

These barriers to participation in diversion programs will be important to address when developing a C&D

waste diversion program for the City.

2.1.2 Waste Diversion Construction and Demolition Program Options

Waste diversion program options were grouped as either voluntary, economic, or regulatory. Voluntary

programs are those where diversion options are offered, and stakeholders can choose whether or not they

participate, without direct repercussions. Economic programs include programs that involve a financial

incentive or disincentive to participate in the program. For example, the City could have tax breaks or

financial incentives for businesses that build a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

certified building or implement internal diversion programs. Regulatory programs are generally the last

resort for municipalities, requiring businesses and/or the public to participate in waste diversion. These

programs are usually implemented to try to achieve diversion goals that are not being met by less

aggressive measures.

Figure displays all the waste diversion program options that were discussed with the stakeholders during

the first session. Each option was rated by the stakeholders and given an overall average score out of 10,

based on how supportive they were of the option.



3


Figure 1: Construction and Demolition Program Option Ratings

As shown in Figure 1, the voluntary program options generally received higher scores from the

stakeholders, especially compared to the regulatory options. All voluntary options received scores higher

than 5 out of 10 and the highest scoring voluntary program option was “develop an educational and

awareness program for C&D diversion”. The economic program options also scored relatively high with

differential tipping fees receiving the highest overall score of 8 out of 10. The highest scoring regulatory

option was mandatory waste audits and waste diversion plans with a score of 4.7 out of 10. The regulatory

option of a municipal deposit-refund program had the lowest overall score with 3.4 out of 10.

2.2 Key Stakeholder Findings

Key features of the feedback from stakeholders during the consultation sessions are outlined by program

option below.



4


2.2.1 Baseline Study

A baseline study would permit the City to establish a baseline against which to track C&D waste diversion

in the future and allow for the setting of industry standard benchmarks as part of sector goal setting and

evaluation, and involves the establishment of a monitoring and reporting system that will facilitate

gathering of C&D waste data from key stakeholders.

The baseline study received a support ranking of 8 out of 10 from stakeholders during the first session.

Based on this strong support, stakeholders were asked to discuss the program details of the City

conducting a baseline study for the industry.

2.2.1.1 Stakeholder’s Opinion on the City’s Role

Overall, stakeholders were in favour of the City completing a baseline study and felt it was a necessary

initial step in the progression of a city C&D waste diversion program roll-out. They felt the easiest way to

measure and record material tonnages was at the landfill. In order to accurately determine material

weights, session participants felt there would be a need for source separated loads at the landfill scale. This

would permit the recording of each C&D material while haulers crossed the scale.

Additionally, some stakeholders felt it may be necessary for the City to provide financial support to help

offset the costs associated with increased data collection.

2.2.1.2 Roles of Key Stakeholders

Stakeholders stressed the importance of having all stakeholders participate and share in the responsibility

of providing accurate data to the City for measurement and reporting purposes.

2.2.1.3 Keys to Successful Program Implementation

Successful program implementation is dependent on the City having clear objectives in regards to the use

of the collected data, as well as ensuring the privacy of stakeholders’ business is maintained. Clear

communication by the City in program steps and goals was deemed necessary to ensure stakeholder

participation in the program.

2.2.2 Differential Tipping Fees

A system of differential tipping fees involves having increased fees for loads containing

specified/designated materials. Clean and separated material-specific loads are charged a lower tipping fee

and certain designated materials have higher tipping fees than general Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).

Example C&D materials that would be candidates for designation include drywall, recyclable wood, asphalt

shingles, concrete, etc. Differential tipping fees were seen as an efficient incentive and stakeholders

supported an increase in the difference between general MSW tipping fees and the tipping fee for loads of

specified materials. This was the highest scoring diversion program option from the first session, receiving

a score of 8 out of 10.


Most session participants agreed that the City’s role involves a combination of setting the direction,

educating the stakeholders and public, and acting as an enforcement agency. These ideas specifically



5


include the City setting the differential tipping fee amounts and developing communication programs to

ensure stakeholders are aware and informed on the tipping fee rules and rates.

Additionally, it was suggested that the City partner with private industry to provide processing facilities for

materials that are given higher tipping fees. This will provide more opportunities for stakeholders to divert

materials and avoid higher tipping fees. This suggests stakeholders feel having differential tipping fees and

increased processing facilities go hand in hand.


With the implementation of differential tipping fees, stakeholders feel one of their primary roles would be

to actively and accurately communicate with their own internal staff and associated outside individuals

regarding program details. This would help in delivering education throughout the industry if the directly

affected stakeholders, such as haulers and processors, inform their own employees and clientele of the

program.

To achieve higher diversion through the use of differential tipping fees enforcement, stakeholders are

aware they will need to begin separating their C&D materials on site. Although there are some difficulties

with this, as stated by many participants, such as small sites with not enough room for multiple bins and a

general lack of employee knowledge on the materials and process, stakeholders felt this was the key to

having a successful program that creates results.


Participants suggested that collaboration, education, and partnerships would be keys to successful

implementation. Some people did express concern about the currently limited markets available for certain

materials, stating that the Lethbridge area will need processing facilities for materials imposed with higher

tipping fees. Stakeholders feel it is crucial to have accessible markets and processing facilities for materials

that are being tagged with higher disposal rates to help avoid illegal dumping.

If this program were to be rolled out, stakeholders expected that there would need to be a staggered

implementation process, allowing for a grace period (after sufficient education and communication) and

that the City would assist with enforcement.

Another critical component to creating an impact on waste reduction using differential tipping fees was to

set differential rates that are large enough to offset the extra costs to builders of having to separate

materials on site.

2.2.3 Develop an Education and Awareness Program for Construction and DemolitionDiversion

Developing an education and awareness program for C&D diversion would serve to promote waste

diversion in the commercial building sector. Options include developing and disseminating a list of

recyclers and successful case studies to the City and C&D industry.

The importance of education and communication was established in the first session, with it receiving the

second highest rating (7.9) alongside differential tipping fees. Therefore, a specific program focused on

raising education and awareness was targeted for discussion with the stakeholders.



6



As stated throughout the entire session, stakeholders firmly believe that the City’s role is to educate and

facilitate relationships. They suggested that the City is a neutral party that brings credibility to the overall

process. With regard to relationships, the idea of the City partnering with home builders to promote the

programs and provide education on diversion options was well received by most stakeholders. This

relationship could encourage and facilitate the source separation of materials on construction sites while

also building communication in the industry.

Education of not only the industry stakeholders, but also of the public was seen as an important role of the

City. Although it would be inappropriate for the stakeholders to shift the entire responsibility of waste

reduction to the customer, stakeholders did suggest the consumer could often make better decisions and

have a fairly significant role in changing the industry’s waste disposal habits.

A large part of awareness was seen as promotion of best practices. Stakeholders felt that the City needs to

be promoting more success stories within the C&D industry, thereby encouraging others to make changes

in their business. Promotion of best practices could also encourage waste reduction to become more the

norm, by delivering a social impact on the workings of the industry.

A simple, but important role the stakeholders felt the City should be playing, is being the creator of

environmental goals for the community. Having focused waste reduction goals for the industry and

community was seen as an important first step for the City.


As a partner in C&D initiatives, stakeholders said that they should have a shared role in the development of

a campaign, in addition to working with their own partners to promote the information. As mentioned in

the previous section, stakeholders felt the City needs to promote and share industry success stories, along

with educating and sharing information with the industry and public. However, the stakeholders also

shared that they feel this is also partially their responsibility. In fact, they suggested they need to enhance

the communication of waste diversion initiatives within their own businesses and share success stories

within the C&D community and to clients.

In particular, it was suggested that associations be charged with the task of promoting waste reduction

initiatives and to inform their members of environmental issues and opportunities.


As previously stated, stakeholders feel that successful program implementation is dependent on the

relationships between the City and the stakeholders, and the stakeholders and their employees and

clientele. Communication of ideas and information is essential for the success of education and awareness

within the industry.

Specific ideas that stakeholders felt would aid in the development of an educational and awareness

program are:

Develop a master list of processing options for all readily recyclable materials

Provide a general understanding of the cost savings related to diversion for businesses



7


Communicate the need for separate bins on site for different stages of construction

Develop a communication group to send out industry-specific messages on waste reduction and to

develop waste reduction targets/goals

Link an educational component on waste reduction to all building permits

Partner with the Home Builders Association to help promote waste reduction awareness

Have The City display waste projections and targets to help raise awareness

2.2.4 Infrastructure Development Facilities

The need for increased infrastructure was mentioned early on in the consultation process and it had mixed

reviews in regards to public and private sector operation. In the first session, this program option received

a rating score of 6.9 from the stakeholders. Subsequently, more insight into this program development was

gained.


There were differing views and opinions in regards to the role of the City (collection versus processing).

For some, they believe the entire industry should be serviced by private sector solutions, and they do not

believe that the local government should play a role. For others, they see that the City is a key and reliable

service provider.

Despite the differing views of the stakeholders about the City’s role when it comes to collection and

processing, the importance of reliable markets was generally stressed by industry members. Stakeholders

felt the City could be helping to develop more markets and help stabilize current markets. With increased

markets and less volatility, there would be reduced risk for stakeholders, especially for processors.

Regardless of which view stakeholders took in regards to the City’s role in collection and processing, all felt

there was a need for increased processing facilities for materials.

Potentially, for the City to avoid the private versus public sector argument, it was suggested the City

stimulate funding and market creation by implementing incentives and disincentives. Consequently, the

private sector will be eager to take on the collection and processing of an established and marketable

commodity.


Similar to the feedback gained on the City’s role, many of the stakeholders spoke of private sector solutions

to collection and processing facilities. For instance, with the development of incentives or disincentives,

they feel the private sector will respond and build the needed additional local infrastructure. Therefore, the

main role of building and operating infrastructure was given to that of the processor stakeholders.


The general consensus among stakeholders is that if the City establishes additional waste diversion

programs, steadier markets will be generated in the area for recycled materials. This in turn will lead to

private industry jumping at the opportunity to provide a collection and processing service for the



8


materials. Therefore, stakeholders believe it is the relationship between the City and private industry that

will provide for a successful implementation of infrastructure in the area.

2.2.5 Deposit Refund Program

If the City were to introduce a deposit refund program for C&D projects, a deposit would accompany C&D

project permit applications. Upon completion of the project, a refund would be given based on diversion

performance. This approach is modeled after a previously proposed provincial program that did not

proceed for political reasons.

Even though the deposit-refund program was not widely accepted as an appropriate waste diversion

program for the Lethbridge area in the first session (received a score of 3.4/10), more feedback was

warranted to gain specifics from stakeholders on the feasibility of the program in the future and specific

stakeholder concerns.

2.2.5.1 Program Feasibility

This particular option was met with two polarized perspectives; some participants believed that this

measure could be successful in holding the C&D sector accountable, while others said the government

should not be involved in this type of heavy handed regulation. There was a general consensus that the

administration of this type of program could be costly and burdensome for the City.

Stakeholders commented on a variety of positive elements to implementing a deposit refund program. For

instance, a program of this nature was seen as “forcing the hand of the sector” to take part in waste

reduction. Furthermore, the stakeholders would be forced to recognize true material disposal costs and

potential recyclable values, and the program would establish a sense of equality amongst homebuilders

and likely aid in the development of a consistent market for all common C&D materials.

There will always be resistance to regulation, especially amongst the private sector, creating common

opposition within the industry to a heavily regulated program such as that of a deposit-refund program.


If the City did choose to enforce a deposit-refund program, stakeholders feel the industry would need to be

fully educated on the program details and understand the reasoning and goals behind the City’s

implementation decision. Also, since the program will involve increased administration on the City and the

stakeholders’ part, a digital, and perhaps online system was suggested for recording and tracking the

details required. This would help simplify the process for industry stakeholders and the City, making the

program more appealing for participation.

3.0 INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL

3.1 Process Overview

The first of two ICI stakeholder engagement sessions was held June 26, 2013 and had a total of

33 participants. The first sessions involved two different groups, generators and associations separately

and then processors and haulers together. The stakeholder groups were separated for the first consultation



9


sessions to gain industry sector-specific feedback, without outside influence. The first sessions involved the

discussion of 13 different waste diversion program approaches, including voluntary, economic, and

regulatory options. As with the initial C&D session, stakeholders ranked each program option on a scale of

1 to 10 based on how supportive they were of the option. Along with the ranking of programs, stakeholders

were asked to identify the current challenges that limit them from participating in ICI waste diversion

programs.

