The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/28/1996 III .. _CJJa;r;'g''i;;n ONTARIO .. DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1996 TIME: 7:00 P.M. .. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRAYERS .. ROLL CALL .. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS III Minutes of a special meeting of Council held on October 15, 1996; and .. Minutes of a regular meeting of Council