The final session for the ICI consultation process was held September 12 and had a total of 23 participants.

This session involved the discussion of specific program details for the top ranking program options

resulting from the first session. All stakeholders were consulted in one session and the details of the City’s

Role, the key stakeholders’ roles, and the keys to successful implementation, were recorded.

A list of participants can be viewed in Appendix B.

3.1.1 Challenges Limiting the Participation of Stakeholders in Industrial, Commercial,and Institutional Waste Diversion Programs

The challenges identified by stakeholders which prevent them from participating in waste diversion

programs included lack of services for specific materials, such as organics, the additional costs of diversion

programs, and space limitations, especially for downtown businesses. Additional limiting factors recorded

from the first session were as follows:

Lack of knowledge of staff and customers

The inconvenience and time requirements to have staff sort material for recycling

Lack of awareness of programs and recycling options

Not enough incentives for businesses to take the time to divert waste

These barriers will need to be considered in the design of a final ICI waste diversion program for the city of

Lethbridge, and should specifically be addressed in a social marketing campaign.

3.1.2 Waste Diversion Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Program Options

Figure 2 displays all the waste diversion program options that were discussed with the ICI stakeholders

during the first session. As with the C&D session, each program option was rated by the stakeholders and

given an overall average score out of 10 based on their support for the option.



10


Figure 2: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Program Option Ratings

As displayed in Figure 2, there were a variety of voluntary, economic, and regulatory options that scored

very high amongst the ICI stakeholders. As with the C&D stakeholders, the ICI stakeholders ranked

differential tipping fees as the highest program option with a score of 7.9 out of 10. ICI mandatory

recycling/source separation requirements was a close second, receiving a score of 7.8. All voluntary

options received high scores, with all the options scoring higher than 5. Out of all the options, the lowest

scoring was franchise waste system, a regulatory option, receiving a score of 4.0.

It is noteworthy to mention that stakeholders ranked the program option waste diversion promotion very

highly with a score of 7.3. This is particularly interesting for the City since they already have a similar

program labelled the “Lethbridge Green List”. Each year individuals, organizations and businesses are

nominated to the “Lethbridge Green List” for taking action to better the environment. Therefore, this high

ranking demonstrates that the stakeholders are supportive of programs such as the “Lethbridge Green List”

and would perhaps favour expanding the promotion the City is currently doing.



11


3.2 Key Stakeholder Findings

3.2.1 Differential Tipping Fees

As with the C&D stakeholders, differential tipping fees were discussed in detail as a potential waste

diversion approach for implementation in the ICI industry. Differential tipping fees was the highest rated

program option by stakeholders, receiving an average score of 7.9 out of 10.


The most mentioned role for the City by stakeholders was that of providing waste diversion education and

communicating program details. For instance, general information on materials with differential tipping

fees and how these materials can be diverted from the waste stream.

Additionally, stakeholders felt it was important for the City to structure the program and its fees to make it

economically viable for industry to spend the time and money to source separate the materials in

preparation for hauling to the landfill.

The City would also need to take on the role of consistently enforcing the rates at the landfill and

sufficiently advertising the program details.


ICI stakeholders agreed that they too need to play a role in both educating their business partners,

employees, and clients, in order to develop this type of program. Specifically, it was expected the haulers

would be assigned the task of educating customers and demonstrate the cost implications of not

participating in source separation.


Stakeholders stated that communication and education would be the foundation to successful

implementation of differential tipping fees. They believe that there needs to be a sufficient difference

between the rates for comingled waste and source separated materials in order to make it worthwhile for

stakeholders to participate, thus making the program successful.

Generally, stakeholders preferred a grace period upon implementation, to allow participants time to work

out start-up issues. They also advised encouraging sorting stations on site to permit easy separation.

To ensure successful implementation, stakeholders emphasized the importance of having established

markets for designated materials and for the City to provide consistent and fair enforcement at the landfill.

3.2.2 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Mandatory Recycling/Source SeparationRequirements

A mandatory recycling/source separation program for the ICI sector would require businesses to

participate in recycling and/or divert designated materials through a recycling program. Mandatory

recycling or source separation places a regulatory requirement on business to participate in diversion

programs as part of their daily operations. This requirement may take the form of physical diversion

infrastructure, including separate collection containers, or proof of material diversion.



12


Second to differential tipping fees, a mandatory recycling/source separation program for the ICI sector

received a score of 7.8 out of 10 from stakeholders in the first session.


In terms of a mandatory ICI recycling program, the majority of the stakeholders described the City’s role as

a facilitator, educator, and responsible for enforcement of the program. In addition to promoting education

and awareness about the program overall, they would like to see the City expand its information to ensure

that it covers cost implications as well.

Stakeholders suggested if the City were to require recycling in the ICI industry, the City should provide the

required infrastructure for sorting and collecting of the material. For instance, stakeholders would require

additional bins and drop-off locations for the different material streams. Even though this was firstly

announced by stakeholders as a role of the City, they did interject later to state that this could be done in

conjunction with the private industry.


As with all of the other key measures, stakeholders spoke to their shared responsibility and ownership to

ensure that their staff and associates comply with the program. They believe that they have an important

role to support and ensure compliance amongst their partners, in addition to educating their customers.

Also, in regards to education, the haulers were once again assigned the task of educating their customers on

program details, costs and to monitor compliance.


Providing stakeholders with lead time to prepare facilities, collection, and processes; in addition to the City

providing adequate information and education related to program costs, are seen to be key elements to

making this program successful. Additional elements that were seen as critical to ensuring a successful

program roll-out were:

Making it cost effective for generators to sort material

Create a level playing field for all businesses – no exceptions to enforcement

Need enhanced waste collection or on-site storage for the downtown core

Another note of particular interest is that stakeholders felt this type of regulation would be seen more

positively from stakeholders if it was also to be enforced on the residential and C&D sectors.

3.2.3 Waste Diversion Assistance

A waste diversion assistance program would involve providing technical and information assistance to

companies that want to implement waste diversion programs. This can be helpful to businesses that may

not have the technical knowledge or capacity to investigate diversion opportunities.

Waste diversion assistance was generally received as a favourable program option, with the following

specific comments from stakeholders. In the first session waste diversion assistance scored 7.6 out of 10.



13



Participants see The City’s role for this program as the educator and facilitator. They would like to see the

City provide resources, including contacts for sector businesses and information on how to become

involved in the assistance program. While some participants were concerned about the cost to taxpayers if

the City took on the role of providing assistance to businesses, most agreed that it would generally be an

effective support mechanism to their businesses.

As a part of the assistance program, stakeholders stated they would value a public list, composed by the

City, of consultants, industry providers, haulers, and processors. This lends itself to the City also aiding in

the development of partnerships between stakeholders.

Additional components of the program that were suggested by stakeholders for the City to take on were

website and information sharing, personalized waste diversion program implementation for businesses,

and evaluation services for businesses currently having diversion programs in place.


Participants expressed that they share a role in the communication with internal and external staff and

with the public. They feel that they could contribute to an assistance program by sharing their success

stories and ideas with the City and other businesses. Stakeholders can aid the City by setting an example for

other businesses to follow. Likewise, stakeholders could engage their customers and the public using the

information they have received from the assistance program, continuing the education cycle. This

specifically applies to haulers, who have a direct ability to educate the generators.

Additionally, stakeholders feel they would need to provide feedback on the quality of assistance being

received from the program in order for the City to maintain up-to-date and informative program content.


Clear communication, realistic offerings and support, in addition to promoting sector buy-in are all seen as

key elements to successfully implementing this program. If the City can manage to create partnerships

between stakeholders through the use of contact lists, current information, and success stories,

stakeholders believe the waste assistance program will be a success.

3.2.4 Landfill Bans

Landfill bans would prohibit the disposal of certain material streams at the City landfill, with the standard

enforcement mechanism being the rejection of loads containing banned material.

As the ultimate example of disposal regulation, landfill bans were discussed in detail with ICI stakeholders

to gain an understanding of their support of the program (7 out of 10) from the first session.

3.2.4.1 Feasibility

While stakeholders are not in unanimous agreement that landfill bans are the right direction for the City to

pursue, most stated that there are tangible environmental benefits; reducing waste going directly to

landfills and increasing recycling of materials that can be diverted. Some stakeholders expressed concerns

with the potential for illegal dumping and the management/enforcement by the City to prevent dumping



14


on private property. In addition, some said that if local facilities are not able to handle banned materials,

they would incur significant costs to redirect the materials to another location. However, as with incentives

and disincentives, regulations can also help spur the creation of new and additional markets for materials

that are directed to be diverted.

3.2.4.2 Materials to Ban

When stakeholders were asked to provide a list of materials that are candidates for a ban, the following

materials were mentioned:

Harmful substances (toxic) – due to general environmental concern, stakeholders felt all harmful

substances should be banned from landfill;

Organics – with organics making up a significant portion of the ICI waste stream and its ability to

produce methane gas, stakeholders felt it made sense to ban the material from landfill;

Electronics – stakeholders felt there were already so many program options available for the recycling

of these products that a ban would be appropriate;

All beverage containers and any material with a deposit or eco-fees associated with it – stakeholders

felt the deposits/fees signifies a established recycling program for these materials which means there

is no excuse for these materials to end up in the landfill;

Cardboard and paper – makes up the largest portion of the ICI waste stream and is readily recyclable.

Therefore, stakeholders feel there is no reason for it being disposed in landfill; and

Metal – as a material with strong markets, metal is a strong candidate for a landfill ban.

4.0 IMPLEMENTING DIVERSION PROGRAMS

In designing a waste diversion program for the City, potential program elements need to be assessed based

on cost and effectiveness at reducing waste.

Waste diversion programs are typically divided into three categories: voluntary program options, economic

program options, and regulatory program options. To build support and participation from stakeholders, it

is recommended to use a graduated approach to program implementation, beginning with voluntary

options, followed by economic, and then regulatory measures if waste diversion targets are not being met.

Voluntary options generally have lower diversion estimates, ranging from 10% to 30%, followed by

economic program options at 20% to 50% diversion, with regulatory diversion programs topping diversion

estimates at 40% to 75%. However, it is considered best practice to begin with voluntary and economic

program options to engage the community and sector stakeholders, rather than immediately introducing

regulations, which can produce public resistance, and require enforcement. Regulatory measures can then

be more readily defended, and are more likely to be embraced by the community, if less punitive options

have not met program goals.

Deciding on program options most suited to municipalities often comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.

For instance, some voluntary program options are not as costly to implement, but may not be as effective at

reducing waste. Waste diversion programs that can increase waste diversion in the ICI sector are shown in



15


Table 1, with their corresponding estimated implementation costs and waste diversion percentages

(sonnevera 2008).

Table 1: Details with Estimated Diversion Percentages and Costs of Industrial, Commercial, and

Institutional Waste Diversion Program Options (sonnevera 2008)

Program OptionProgram

TypeDetails

EstimatedWaste Diversion

Percentages

EstimatedImplementation/Processor Cost

Promoting GreenProcurement Within the

ICI SectorVoluntary

Education to encourage greenprocurement within the ICI sector.

0% - 5% $100,000 - $200,000

City Establishes aGreen Procurement

ProgramVoluntary

City adopts green procurementpolicy and practices.

1% - 2% <$100,000

Waste Audit and WasteReduction PlanRequirements

RegulatoryCity requires businesses toconduct waste audits and developwaste reduction plans.

5% - 25% $100,000 - $200,000

Waste ReductionCertification Program

Voluntary

Businesses can receivecertification if they achievespecified waste reduction/diversiontargets.

5% - 10% <$100,000

Waste DiversionAssistance Program

Voluntary

City offers technical andinformation assistance tocompanies that want to implementwaste diversion program.

5% - 25% <$100,000

Mandatory Diversion atSpecial Events

RegulatoryOrganizers of special eventsrequired to offer waste diversionservices during the event.

1% - 2% <$100,000

Waste DiversionPromotional Programs

Voluntary

Targeted waste diversionprograms developed for specificICI sectors, such as schools andoffice buildings.

5% - 25% $100,000 - $500,000

Landfill Bans RegulatoryDesignated materials are bannedfrom entering the landfill.

25% - 75% $100,000 - $200,000

Haulers Submit AnnualWaste and Recycling

Reports

Voluntary orRegulatory

Haulers required to submit wasteand recycling reports as part ofbusiness operating permit.

0% <$25,000

Differential TippingFees

Economic

Higher tipping fees are applied toloads of waste containingdesignated recyclables andcompostable materials.

10% - 50% $100,000 - $200,000

Mandatory Recyclingand/or Source

SeparationRequirements

Regulatory

Businesses must participate inrecycling and/or must divertdesignated materials through arecycling program.

25% - 75% $200,000 - $300,000

ICI Yard WasteProgram

Voluntary,economic,

or regulatory

City or private sector developscommercial yard waste facility.

0% - 2% $100,000 - $500,000

Food Waste CollectionProgram

Voluntary,economic,

or regulatory

City or private sector provides foodwaste collection to businesses.

5% - 10% $100,000 - $1,000,000



16


As shown in Table 1, there are a variety of program choices with different predicted effectiveness and

implementation costs. Voluntary options, such as “waste diversion promotional programs” and “waste

diversion assistance programs”, are generally more widely accepted amongst stakeholders and can be quite

effective at increasing waste diversion if implemented using social marketing techniques. Economic

program options provide incentives to stakeholders and can receive resistance during implementation, but

are often seen as fair and effective ways at encouraging waste diversion in the industry, as long as

considerations such as level playing field are maintained. Regulations have associated enforcement costs to

municipalities, but are normally the most effective at increasing waste diversion, and results can be

maximized through social marketing techniques and consistent enforcement.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

A variety of waste diversion program options were discussed with C&D and ICI stakeholders in a series of

consultation sessions. Overall, voluntary program options were well supported along with economic

options. Regulatory approaches were not always as favourably received by stakeholders.

There are a variety of barriers and challenges that limit stakeholders’ involvement in waste diversion

programs. For both C&D and the ICI stakeholders, a lack of incentives, cost implications, and lack of

education were significant barriers. Consequently, economic waste diversion programs, such as differential

tipping fees, generally received support from stakeholders. Additionally, voluntary programs were the

highest rated program options in both the C&D and ICI consultation sessions. Voluntary and economic

programs help to reduce barriers by providing education, awareness, and assistance, along with an

incentive for stakeholders to participate in diversion programs.

For any waste diversion program to be successful, stakeholders feel there is a need to have a good working

relationship, with clear communication, between the City and key stakeholders. Stakeholders felt it was the

responsibility of the City to set environmental goals and initiate the education and awareness of waste

diversion programs to the industry and the public. At the same time, it is the responsibility of key

stakeholders to communicate with their internal stakeholders and customers, as well as actively participate

in the programs and share their success stories within the industry.

A baseline study was well received by stakeholders and considered a fundamental first step in creating any

kind of waste diversion strategy and ultimately tracking progress towards diversion goals.

Differential tipping fees were widely supported by both C&D and ICI stakeholders, being the highest rated

economic program option, and the highest rated option overall amongst the ICI stakeholders. Stakeholders

did prefer to have a grace period to allow for preparation upon implementation of the program.

Developing an education and awareness program is considered essential and well supported by the

stakeholders. Communication of goals and program details, along with the City partnering with

associations, were key elements to successful implementation.

There are mixed opinions on the role of the City and key stakeholders in regards to infrastructure

development. It is recognized by stakeholders that increased infrastructure, especially processing, needs to

be developed for certain materials, but the exact role of public versus private ownership and operation is



17


still up for debate. Either way, the importance of having a good relationship between the City and private

industry was stressed.

ICI mandatory recycling/source separation was well received amongst stakeholders as long as the program

details were well communicated by the City. Additionally, it was expected the haulers would play a large

role in educating the generators and there were concerns over having enhanced waste collection and on-

site storage for businesses in the downtown core.

Waste diversion assistance was rated highly and valued by stakeholders as a good way of promoting waste

diversion programs and educating the industry on program options. Providing clear, concise, and up-to-

date information would be a requirement of the City according to the stakeholders.

Regulatory options, such as a deposit-refund program and landfill bans, were not as favourably received as

voluntary and economic, but stakeholders did admit they see benefits to the programs, which are likely the

most effective at meeting ambitious waste diversion targets. Stakeholders did express their concerns

regarding some regulatory programs being administratively taxing and potentially difficult to enforce. In

regards to landfill bans, stakeholders did suggest that certain materials should be banned, especially those

associated with deposit or eco-fees, such as beverage containers, and any potentially harmful substances.

In designing a waste diversion program for the City, potential program elements need to be assessed based

on cost and effectiveness at reducing waste. The introduction of waste diversion programs can stimulate

the processing industry and create markets for specific recyclable materials. Voluntary programs are

widely accepted by stakeholders, but generally are not as effective at reducing waste when compared to

economic and regulatory approaches. With the introduction of economic program options, stakeholders are

provided with incentives to reduce their waste generation, thus increasing waste diversion. Regulatory

program options are usually the most effective at increasing waste diversion, but can be costly due to

enforcement and program logistics.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is important that the City research potential mitigation options for the barriers identified by

stakeholders. Removal of these barriers will promote waste diversion and lead to successful program

implementation. Once the City has identified programs to overcome the identified barriers, it can promote

these programs and help educate the ICI industry with a waste diversion assistance program. Having

one-on-one face time with industry stakeholders will be very effective at educating individual industry

members.

The City has numerous roles to play when it comes to implementing waste diversion programs. For

instance, it is recommended that the City create a waste diversion strategy for the C&D and ICI industries,

with targets and diversion goals. As part of this strategy, development of a comprehensive waste

measurement and reporting system should also be developed, to allow for accurate tracking of waste

diversion and disposal, starting with a solid baseline on which to track performance.

Due to the stakeholders reinforcing their involvement and shared responsibility in regards to waste

diversion programs, it is essential for the City to maintain communication with the stakeholders and keep

the industry engaged on decisions and program option updates. It is recommended that the City continue



18


to conduct consultations with stakeholders, including approaches such as diversion program-specific focus

groups. Another recommended role for the City is to continue to promote stakeholder success stories and

recognize businesses that are acting as environmental leaders. The City will also need to be prepared to act

as the enforcer for any regulatory programs that are implemented.

With regards to the progression of implementation of certain waste diversion programs, it is recommended

to begin with voluntary programs, followed by economic, with regulatory options in reserve if these softer

approaches are not successful in meeting diversion goals. Voluntary programs are often widely accepted

among stakeholders and encourage environmental awareness. Although the implementation of voluntary

options often results in support from stakeholders, they are usually not as effective at reducing waste when

compared to economic and regulatory approaches. Therefore, economic programs are a good second step,

providing incentives for stakeholders, and ultimately resulting in increased waste diversion. Regulatory

options are recommended to be introduced when voluntary and economic options are not achieving the

desired waste diversion targets.

Specifically, it is recommended that the ICI and C&D diversion programs begin with a targeted education

campaign, supported by a waste diversion assistance program introduced by the City. This voluntary

approach can be followed by a more aggressive system of differential tipping fees on an expanded group of

materials, to be implemented within approximately six months of its announcement. If these approaches do

not achieve the waste reduction targets, landfill bans and mandatory recycling can be introduced, with

advance notice of at least one year prior to implementation.

Another recommendation is to enhance the relationship with industry associations and have them play a

significant role in educating their members and promoting waste diversion program options. Example

associations could be the Home Builders Association and the Downtown Lethbridge Business Revitalization

Zone (BRZ).



19


7.0 CLOSURE

We trust this report meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or comments, please

contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

Tetra Tech EBA Inc.

Prepared by: Prepared by:

Lindsay Seidel-Wassenaar, E.I.T. Jamie Duncan

Environmental Engineer Vice President

Environment Practice Ipsos Reid

Direct Line: 403.294.7385

[email protected]

Reviewed by: Reviewed by:

Christina Seidel Mandi Parker, P.Ag.

Chief Executive Officer Director of Projects

sonnevera international corp. Environment Practice

Direct Line: 403.843.6563 Direct Line: 403.329.9009 x224

[email protected] [email protected]

/dlm

lynn.sturge

Stamp

lynn.sturge

Stamp

lynn.sturge

Stamp

lynn.sturge

Stamp



20


REFERENCES

City of Lethbridge 2012. Waste & Recycling Business Plan 2012-2014.

sonnevera international corp. 2008. City of Lethbridge Comprehensive Waste Diversion / Waste Prevention

Master Plan. May 22, 2008.




APPENDIX AGENERAL CONDITIONS

General Conditions - Geo-environmental Report.docx

GENERAL CONDITIONS

GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.

1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP

This report pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and a

specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any other sites, norshould it be relied upon for types of development other than thoseto which it refers. Any variation from the site or proposed

development would necessitate a supplementary investigation andassessment.

This report and the assessments and recommendations containedin it are intended for the sole use of EBA’s client. EBA does not

accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, theanalysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in thereport when the report is used or relied upon by any party other

than EBA’s Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by EBA.Any unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user.

This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced eitherwholly or in part without the prior, written permission of EBA.

Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained uponrequest.

2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT

Where EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of

reports, drawings and other project-related documents anddeliverables (collectively termed EBA’s instruments of professionalservice), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered

final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed versionarchived by EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project.

Both electronic file and hard copy versions of EBA’s instruments ofprofessional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter

who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except EBA. TheClient warrants that EBA’s instruments of professional service willbe used only and exactly as submitted by EBA.

Electronic files submitted by EBA have been prepared and

submitted using specific software and hardware systems. EBAmakes no representation about the compatibility of these files withthe Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.

3.0 NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES

In certain instances, the discovery of hazardous substances or

conditions and materials may require that regulatory agencies andother persons be informed and the client agrees that notification tosuch bodies or persons as required may be done by EBA in its

reasonably exercised discretion.

4.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO EBA BY OTHERS

During the performance of the work and the preparation of thereport, EBA may rely on information provided by persons other than

the Client. While EBA endeavours to verify the accuracy of suchinformation when instructed to do so by the Client, EBA accepts noresponsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information

which may affect the report.




APPENDIX BSESSION ATTENDEES

FILE: C22503014-01 | MARCH 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE

ICI Stakeholders (Generators)First

Name

Last

NameEmail Address

Attended

1st

Session

Attended

2nd

Session

1 Downtown Lethbridge Business Revitalization Zone (BRZ) David [email protected] 12 Industrial Association of Southern Alberta (IASA) Chris Spearman [email protected] Lethbridge Chamber of Commerce Stephanie Palechek [email protected] Wal-mart (north)5 Wal-mart (south)6 Costco Kevin Baker [email protected] Canadian Tire (south side) [email protected] Canadian Tire (north side) Barry Ferguson [email protected] Home Depot Jace Moon [email protected]

10 Home Hardware Geoffrey Brayne11 Totem (Rona) Dean Scherger [email protected] Sears Home Centre (south Mayor Mcgrath) Alex Dawson [email protected] Brick Frank Yee [email protected] London Drugs Chris Mabie 115 London Drugs Greg Whelpley [email protected] 1 116 The Dollar Store (south) Mostasa Hassan17 Shoppers Drug Mart (north) Hyder Mohammed18 Shoppers Drug Mart (south) Kimberlee Westphald 119 Shoppers Drug Mart (west) Clayton Braun [email protected] Shoppers Drug Mart (south) Dorothy Kitt21 Staples Trish Nicholson 122 Ashleys Furniture Sydney Ieffle23 Leon's Furniture Jordan Visser [email protected] 124 Visions Electronics Patrick Barker25 Princess Auto Lisa Plausteiner [email protected] Peavey Mart Doug Cole [email protected] King of Trade Hunter Heggie 128 Nicholai Judy Dormaar29 Anna Banana [email protected] Suzzane & Jennies31 Carline Muffler Mark Switzer [email protected] Bad Apple Hair Salon Bad Apple Salon Staff [email protected] Stubb's Pharmacy Shannon Kooy34 Design Lighting [email protected] Warwick Printing Dave Warwick36 Flair Travel Pat Johnson [email protected] Petland Allan Draper38 Safeway (west) Dave Sawchuck39 Safeway (north) Doug Elliot40 Safeway (south) Harry Forefett41 Save-on (west) Colin Dixon42 Save-on (north) Mark Shipton [email protected] 1 143 Superstore Don [email protected] Sobey's (north) Parrish Hanelt45 Sobey's (south) Dallas and KatrinaHarty46 Urban Grocer Cheryl Meheden 147 London Road Market David Gurr 1 148 London Road Market Duane Gurr 1 149 Dairy Queen (west) Jane50 Dairy Queen (north) Pravin Patel51 Dairy Queen (south) Destiny Welcer52 Luigi's Panos Kollias53 Round Street Bonnie Greenshields54 Esquires Kathy MacPherson [email protected] 155 Light House Ryan Squire56 Mocha Cabana Marcel Ohno [email protected]; [email protected] 157 Tony Roma's [email protected] Ric's Grille Jonas Taleon [email protected] The Keg Amanda Knelsen60 Moxie's Peter McGarry [email protected] Average Joe's Rob Mereska62 Tim Hortons (Tim owns a couple) Tim Streisel [email protected] 163 Mr. Mikes Greg Wornstaff64 Regent Restaurant Wayne Qwan65 Guesthouse [email protected] Park Place Mall Maurice Pirness [email protected] 167 Park Place Mall Todd Beck [email protected] Park Place Mall Kevin Brees [email protected] Centre Village Mall Karen Romolliwa [email protected] Lethbridge Centre Dan 1 171 Provincial Bldg72 Service Canada (federal gov't bldg) Amanda Herman [email protected] Professional Building [email protected] Southland Terrace Gerry Varzari75 Chancery Court Gerry Varzari76 Paramount Bldg Ken Harvie77 BraeMore Management Warren Lyckman [email protected]; [email protected] 178 Lethbridge Housing Authority Bernice79 Coast Hotel Curtis Burton [email protected] Lethbridge Lodge [email protected] Holiday Inn Express [email protected] Hampton Inn Craig Usher83 Holiday Inn Dwayne Stratton [email protected] Ramada Brian Um85 Comfort Inn Eliza Weiderspick86 Econo Lodge Alois Scherer [email protected] MPE Engineering [email protected] Pollack & Company Frances Terlesky [email protected] 189 Huckvale Wilde Harvie Maclennan Cam Maclennan90 Scotia Bank Dennis Hatt91 Stringam-Denecky Stephen Mogdan92 King Electric93 Earthlings 194 Stantec Mark Bellany95 Casino Lethbridge Attila Madarasz [email protected] YMCA Jason Shriner97 Lethbridge Exhibition Bryan [email protected] Chinook Health Region/Regional Hospital Ryan Thomson99 Chinook Health Region/Regional Hospital Ed Saacedra

100 Green Acres Naomi Plausteiner [email protected] Family Medical Centre [email protected] Dr. Fong Dr. Fong103 Able Dentis Group Connie Hanson [email protected] Campbell Clinic Diane Graham105 Haig Clinic106 Radiology Associates Darallel Steed [email protected] 1 1107 St. Michaels Health Care *ST. MICHAELS HOUSING?* Jim Riedlhuber108 Green Acres Animal hospital [email protected] Eecol Electric Cam Newman [email protected] McKay Bros Farm Implement Steven Dyck [email protected] Williams Moving Did not want invitation112 H&R Transport Attention: Director113 Silver Automotive [email protected] Acklands-Grainger Greg Mitchell115 Emco AB Heating & Plumbing Supplies Sherilyn Stroud116 University of Lethbridge Laurel Corbiere [email protected] Lethbridge Community College Peter Leclaire [email protected] School District 51 Bob McMann [email protected] 1119 Holy Spirit District Chris Smeaton [email protected] Interfaith Food Bank Danielle McIntyre [email protected] 1121 Living Lethbridge Magazine Jenn Schmidt-Rempel [email protected] 1

14 16

Appendix B: Complete Session Participation Summary

Generators

Total

Complete Session Participation Summary




APPENDIX CENGAGEMENT SESSION SUMMARIES AND TABLE NOTES

City of LethbridgeStakeholder Engagement - C&D Session Report

Ipsos© 2013 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproducedwithout the prior written consent of Ipsos.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________ 1

KEY FINDINGS ________________________________________________________ 2

CHALLENGES _________________________________________________________ 3

PROGRAM OPTIONS ___________________________________________________ 4

Baseline Study _________________________________________________________ 4

VOLUNTARY MEASURES _______________________________________________ 6

Green Building Certificate Program _________________________________________ 6

Develop an Education and Awareness program for C&D diversion _________________ 7

Infrastructure Development________________________________________________ 8

ECONOMIC MEASURES_________________________________________________ 9

Incentives for Green Design _______________________________________________ 9

Differential tipping fees __________________________________________________ 10

REGULATORY MEASURES _____________________________________________ 11

Mandatory Waste Diversion Plans _________________________________________ 11

Municipal Deposit-Refund Program ________________________________________ 12

Disposal Bans_________________________________________________________ 13

OTHER PROGRAMMING MEASURES _____________________________________ 14

ROLE OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE ____________________________________ 14

WRAP-UP____________________________________________________________ 15


1Ipsos© 2013 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproducedwithout the prior written consent of Ipsos.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ideation Session Report

The following is the detailed output immediately following a series of engagement sessionswith stakeholders of the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector (ICI) for WasteManagement and Construction and Demolition Sector (C&D) in the city of Lethbridge.

Three engagement sessions were held for four groups of stakeholders: one session was heldfor stakeholders of the C&D sector, one for Generators and one for Processors and Haulers.

The sessions were held on June 25, 2013 at the Community Arts Centre (CASA). Consistingof approximately 15-20 members of each stakeholder community, each session lasted closeto 2 hours in length.

The first part of the C&D stakeholder engagement sessions was an overview of the City of#'/)%-*&('0. (,$+ /, implement a C&D waste diversion strategy in the 2014-2017 businesscycle, and the role of the C&D sector in helping the City achieve these goals. The first partalso provided an overview of the current situation in waste diversion for the C&D sector.

Following this overview, the several potential program options for managing waste diversionin the C&D sector, including Voluntary Measures, Economic Measures, and RegulatoryMeasures were presented to the stakeholder group.

The latter part of the session allowed each individual participant to express their views oneach of the program options and also provide feedback on overall challenges and risksassociated with waste diversion in the sector as a whole and with each of the programoptions presented.

The following is a real-time report of the C&D Engagement Session, which shows theactual responses of participants across key questions covered.

Final reports will be submitted through the City of Lethbridge in the coming weeks upon thecompletion of the engagement strategy & process.



CHALLENGES

What challenges limit you from participating in C&D waste reduction and diversion programs?

No. Idea

1. Cost

2. Labour costs, Site supervision. Labour costs to separate on site

3. Time

4. bad behaviors by businesses and end users

5. flexibility

6. Cost: 1. Costs of site supervision. Time to separate waste on site costs more

7. Waste storage

8. Not on site to monitor behaviors

9. Convenience

10. Convenience

11. Space / storage

12. Space limitations for bins on site

13. Facilities to store materials are limited

14. Lack of space to sort at construction site

15. What is the benefit to the business? tax breaks? etc.

16. Sorting issues

17. Lack of understanding of services or programs

18. Cost labor storage; ease of collection

19. Availability of service provider

20. Hand sorting

21. Limited infrastructure for compactors

22. Programs aren't available for all commodities



23. Knowledge of ideas pertaining to actual programs available

PROGRAM OPTIONS

Baseline Study

In order to improve data recording, a baseline study could be conducted in collaboration with the Provincialgovernment and industry

On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being very opposed and 10 being very supportive, how supportive would you say youare of this program approach?

HIGH/LOW REPORT

Rating Criteria: Rating Criteria

Rank Idea High Low Avg.

Scale: (1) Very Opposed (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Very Supportive

1. Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector through: Recognition of

progressive businesses and Waste Reduction Certification.

10 4 8

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION REPORT


Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Technical and information assistance to companies

that want to implement waste diversion programs

0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 2



What data would you, as a stakeholder, be willing to share?

No. Idea

1. As a contractor we would be able to tell you what percentages of waste we are generating

2. Projected waste and recycling stream volumes

3. What we are doing today to manage waste what we would ideally like to see happen

4. Current costs (direct and indirect), types of waste, volumes

5. As a stakeholder we would be willing to share all avenues of cost generation, waste generation, waste

compilation, and human resources

6. UofL everything west can everything

7. Tonnage and commodity information

8. Types of waste generated, it is difficult to measure volumes of various wastes so data would be high level

information only with little detail

9. Due to confidentiality, the type of data and level of detail we are permitted to reveal will be limited



VOLUNTARY MEASURES

Green Building Certificate Program

Promotes programs that promote energy/water conservation and waste reduction/diversion


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Green Building Certificate Program: Promote programs that promote

energy/water conservation and waste reduction /diversion.

10 2 6.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Green Building Certificate Program: Promote

programs that promote energy/water conservation and

waste reduction /diversion.

0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2



Develop an Education and Awareness program for C&D diversion

Develop and disseminate a list of recyclers and successful case studies to The City and C&D industry


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. DEVELOP AN EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAM FOR C&D

DIVERSION: Develop and disseminate a list of recyclers and successful case

studies to The City and C&D industry

10 5 7.9



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. DEVELOP AN EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

PROGRAM FOR C&D DIVERSION: Develop and

disseminate a list of recyclers and successful case

studies to The City and C&D industry

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 4



Infrastructure Development

City establishes collection facilities for certain materialsEstablish increased collection, transfer and processing facilities for C&D waste


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Infrastructure Development: City establishes collection facilities for certain

materials

10 3 6.9

2. Infrastructure Development: Establish increased collection, transfer, and

processing facilities for C&D waste

8 2 5.2



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Infrastructure Development: City establishes collection

facilities for certain materials

0 0 1 0 3 0 1 3 0 2

2. Infrastructure Development: Establish increased

collection, transfer, and processing facilities for C&D

waste

0 1 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 0



ECONOMIC MEASURES

Incentives for Green Design

Promotes programs that promote energy/water conservation and waste reduction/diversion


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Incentives for Green Design: Buildings or developments with green design

receive incentives, such as reduced permitting fees. (E.G LEED)

9 3 5.5



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Incentives for Green Design: Buildings or

developments with green design receive incentives,

such as reduced permitting fees. (E.G LEED)

0 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 2 0



Differential tipping fees

Clean and separated material specific loads are charged a lower tipping fee


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Differential Tipping Fees: Clean and separated material specific loads are

charged a lower tipping fee. Certain designated materials have higher tipping

fees than general MSW

10 5 8.0



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Differential Tipping Fees: Clean and separated

material specific loads are charged a lower tipping fee.

Certain designated materials have higher tipping fees

than general MSW

0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 5



REGULATORY MEASURES

Mandatory Waste Diversion Plans

Standardized Material Recovery Plan would be required by the City as part of building/development permitapplication


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements: Standardized Material

Recovery Plan would be required by the City as part of building/development

permit application

10 2 4.7



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation

Requirements: Standardized Material Recovery Plan

would be required by the City as part of

building/development permit application

0 2 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 1



Municipal Deposit-Refund Program

Development of a municipal deposit refund program for C&D projects


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Municipal Deposit-Refund Program: Development of a municipal deposit-

refund program for C&D projects

9 1 3.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Municipal Deposit-Refund Program: Development of a

municipal deposit-refund program for C&D projects

3 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0



Disposal Bans

Materials with well-established diversion opportunities are banned from disposal at the landfill


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Disposal Bans: Materials with well-established diversion opportunities are

banned from disposal at the landfill

10 2 4.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Disposal Bans: Materials with well-established

diversion opportunities are banned from disposal at

the landfill

0 3 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1



OTHER PROGRAMMING MEASURES

Are there other program options that you would recommend or consider?

No. Idea

1. MRF

2. focus group specific to the canadian home builders association should be done because of their unique needs

3. increase landfill fees for comingled loads

4. Recycling program consultation.

5. City sorts at landfill

6. Make business accountable for recycling items such as Tim Horton's coffee grinds can be used right away in

gardens and on trees throughout the city

7. find places to take the recycleables or develope their own processing means for reuse.

ROLE OF THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE

Which of the following roles would you like to see the City assume in advancing waste reduction in the C&Dsector?

No. Items

Times

Selected

1. Promote and Facilitate 9 (90%)

2. Service Provider - Collection Services 5 (50%)

3. Service Provider - Processor Services (MRF, Composting Facility, etc.) 3 (30%)

4. Service Provider - Both 2 (20%)

5. Data Storage and Collection 6 (60%)

6. Introduce Financial Incentives / Disincentives 6 (60%)

7. Introduce Regulations - Require Waste Diversion 3 (30%)

8 Introduce Regulations - Provide Level Playing Field 5(50%)



WRAP-UP

Do you feel this session allowed you to provide feedback to the City of Lethbridge?

No. Items

Times

Selected

1. Yes 6 (55%)

2. No 4 (36%)

3. Somewhat 1 (9%)

Please provide us with a brief explanation about the previous question, or any other feedback you would like toleave with us.

No. Idea

1. The session was interactive and at the right level of depth for where the topic is at. I noticed that there was only 1

builder in the room so a better effort at engaging the builders in this would be good

2. Good interaction

3. More issues could have been asked about. It was veRy difficult to hear/understand responses. acoustics were

terrible

4. Two to three collection stations for business' only for compost, wood, drywall that is serviced like the new public

recycling stations. At time of drop off get a service ticket with weights and what it would have cost for landfill

rates. Also a discount on your next regular landfill drop off? Thank you

5. City to look for diversion of numerous materials , look for centers to work with the City on diversion

6. none

7. Did not address some of my industry specific issues

8. We feel that the private sector haulers are well positioned to evolve hauling services to meet customer needs in

this area

9. In all cases the cost effectiveness has to be considered

City of LethbridgeICI Stakeholder Engagement E Generators Session Report


#$%(& *' "*),&),+


KEY FINDINGS ________________________________________________________ 2

CHALLENGES _________________________________________________________ 3

PROGRAM OPTIONS ___________________________________________________ 5


Waste Diversion Assistance_____________________________________________ 5

Waste Exchange Program ______________________________________________ 6

Waste Diversion Promotion _____________________________________________ 7

Food Redirection _____________________________________________________ 8

Recycling/ Organics Collection __________________________________________ 9

Zero Waste Special Events ____________________________________________ 10

ICI Working Group on Waste Diversion ___________________________________ 11

ECONOMIC MEASURES________________________________________________ 12

Disposal Surcharges # Dedicated Landfill Levy_____________________________ 12

Differential Tipping Fees ______________________________________________ 13


ICI Mandatory Recycling/ Source Separation Requirements ___________________ 14

Landfill Bans _______________________________________________________ 15

Franchise Waste System ______________________________________________ 16

Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services ____________________ 17

Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans ________________________ 18



WRAP-UP____________________________________________________________ 20



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ideation Session Report Summary


Two engagement sessions were held with three groups of stakeholders: one session forGenerators; and one session for Processors and Haulers. A third engagement session wasalso held with stakeholders of the Construction and Demolition (C&D) sector.


The first part of the ICI stakeholder engagement sessions was an overview of the City of*1 ?4 .=50 3 1 F> 3 ; -7 ?; implement an ICI waste diversion strategy in the 2014-2017 businesscycle, and the role of the ICI sector in helping the City achieve these goals. The first part alsoprovided an overview of the current situation in waste diversion for the ICI sector, includingwaste composition and waste generation by industry type.

Following this overview, the several potential program options for managing waste diversionin the ICI sector, including Voluntary Measures, Economic Measures, and RegulatoryMeasures were presented to each stakeholder group.


The following is a real-time report of the Generators Engagement Session, whichshows the actual responses of participants across key questions covered.




CHALLENGESWhat challenges limit you from participating in C&D waste reduction and diversion programs?

No. Idea

1. Lack of services specific to organics

2. Mall has own recycling program, so we are confined to that.

3. Organic waste

4. Cost

5. Organics

6. Cost

7. Cost of programming is restrictive because we have such small volume of recyclables, therefore we use the

public bins

8. Lack of available metal recycling

9. Location to dump

10. Do not know who picks up materials

11. Buy in from staff

12. There are no bins for cardboard paper and glass in the downtown area for businesses. This is too expensive for

me so my staff and I bring all the items to the depots

13. Space for containers for separation is limited

14. Space limitations for stockpiling recyclables

15. Separation of waste, time constraints

16. Finding a supplier to handle the volume of organic waste. we have tried moving grounds to greenhouses but

overrun them

17. The cost factor is too high

18. Availability of recycling facilities

19. Cost of investment in capital equipment to separate different materials

20. Plastics recycling

21. Lack of incentive



22. Is there an opportunity to sell the organic waste i.e potting soil

23. Weather issues with wet products freezing in bins creating issues for dumping

24. Cost of comprehensive recycling program

25. What about toners from printers, these are getting harder to recycle, it takes too long to bring them into a retail

area, we need someone to pick up materials with just a phone call

26. If recyclable bins were placed in the back alleys for businesses to use more businesses would participate.

Organic recycling would be used more

27. No available location to bring plastic and Styrofoam waste efficiently

28. The type waste (health)



PROGRAM OPTIONS

VOLUNTARY MEASURES

Waste Diversion Assistance

Technical and Information assistance to companies that want to implement waste diversion programs


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Technical and information assistance to companies that want to implement

waste diversion programs

10 1 8.1



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 6



Waste Exchange Program

City Materials Exchange # online waste exchange system


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. City Materials Exchange online waste exchange system 10 2 5.5



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. City Materials Exchange online waste exchange

system

0 3 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 2



Waste Diversion Promotion

Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector" Recognition of progressive businesses" Waste reduction certification

" Businesses become certified if they achieve a specified level of diversion" May be associated with the specific rewards or privileges


HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 4 7.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector

through: Recognition of progressive businesses and

Waste Reduction Certification.

0 0 0 1 2 2 1 3 1 3



Food Redirection

Excess food from restaurants and grocery distributors redirected to food bank/shelters. Already initiative byLethbridge Food Bank and Interfaith Food Bank


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Excess food from restaurants and grocery distributors redirected to food bank/

shelters. Already initiated by Lethbridge Food Bank and Interfaith Food Bank

10 6 8.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Excess food from restaurants and grocery distributors

redirected to food bank/ shelters. Already initiated by

Lethbridge Food Bank and Interfaith Food Bank

0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 2 4



Recycling/ Organics Collection

Municipality provides collection of recyclables or organics to local businesses. Builds on residential recyclingprogram


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Municipality provides collection of recyclables or organics to local businesses.

Builds on residential recycling program

10 4 8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Municipality provides collection of recyclables or

organics to local businesses. Builds on residential

recycling program

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 4



Zero Waste Special Events

As part of permit, special events required to implement waste diversion measures. Can be initiated on avoluntary basis. City Leadership


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. As part of permit, special events required to implement waste diversion

measures. Can be initiated on a voluntary basis. City leadership

10 2 5.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. As part of permit, special events required to implement

waste diversion measures. Can be initiated on a

voluntary basis. City leadership

0 2 1 0 4 2 2 0 0 2



ICI Working Group on Waste Diversion

ICI Working Group to discuss/resolve common issues and challenges to waste diversion


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. ICI Working Group to discuss/resolve common issues and challenges to waste

diversion

10 2 6.5



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. ICI Working Group to discuss/resolve common issues

and challenges to waste diversion

0 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 3



ECONOMIC MEASURES

Disposal Surcharges # Dedicated Landfill Levy

Levy placed on ICI waste entering landfill


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Disposal Surcharges - Dedicated Landfill Levy: Levy placed on ICI waste

entering City landfill

8 1 3.9



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Disposal Surcharges - Dedicated Landfill Levy: Levy

placed on ICI waste entering City landfill

2 2 4 0 2 0 1 2 0 0



Differential Tipping Fees

Increased fees for loads containing specified materials


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Differential Tipping Fees: Increased fees for loads containing specified

materials

10 3 7.5



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Differential Tipping Fees: Increased fees for loads

containing specified materials

0 0 1 0 1 0 3 4 3 1



REGULATORY MEASURES

ICI Mandatory Recycling/ Source Separation Requirements

Businesses must participate in recycling and/or divert designated materials through a recycling program


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements: Businesses must

participate in recycling and/or must divert designated materials through a

recycling program

10 4 7.3



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation

Requirements: Businesses must participate in

recycling and/or must divert designated materials

through a recycling program

0 0 0 2 0 2 2 4 1 2



Landfill Bans

Loads rejected if containing specific materials


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Landfill Bans: Loads rejected if containing specific materials 10 2 7.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Landfill Bans: Loads rejected if containing specific

materials

0 1 1 0 0 1 2 4 1 3



Franchise Waste System

City franchises waste collection services in ICI sector. Addresses issue of control over ICI waste stream. Canstipulate waste diversion targets


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Franchise Waste System: City franchises waste collection services in ICI

sector. Addresses issue of control over ICI waste stream. Can stipulate waste

diversion targets

10 1 4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Franchise Waste System: City franchises waste

collection services in ICI sector. Addresses issue of

control over ICI waste stream. Can stipulate waste

diversion targets

2 0 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 1



Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services

Waste haulers must also provide recycling services


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services: Waste Haulers must

also provide recycling services

8 2 5.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling

Services: Waste Haulers must also provide recycling

services

0 1 3 0 2 0 4 3 0 0



Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans

Businesses required to complete a waste audit and document waste diversion plans. Requires technicalassistance to comply.


HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans: Businesses required to

complete a waste audit and document waste diversion plans. Requires

technical assistance to comply

8 1 4.3



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans:

Businesses required to complete a waste audit and

document waste diversion plans. Requires technical

assistance to comply

2 2 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0




Are there any other program options that you would recommend or consider?

No. Idea

1. Composting ideas

2. Initiate toner recycling

3. Focus on those areas where there are currently gaps in services

4. Reduce organic waste costs

5. Find a practical solution for those businesses in the downtown where bin space is an issue

6. Organic waste diversion and cost less than regular landfill

7. Downtown drop off areas

8. City's role and the cost they will pass onto businesses. City should not be able to monopolize in this area

9. I would like to see development of value added products from organic waste. Biodigestors, soil enhancement.

The sole end production could help remove costs and generate revenue for the provider

10. ,; 9 1 = =1 / C / 759 3 2; = < 5/ 6 @ < % )B < -9 0 0 ; A 9 ?; A 9 (+& #?4 -? @ > 1 D 4 ; 8 1 71 > > ''$% ,; < 5/ 6 @ < > 8 -77 -8 ; @ 9 ?> ; 2

recycling in downtown. The current initiative helps homeless and business.


Which of the following roles would you like to see the City assume in advancing waste reduction in the ICIsector (Select all that apply)

No. Items

Times

Selected










8 Introduce Regulations - Provide Level Playing Field 6 (60%)

WRAP-UP


No. Items

Times

Selected

1. Yes 8 (89%)

2. No 0 (0%)

3. Somewhat 1 (11%)


No. Ideas

1. There are many variables that would cause responses to go one way or the other. Hard to have effective

ranking questions

2. More should be done with recycling in businesses. Freecycle for the products people need to get rid of.

Make a business out of it. Pay small fee or advertising to keep it up and running

City of LethbridgeICI Stakeholder Engagement B Processors and Haulers Session Report


TABLE OF CONTENTS


KEY FINDINGS ________________________________________________________ 2

CHALLENGES _________________________________________________________ 3

PROGRAM OPTIONS ___________________________________________________ 4







Zero Waste Special Events _____________________________________________ 9







Landfill Bans _______________________________________________________ 14



Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans _________________________ 17


WRAP-UP____________________________________________________________ 18



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY





The first part of the ICI stakeholder engagement sessions was an overview of the City of+2>4/<5132C= 39.6 >9 implement an ICI waste diversion strategy in the 2014-2017 businesscycle, and the role of the ICI sector in helping the City achieve these goals. The first part alsoprovided an overview of the current situation in waste diversion for the ICI sector, includingwaste composition and waste generation by industry type.



The following is a real-time report of the Processors and Haulers Engagement Session,which shows the actual responses of participants across key questions covered.




CHALLENGES


No. Idea

1. Need for processing facilities

2. Customer demand

3. Costs, infrastructure, program management

4. Customer commitment

5. Clean organic feedstock as organic processors

6. Infrastructure, cost

7. So much easier to throw stuff away rather than recycle it.

8. There are no proper programs in place

9. MONEY

10. Collect organic in separate bins or containers

11. Policy around regulatory challenges. capital cost intense burden on private capital

12. No sorting facility for load

13. Cost, convenience

14. real incentives / disincentives for waste diversion



PROGRAM OPTIONS

VOLUNTARY MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Waste Diversion Assistance: Technical and information assistance to

companies that want to implement waste diversion programs

10 3 7



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Waste Diversion Assistance: Technical and information

assistance to companies that want to implement waste

diversion programs

0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1






HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Waste Exchange Program: City Materials Exchange online waste exchange

system

7 2 5.2



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Waste Exchange Program: City Materials Exchange

online waste exchange system

0 1 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 0







HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Waste Diversion Promotion: Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector

through: Recognition of progressive businesses and Waste Reduction

Certification.

9 3 7.1



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Waste Diversion Promotion: Promote waste diversion

in the commercial sector through: Recognition of

progressive businesses and Waste Reduction

Certification.

0 0 1 0 1 5 2 5 4 0



Food Redirection



HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 3 7.9



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 5






HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 1 5.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




recycling program

2 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 2






HIGH/LOW REPORT






9 4 6.9



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





0 0 0 1 0 4 2 4 1 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT





diversion

9 5 6.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 0 0 0 3 4 3 1 1 0



ECONOMIC MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT






9 3 6.8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 0 1 0 2 1 2 5 1 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT





materials

10 3 8.2



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 1 4



REGULATORY MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT






recycling program

10 6 8.3



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 5



Landfill Bans



HIGH/LOW REPORT







Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



materials

2 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 2






HIGH/LOW REPORT






diversion targets

9 1 4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





diversion targets

3 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 1 5.8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




services

1 0 2 1 3 0 2 0 1 2






HIGH/LOW REPORT







10 2 5.8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






0 1 0 3 2 2 1 1 1 1





No. Items

Times

Selected









WRAP-UP


No. Items

Times

Selected

1. Yes 10 (91%)

2. No 0 (0%)

3. Somewhat 1 (9%)


No. Idea

1. As a residential recycler it was not as informative as I hoped. But for the commercial end it was great

2. Need to work out many details. Would rather talk about residential (our society). Over representation of big

097;.852= #()*% -,$ .> >42 >./62 #' ()* 3?A=$& -9?61 /2 @.6?./62 >9 4.@2 2@2<A982C= 8.72 .81 098>.0>



information from focus group.

3. As a future organic waste processor it was great to be part of the conversation. Thank you!

Waste Diversion Public Engagement

Appendix

Construction & Demolition Sector – Detailed Notes from Discussions

Table #1 8:00 am

Baseline

Questions:

1.1. Best way to get value?2.2. City’s Role?3.3. Key Stakeholders’ Roles?4.4. Keys to Successful Implementation?

1.1. Numbers from the processor & generator2.2. Facilitator most trustworthy

" Customer permission" Privacy challenges" Needs to be bigger" # than individual" Doc. Confidentiality for competitive info" Maybe repeat all together by just material type, not by hauler" Competition challenges" Additional time compile" Benchmark based on extrapolation" Using AB total" #s may not be accurate" Not necessarily tracking today" Use other examples for jurisdictions for credibility



Questions:

1.1. City’s Role?2.2. Key Stakeholders’ Roles?3.3. Keys to Successful Implementation?

1.1. Regular enforcer. Educator – broad scope2.2. Regulator and enforcer to the customer. Educator – different costs.3.3. Grace Period. Enforcement. Diversion opportunities.

" Some customers will pay increased feeCity(enforce)#Hauler#Customer

Educational & Awareness Program

Questions:


1.1. .# City to educate Haulers – Haulers to educate customers# Distinguish between acceptable and non-acceptable items# Develop a communication group – to send the message out & develop goals# Develop message, provide links# Establish relationship with home builders# City’s logo used for credibility and home builder logo

2.2. .# Home Builders Association to partner with the City# Pass on information to contractors and hold them accountable# Need to ensure contractors/customers know why

3.3. .# Consistent message between City & Hauler

i.i. Develop a master list of options of each materialii. Provide general understandings on the relative cost

# Bins for different stages of construction

" City logo important + credibility + partner orgs to bolster coll. Approach" Comnis need to reach all generators + tools to help with consistency


Infrastructure Development Facilities

Questions:


1.1. .# To become a default provider for both collection & processing# Find private partner to develop facilities

2.2. .3.3. .

# Requires a capital for development, which will need a return# Services to be provided by the private sector# Ensure market & develop private sector services as a result of the city diff. tipping fees

1.1. City can create markets with " diff. tipping fees!

Deposit Refund Program

Questions:


1.1. Positives# Establishes equality amongst home builders# Incentives do it# Become aware of the total amount of waste generated.

i.i. Define measurements/tonnage – helps to establish a consistent market2.2. Negatives

# People don’t want to be regulated# A lot of people work – both administratively & for generators

3.3. To be successful?# Address the big generators# Need consistent markets


Table #2 8:00 am

Baseline

Questions:


1.1. Sorted loads vs. mixed – measured at landfill / scale2.2. Education around separation of materials – how to manage onsite – bins. Identify financial

information to commercial and residential stakeholders3.3. Support and participate in process discussions2.2. Landfill nearly only option for C&D materials


Questions:


1.1. City Role:# Partner with private to provide processing facilities for materials.# “Has to take leap.”# Contractors decide line of where tipping fees need to be.

2.2. .# Regulations! “Right thing to do.” Compare to speeding fines & tickets.# “Everyone’s problem.” Need fines.# Need to circle back with generators about $1 to make source sep.# Behavior change needs to happen with generators.

3.3. If bans: need processing facility for the material



Questions:


1.1. .# Clear goals# Limitations define opportunity# Confirm audience: generator, hauler, general public# Good time to get word out! Examples: Hospital – LEED Silver project

2.2. .# Communicate# Hauler – support & promote the strategy# Education

i.i. Visually represent wasteii. Target audience = Everyone

3.3. .# Shock & awe (quantity); consequences# Linked to permit office (e.g. root house, build a deck) – discount if plan; turnaround time# Projections of waste


Questions:


1.1. .# Recene material# City currently has only facility# City process – Private sector collect# Collection + processing directly linked# Markets volatile # risk high # small volumes # needs city facilitation

2.2. .# Processing capacity creates market # can drive collection# Processors do something meaningful with material# End markets volatile # city needs to be creative + “de-risk” for private companies.

3.3. .



Questions:


3.3. Complex vs. other suggested options1.1. .

# City builds an easy, digital system for tracking – no additional work for stakeholders# • City – make it simple for stakeholders # digital system# • Ach. Goals?# • $ needs to “define skin in the game”# • Need to better understand tools required to make successful# • Builders put resp. for tracking diversion – challenge

Table #2 8:00 am

Baseline

Questions:


1.1. .# Consider sorting options for C&D waste# Work with builders to pre-sort material# Collect baseline data at the collection site# Work with haulers to identify waste loads at the W&R Centre (overhead truck scales)# Establish a relationship between collectors & generators

2.2. .# Selling the project & deliver baseline study

3.3. .# Stakeholder “buy-in” & be willing to share data (cooperation)# Pilot study funding to offset costs for study participants.

4.4. .# Goal – What do you want to obtain?# Needs to be worthwhile



Questions:

1.1. City’s Role2.2. Key Stakeholders’ Roles3.3. Keys to Successful Implementation

1.1. .# Direction & set goals based on diversion of certain materials# Set rates at the disposal site# Cooperation from council# Public engagement & participation (develop communication)

2.2. .# Communication# Additional sorting before disposal & secure bins# Collectors to develop different ways of collecting to assist generators

3.3. .# Other stakeholders in agreement# Balance rates# Set rates based on incentives of the stakeholder (ex. Consider cost to the builders)# Education# Surcharges to fund additional operation requirements to fund generators & facilities to offset

costs.# Disposal bans

i.i. May not meet the same goals as tipping feesii. Too difficult # who will enforce?iii. Too pre-mature at this pointiv. Have to define the exceptions

4.4. Differential fees more positive # bans encourage rogue behavior


Educational / Awareness Programs

Questions:


1.1. .# The City is primarily responsible for this role, in particular the public at large# Role for city to educate public at large# Costs associated with separation

2.2. .# They are also responsible to ensure their members are aware – i.e. Construction Association# Effectiveness of education long-term # need shorter term results

3.3. .# Also need to tie it in with other tools – i.e. enforcement# Enforcement does work, but it needs to be communicated – awareness# Everyone needs to change – individuals & businesses

Gaps in Infrastructure

Questions:


1.1. City’s Role – Collection # could be done by the private sector. Processing – private sector.2.2. In Recycling’s Processing all of the stakeholders have roles3.3. Collection


Questions:



1.1. Positives - it diverts waste2.2. Negatives

# Can’t be one business who is responsible# Administrative/cost of tracking# Mixed loads is an issue

3.3. How to make successful# Needs to be community based – everyone pays

Industrial, Commercial, and Industrial [ICI] Sector – Detailed Notes from TableDiscussions

ICI Table #1 10:30 am


Questions:


# Fees differential needs to# Will need someone to inspect the loads# More incentive to recycle# Bs will need to separate# Education will be key# Will be hard to differentiate where loads come from# City’s Role# Education# Provide Alternatives/Assistance# Make more convenient# Provide incentives/rewards for businesses doing thing in a positive way# PPI will need a grace period.


Rewards Program

# Stakeholder’s# Cost of Space are a challenge# What needs to happen# Grace period# Alternatives/Options/Assistance# Education/Make it easy

Landfill Bans

Questions:

1.1. Why would landfill bans be a good step for the City?2.2. How and when should bans be implemented?3.3. What materials would you suggest be banned?

# Who will monitor it?# Education# Options# Make easy# No place for organics# Stat with paper, metals, cardboard plastic# Introduce in steps with a grace period# Community approach-bsbs in 1 area have centralized recycled

Mandatory Program

Questions:



# City# Haul it# Education# Make easier for processor/enforcement# Stakeholders# Make easier for processors/pre-sort# Check bins for contaminants/enforcement# Education Assistance – Person to evaluate & help businesses to accomplish goals.# Monitoring/Tracking# Rewards


Questions:


1.1. Cities RoleProvide guidance, info., education, options, facilitating, evaluate

2.2. Key stakeholders RoleOptions/EducationHave an open mind with diversionProvide feedback critical for programs (needs, etc.)Leadership

3.3. Keys to successful implementationCommunication, partnerships, goalsLost/priceRealistic offerings for service (and reliable service)


Questions:



" Pushing promotion out to public/customer-net goal generate business" “Best of the best” – but concerns about judging" Public may not be there in terms of making decisions based on business behavior

Idea overall

" Conflicting msg w/ bans/fees – “new way of doing business" Who gets the incentive? Gen. w/hauler? Both?" How do you judge? Audit? Diverse businesses" Those who divert will keep doing it – not a carrot to get on board" Business practice for those who do it." Good for business top

Food Redirection

Questions:


" Need more info on volumes (org) vs food for re-direction for strategy" Who & how decision made for “human consumption (food bank) – brand ties to product quality" Refridge" Good s. act not good enough for business protection" Food banks have strong systems today for connections/collections and transfer goods to other

charities as well" Food processing – fresh- dated food cannot be directed to FB" NEED OPP TO PROCESS THIS WASTE WITHIN CITY OR ELSEWHERE" FB has partners for some organics diversion" Need facility in City or City programs



Questions:



# Determine what will have charges and how much $# Communication

o Goalso Advertisingo What does it costo Consistent messageo Information

# Policy & relationship w providers & waste mgmt. companies# Consistent collection across City!# Everyone on same page for sorting

Stakeholders role

# Determine costs & logistics of participation# Sorting & increased duties# Look for financial benefits/cost# Refunds/revenue source# Recycling

Implementation

# Incentives# Cost effective# Price differential# Price differential business + volume dependent# Need to communicate what taxes pay for?

Landfill Bans

Questions:



# Why good?# Environmental benefit# Recycling diverted# Private industry opportunities# Why not?# Cost – where does it go# Illegal dumping# Difficult to enforce# Difficult for smaller volumes# Materials?# Recyclables# Harmful substances (toxic)# Organics# Bio-medical# Electronics (so many program options available for diversion)# Any deposit/eco fees programs bottles etc.

Source Separation Requirements

Questions:


# City’s roleo -policy goals/direction/targetso Create optionso Enforcemento Provide recycling binso Communication – what’s in it for uso Incentive/cost benefit

# Stakeholders Roleo Operations/processo Make it easyo Weigh benefitso Implement into policy

# Keys to successo Clear guidance – targets, costso Streamline & make easyo Transfer of labouro Need incentive



Questions:


# Education, communication" Offer list of consultants/industry providers/haulers/destinations# -Hub# Seek out the information provide information back# Sharing of information between City and Businesses# easy/simple# Economic senses# Buy-inin# Incentives# Worried about cost implications# Who is going to take this on (cost)?# Form connections between generators & haulers/processors



Questions:


# Structure the economics – keep it simple# Sorting/hauling services/processing# Communication, education, economic sense# -cost cannot be more than the benefit# May evolve into bans, long term if necessary


Landfill Bans

Questions:


# Not in favour of bans# Fine system?# Will promote illegal dumping# See above# Anything recyclable# Focus on high volume and easy groups first# Increase – convenience# Recycling bins at business# Determine regulation# Enforcement# Determined what is recyclable# Follow the rules# Hauler provides solutions# What is the focus?# Flexible# Efficient# Economics have to work


Questions:



# City’s roleo Regulationso Communication/educationo Policy & optionso Who? Options of providers, options for private sourcingo How?o Partnerships? Create connectionso Website & information sharingo Evaluation implementation assistance

# Stakeholders Roleo Advocacy/leadershipo Set the example – communicate benefitso Communicate & share ideaso Haulers/service providers educate & offer optionso Implementationo Programs in place & availableo Easy & cost effective


o Let city do bylaws, private do the talkingo City’s roles it to give informationo Educationo Upload info. to website/directoryo Self-registration on a city website who/which business is greeno Being neutral to businesses which are hauling


Questions:



1.1. City’s roleo Enforcement/set Rates/Feeso Education of stakeholders & public at largeo Could legislate fees charged by private facilities

2.2. Key stakeholders roleso Education of staffo Haulers/facilities educate customers

3.3. Keys to successful Implementationo Communications/educationo Sorting station on sites or resort/enforcement/staffo Level playing field resivs ICIo Make recycling easier to doo Need to ensure real diversion options are in place 1sto Enforcement/stop cheaters

4.4. Consider other incentives fast track line for recyclers, make things easy.

Landfill Bans

Questions:


1.1. Why would bans be goodo Gets recyclable material out of landfillo People are used to following ruleso How to sort is a challenge (space/money)

2.2. How/when should bans be implementedo As soon as a suitable alternative processer is available.o Education of customers/generators should happen first, grace period on implementation

3.3. What materials should be bannedo Cardboard, paper, metal, Styrofoam, hazardous materialo ? Who pays the additional cost-generators?


ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements

Questions:


1.1. City’s Roleo Investigate options/infrastructureo Could provide infrastructure to support private facilitieso Regulator/enforcemento Broad education on program/goalso Educate value of recycling & costs

2.2. Key stake holders roleso Private businesses could provide facilitieso Haulers educate customers/enforce complianceo Haulers can provide customer specific education

3.3. Keys to successful implementationo Adequate lad time to prepare facilities, processeso Needs to be feasible $ for service generatoro Need a level playing fieldo Need advanced waste collection/onsite storage for downtown coreo WoWould be positive if after implemented for ICI resi mandatory recycling followed



#$%(& *' "*),&),+


KEY FINDINGS ________________________________________________________ 2

CHALLENGES _________________________________________________________ 3

PROGRAM OPTIONS ___________________________________________________ 5







Zero Waste Special Events ____________________________________________ 10







Landfill Bans _______________________________________________________ 15



Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans ________________________ 18



WRAP-UP____________________________________________________________ 20



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY





The first part of the ICI stakeholder engagement sessions was an overview of the City of*1?4.=5031F> 3;-7 ?; implement an ICI waste diversion strategy in the 2014-2017 businesscycle, and the role of the ICI sector in helping the City achieve these goals. The first part alsoprovided an overview of the current situation in waste diversion for the ICI sector, includingwaste composition and waste generation by industry type.



The following is a real-time report of the Generators Engagement Session, whichshows the actual responses of participants across key questions covered.




CHALLENGESWhat challenges limit you from participating in C&D waste reduction and diversion programs?

No. Idea

1. Lack of services specific to organics

2. Mall has own recycling program, so we are confined to that.

3. Organic waste

4. Cost

5. Organics

6. Cost

7. Cost of programming is restrictive because we have such small volume of recyclables, therefore we use the

public bins

8. Lack of available metal recycling

9. Location to dump

10. Do not know who picks up materials

11. Buy in from staff

12. There are no bins for cardboard paper and glass in the downtown area for businesses. This is too expensive for

me so my staff and I bring all the items to the depots

13. Space for containers for separation is limited

14. Space limitations for stockpiling recyclables

15. Separation of waste, time constraints

16. Finding a supplier to handle the volume of organic waste. we have tried moving grounds to greenhouses but

overrun them

17. The cost factor is too high

18. Availability of recycling facilities

19. Cost of investment in capital equipment to separate different materials

20. Plastics recycling

21. Lack of incentive



22. Is there an opportunity to sell the organic waste i.e potting soil

23. Weather issues with wet products freezing in bins creating issues for dumping

24. Cost of comprehensive recycling program

25. What about toners from printers, these are getting harder to recycle, it takes too long to bring them into a retail

area, we need someone to pick up materials with just a phone call

26. If recyclable bins were placed in the back alleys for businesses to use more businesses would participate.

Organic recycling would be used more

27. No available location to bring plastic and Styrofoam waste efficiently

28. The type waste (health)



PROGRAM OPTIONS

VOLUNTARY MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Technical and information assistance to companies that want to implement

waste diversion programs

10 1 8.1



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 6






HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. City Materials Exchange online waste exchange system 10 2 5.5



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. City Materials Exchange online waste exchange

system

0 3 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 2







HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 4 7.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector

through: Recognition of progressive businesses and

Waste Reduction Certification.

0 0 0 1 2 2 1 3 1 3



Food Redirection



HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 6 8.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 2 4






HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 4 8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




recycling program

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 4






HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 2 5.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





0 2 1 0 4 2 2 0 0 2






HIGH/LOW REPORT





diversion

10 2 6.5



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 3



ECONOMIC MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT






8 1 3.9



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




2 2 4 0 2 0 1 2 0 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT





materials

10 3 7.5



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 0 1 0 1 0 3 4 3 1



REGULATORY MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT






recycling program

10 4 7.3



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






0 0 0 2 0 2 2 4 1 2



Landfill Bans



HIGH/LOW REPORT







Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



materials

0 1 1 0 0 1 2 4 1 3






HIGH/LOW REPORT






diversion targets

10 1 4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





diversion targets

2 0 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 1






HIGH/LOW REPORT






8 2 5.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




services

0 1 3 0 2 0 4 3 0 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT







8 1 4.3



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






2 2 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0




Are there any other program options that you would recommend or consider?

No. Idea

1. Composting ideas

2. Initiate toner recycling

3. Focus on those areas where there are currently gaps in services

4. Reduce organic waste costs

5. Find a practical solution for those businesses in the downtown where bin space is an issue

6. Organic waste diversion and cost less than regular landfill

7. Downtown drop off areas

8. City's role and the cost they will pass onto businesses. City should not be able to monopolize in this area

9. I would like to see development of value added products from organic waste. Biodigestors, soil enhancement.

The sole end production could help remove costs and generate revenue for the provider

10. ,;91= =1/C/7593 2;= <5/6 @<% )B<-90 0;A9?;A9 (+& #?4-? @>1D4;8171>>''$% ,; <5/6 @< >8-77 -8;@9?> ;2

recycling in downtown. The current initiative helps homeless and business.



No. Items

Times

Selected











WRAP-UP


No. Items

Times

Selected

1. Yes 8 (89%)

2. No 0 (0%)

3. Somewhat 1 (11%)


No. Ideas

1. There are many variables that would cause responses to go one way or the other. Hard to have effective

ranking questions

2. More should be done with recycling in businesses. Freecycle for the products people need to get rid of.

Make a business out of it. Pay small fee or advertising to keep it up and running



TABLE OF CONTENTS


KEY FINDINGS ________________________________________________________ 2

CHALLENGES _________________________________________________________ 3

PROGRAM OPTIONS ___________________________________________________ 4







Zero Waste Special Events _____________________________________________ 9







Landfill Bans _______________________________________________________ 14



Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans _________________________ 17


WRAP-UP____________________________________________________________ 18



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY





The first part of the ICI stakeholder engagement sessions was an overview of the City of+2>4/<5132C= 39.6 >9 implement an ICI waste diversion strategy in the 2014-2017 businesscycle, and the role of the ICI sector in helping the City achieve these goals. The first part alsoprovided an overview of the current situation in waste diversion for the ICI sector, includingwaste composition and waste generation by industry type.



The following is a real-time report of the Processors and Haulers Engagement Session,which shows the actual responses of participants across key questions covered.




CHALLENGES


No. Idea

1. Need for processing facilities

2. Customer demand

3. Costs, infrastructure, program management

4. Customer commitment

5. Clean organic feedstock as organic processors

6. Infrastructure, cost

7. So much easier to throw stuff away rather than recycle it.

8. There are no proper programs in place

9. MONEY

10. Collect organic in separate bins or containers

11. Policy around regulatory challenges. capital cost intense burden on private capital

12. No sorting facility for load

13. Cost, convenience

14. real incentives / disincentives for waste diversion



PROGRAM OPTIONS

VOLUNTARY MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Waste Diversion Assistance: Technical and information assistance to

companies that want to implement waste diversion programs

10 3 7



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Waste Diversion Assistance: Technical and information

assistance to companies that want to implement waste

diversion programs

0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 1






HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Waste Exchange Program: City Materials Exchange online waste exchange

system

7 2 5.2



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Waste Exchange Program: City Materials Exchange

online waste exchange system

0 1 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 0







HIGH/LOW REPORT




1. Waste Diversion Promotion: Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector

through: Recognition of progressive businesses and Waste Reduction

Certification.

9 3 7.1



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


1. Waste Diversion Promotion: Promote waste diversion

in the commercial sector through: Recognition of

progressive businesses and Waste Reduction

Certification.

0 0 1 0 1 5 2 5 4 0



Food Redirection



HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 3 7.9



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 5






HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 1 5.6



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




recycling program

2 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 2






HIGH/LOW REPORT






9 4 6.9



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





0 0 0 1 0 4 2 4 1 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT





diversion

9 5 6.4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 0 0 0 3 4 3 1 1 0



ECONOMIC MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT






9 3 6.8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 0 1 0 2 1 2 5 1 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT





materials

10 3 8.2



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 1 4



REGULATORY MEASURES




HIGH/LOW REPORT






recycling program

10 6 8.3



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 5



Landfill Bans



HIGH/LOW REPORT







Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



materials

2 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 2






HIGH/LOW REPORT






diversion targets

9 1 4



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





diversion targets

3 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0






HIGH/LOW REPORT






10 1 5.8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10




services

1 0 2 1 3 0 2 0 1 2






HIGH/LOW REPORT







10 2 5.8



Rank Idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






0 1 0 3 2 2 1 1 1 1





No. Items

Times

Selected









WRAP-UP


No. Items

Times

Selected

1. Yes 10 (91%)

2. No 0 (0%)

3. Somewhat 1 (9%)


No. Idea

1. As a residential recycler it was not as informative as I hoped. But for the commercial end it was great

2. Need to work out many details. Would rather talk about residential (our society). Over representation of big

097;.852= #()*% -,$ .> >42 >./62 #' ()* 3?A=$& -9?61 /2 @.6?./62 >9 4.@2 2@2<A982C= 8.72 .81 098>.0>



information from focus group.

3. As a future organic waste processor it was great to be part of the conversation. Thank you!


Appendix

Construction & Demolition Sector – Detailed Notes from Discussions

Table #1 8:00 am

Baseline

Questions:

1. Best way to get value?2. City’s Role?3. Key Stakeholders’ Roles?4. Keys to Successful Implementation?

1. Numbers from the processor & generator2. Facilitator most trustworthy

" Customer permission" Privacy challenges" Needs to be bigger" # than individual" Doc. Confidentiality for competitive info" Maybe repeat all together by just material type, not by hauler" Competition challenges" Additional time compile" Benchmark based on extrapolation" Using AB total" #s may not be accurate" Not necessarily tracking today" Use other examples for jurisdictions for credibility



Questions:

1. City’s Role?2. Key Stakeholders’ Roles?3. Keys to Successful Implementation?

1. Regular enforcer. Educator – broad scope2. Regulator and enforcer to the customer. Educator – different costs.3. Grace Period. Enforcement. Diversion opportunities.

" Some customers will pay increased fee+ <EI #7 @ 8A C5 7 $P . 3 F >7 CP + F D EA ? 7 C


Questions:


1. .# City to educate Haulers – Haulers to educate customers# Distinguish between acceptable and non-acceptable items# Develop a communication group – to send the message out & develop goals# Develop message, provide links# Establish relationship with home builders# City’s logo used for credibility and home builder logo

2. .# Home Builders Association to partner with the City# Pass on information to contractors and hold them accountable# Need to ensure contractors/customers know why

3. .# Consistent message between City & Hauler

i. Develop a master list of options of each materialii. Provide general understandings on the relative cost

# Bins for different stages of construction

" City logo important + credibility + partner orgs to bolster coll. Approach" Comnis need to reach all generators + tools to help with consistency


Infrastructure Development Facilities

Questions:


1. .# To become a default provider for both collection & processing# Find private partner to develop facilities

2. .3. .

# Requires a capital for development, which will need a return# Services to be provided by the private sector# Ensure market & develop private sector services as a result of the city diff. tipping fees

( ' + <EI 5 3 @ 5 C7 3 E7 ? 3 C= 7 ED H <E; O 6 <88' E<B B <@ 9 87 7 D "


Questions:


1. Positives# Establishes equality amongst home builders# Incentives do it# Become aware of the total amount of waste generated.

i. Define measurements/tonnage – helps to establish a consistent market2. Negatives

# People don’t want to be regulated# A lot of people work – both administratively & for generators

3. To be successful?# Address the big generators# Need consistent markets


Table #2 8:00 am

Baseline

Questions:


1. Sorted loads vs. mixed – measured at landfill / scale2. Education around separation of materials – how to manage onsite – bins. Identify financial

information to commercial and residential stakeholders3. Support and participate in process discussions2. Landfill nearly only option for C&D materials


Questions:


1. City Role:# Partner with private to provide processing facilities for materials.# “Has to take leap.”# Contractors decide line of where tipping fees need to be.

2. .# Regulations! “Right thing to do.” Compare to speeding fines & tickets.# “Everyone’s problem.” Need fines.# Need to circle back with generators about $1 to make source sep.# Behavior change needs to happen with generators.

3. If bans: need processing facility for the material



Questions:


1. .# Clear goals# Limitations define opportunity# Confirm audience: generator, hauler, general public# Good time to get word out! Examples: Hospital – LEED Silver project

2. .# Communicate# Hauler – support & promote the strategy# Education

i. Visually represent wasteii. Target audience = Everyone

3. .# Shock & awe (quantity); consequences# Linked to permit office (e.g. root house, build a deck) – discount if plan; turnaround time# Projections of waste


Questions:


1. .# Recene material# City currently has only facility# City process – Private sector collect# Collection + processing directly linked# / 3 C= 7 ED G A >3 E<>7 P C<D = ; <9 ; P D ? 3 >> G A >F ? 7 D P @ 7 7 6 D 5 <EI 83 5 <><E3 E<A @

2. .# 0 CA 5 7 D D <@ 9 5 3 B 3 5 <EI 5 C7 3 E7 D ? 3 C= 7 E P 5 3 @ 6 C<G 7 5 A >>7 5 E<A @

# Processors do something meaningful with material# - @ 6 ? 3 C= 7 ED G A >3 E<>7 P 5 <EI @ 7 7 6 D EA 4 7 5 C7 3 E<G 7 % L6 7 &C<D = M 8A C B C<G 3 E7 5 A ? B 3 @ <7 D '

3. .



Questions:


3. Complex vs. other suggested options1. .

# City builds an easy, digital system for tracking – no additional work for stakeholders# J + <EI K ? 3 = 7 <E D <? B >7 8A C D E3 = 7 ; A >6 7 CD P 6 <9 <E3 > D I D E7 ?

# • Ach. Goals?# • $ needs to “define skin in the game”# • Need to better understand tools required to make successful# • Builders put resp. for tracking diversion – challenge

Table #2 8:00 am

Baseline

Questions:


1. .# Consider sorting options for C&D waste# Work with builders to pre-sort material# Collect baseline data at the collection site# Work with haulers to identify waste loads at the W&R Centre (overhead truck scales)# Establish a relationship between collectors & generators

2. .# Selling the project & deliver baseline study

3. .# Stakeholder “buy-in” & be willing to share data (cooperation)# Pilot study funding to offset costs for study participants.

4. .# Goal – What do you want to obtain?# Needs to be worthwhile



Questions:

1. City’s Role2. Key Stakeholders’ Roles3. Keys to Successful Implementation

1. .# Direction & set goals based on diversion of certain materials# Set rates at the disposal site# Cooperation from council# Public engagement & participation (develop communication)

2. .# Communication# Additional sorting before disposal & secure bins# Collectors to develop different ways of collecting to assist generators

3. .# Other stakeholders in agreement# Balance rates# Set rates based on incentives of the stakeholder (ex. Consider cost to the builders)# Education# Surcharges to fund additional operation requirements to fund generators & facilities to offset

costs.# Disposal bans

i. May not meet the same goals as tipping fees<<' 2 A A 6 <88<5 F >E P H ; A H <>> 7 @ 8A C5 7 *iii. Too pre-mature at this pointiv. Have to define the exceptions

) ' , <887 C7 @ E<3 > 87 7 D ? A C7 B A D <E<G 7 P 4 3 @ D 7 @ 5 A F C3 9 7 CA 9 F 7 4 7 ; 3 G <A C


Educational / Awareness Programs

Questions:


1. .# The City is primarily responsible for this role, in particular the public at large# Role for city to educate public at large# Costs associated with separation

2. .# They are also responsible to ensure their members are aware – i.e. Construction Association# - 887 5 E<G 7 @ 7 D D A 8 7 6 F 5 3 E<A @ >A @ 9 &E7 C? P @ 7 7 6 D ; A CE7 C E7 C? C7 D F >ED

3. .# Also need to tie it in with other tools – i.e. enforcement# Enforcement does work, but it needs to be communicated – awareness# Everyone needs to change – individuals & businesses

Gaps in Infrastructure

Questions:


( ' + <EI ND 1 A >7 K + A >>7 5 E<A @ P 5 A F >6 4 7 6 A @ 7 4 I E; 7 B C<G 3 E7 D 7 5 EA C' 0 CA 5 7 D D <@ 9 K B C<G 3 E7 D 7 5 EA C'2. In Recycling’s Processing all of the stakeholders have roles3. Collection


Questions:



1. Positives - it diverts waste2. Negatives

# Can’t be one business who is responsible# Administrative/cost of tracking# Mixed loads is an issue

3. How to make successful# Needs to be community based – everyone pays

Industrial, Commercial, and Industrial [ICI] Sector – Detailed Notes from TableDiscussions



Questions:


# Fees differential needs to# Will need someone to inspect the loads# More incentive to recycle# Bs will need to separate# Education will be key# Will be hard to differentiate where loads come from# City’s Role# Education# Provide Alternatives/Assistance# Make more convenient# Provide incentives/rewards for businesses doing thing in a positive way# PPI will need a grace period.


Rewards Program

# Stakeholder’s# Cost of Space are a challenge# What needs to happen# Grace period# Alternatives/Options/Assistance# Education/Make it easy

Landfill Bans

Questions:

1. Why would landfill bans be a good step for the City?2. How and when should bans be implemented?3. What materials would you suggest be banned?

# Who will monitor it?# Education# Options# Make easy# No place for organics# Stat with paper, metals, cardboard plastic# Introduce in steps with a grace period# Community approach-bs in 1 area have centralized recycled

Mandatory Program

Questions:



# City# Haul it# Education# Make easier for processor/enforcement# Stakeholders# Make easier for processors/pre-sort# Check bins for contaminants/enforcement# Education Assistance – Person to evaluate & help businesses to accomplish goals.# Monitoring/Tracking# Rewards


Questions:


1. Cities RoleProvide guidance, info., education, options, facilitating, evaluate

2. Key stakeholders RoleOptions/EducationHave an open mind with diversionProvide feedback critical for programs (needs, etc.)Leadership

3. Keys to successful implementationCommunication, partnerships, goalsLost/priceRealistic offerings for service (and reliable service)


Questions:



" Pushing promotion out to public/customer-net goal generate business" “Best of the best” – but concerns about judging" Public may not be there in terms of making decisions based on business behavior

Idea overall

" Conflicting msg w/ bans/fees – “new way of doing business" Who gets the incentive? Gen. w/hauler? Both?" How do you judge? Audit? Diverse businesses" Those who divert will keep doing it – not a carrot to get on board" Business practice for those who do it." Good for business top

Food Redirection

Questions:


" Need more info on volumes (org) vs food for re-direction for strategy" Who & how decision made for “human consumption (food bank) – brand ties to product quality" Refridge" Good s. act not good enough for business protection" Food banks have strong systems today for connections/collections and transfer goods to other

charities as well" Food processing – fresh- dated food cannot be directed to FB" NEED OPP TO PROCESS THIS WASTE WITHIN CITY OR ELSEWHERE" FB has partners for some organics diversion" Need facility in City or City programs



Questions:



# Determine what will have charges and how much $# Communication

o Goalso Advertisingo What does it costo Consistent messageo Information

# Policy & relationship w providers & waste mgmt. companies# Consistent collection across City!# Everyone on same page for sorting

Stakeholders role

# Determine costs & logistics of participation# Sorting & increased duties# Look for financial benefits/cost# Refunds/revenue source# Recycling

Implementation

# Incentives# Cost effective# Price differential# Price differential business + volume dependent# Need to communicate what taxes pay for?

Landfill Bans

Questions:



# Why good?# Environmental benefit# Recycling diverted# Private industry opportunities# Why not?# Cost – where does it go# Illegal dumping# Difficult to enforce# Difficult for smaller volumes# Materials?# Recyclables# Harmful substances (toxic)# Organics# Bio-medical# Electronics (so many program options available for diversion)# Any deposit/eco fees programs bottles etc.

Source Separation Requirements

Questions:


# City’s roleo -policy goals/direction/targetso Create optionso Enforcemento Provide recycling binso Communication – what’s in it for uso Incentive/cost benefit

# Stakeholders Roleo Operations/processo Make it easyo Weigh benefitso Implement into policy

# Keys to successo Clear guidance – targets, costso Streamline & make easyo Transfer of labouro Need incentive



Questions:


# Education, communication" Offer list of consultants/industry providers/haulers/destinations# -Hub# Seek out the information provide information back# Sharing of information between City and Businesses# easy/simple# Economic senses# Buy-in# Incentives# Worried about cost implications# Who is going to take this on (cost)?# Form connections between generators & haulers/processors



Questions:


# Structure the economics – keep it simple# Sorting/hauling services/processing# Communication, education, economic sense# -cost cannot be more than the benefit# May evolve into bans, long term if necessary


Landfill Bans

Questions:


# Not in favour of bans# Fine system?# Will promote illegal dumping# See above# Anything recyclable# Focus on high volume and easy groups first# Increase – convenience# Recycling bins at business# Determine regulation# Enforcement# Determined what is recyclable# Follow the rules# Hauler provides solutions# What is the focus?# Flexible# Efficient# Economics have to work


Questions:



# City’s roleo Regulationso Communication/educationo Policy & optionso Who? Options of providers, options for private sourcingo How?o Partnerships? Create connectionso Website & information sharingo Evaluation implementation assistance

# Stakeholders Roleo Advocacy/leadershipo Set the example – communicate benefitso Communicate & share ideaso Haulers/service providers educate & offer optionso Implementationo Programs in place & availableo Easy & cost effective


o Let city do bylaws, private do the talkingo City’s roles it to give informationo Educationo Upload info. to website/directoryo Self-registration on a city website who/which business is greeno Being neutral to businesses which are hauling


Questions:



1. City’s roleo Enforcement/set Rates/Feeso Education of stakeholders & public at largeo Could legislate fees charged by private facilities

2. Key stakeholders roleso Education of staffo Haulers/facilities educate customers

3. Keys to successful Implementationo Communications/educationo Sorting station on sites or resort/enforcement/staffo Level playing field resivs ICIo Make recycling easier to doo Need to ensure real diversion options are in place 1sto Enforcement/stop cheaters

4. Consider other incentives fast track line for recyclers, make things easy.

Landfill Bans

Questions:


1. Why would bans be goodo Gets recyclable material out of landfillo People are used to following ruleso How to sort is a challenge (space/money)

2. How/when should bans be implementedo As soon as a suitable alternative processer is available.o Education of customers/generators should happen first, grace period on implementation

3. What materials should be bannedo Cardboard, paper, metal, Styrofoam, hazardous materialo ? Who pays the additional cost-generators?


ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements

Questions:


1. City’s Roleo Investigate options/infrastructureo Could provide infrastructure to support private facilitieso Regulator/enforcemento Broad education on program/goalso Educate value of recycling & costs

2. Key stake holders roleso Private businesses could provide facilitieso Haulers educate customers/enforce complianceo Haulers can provide customer specific education

3. Keys to successful implementationo Adequate lad time to prepare facilities, processeso Needs to be feasible $ for service generatoro Need a level playing fieldo Need advanced waste collection/onsite storage for downtown coreo Would be positive if after implemented for ICI resi mandatory recycling followed

Documents

INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL AND … Stakeholder...RPT Stakeholder Engagement Report IFU 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Lethbridge (City), Waste & Recycling (W&R) retained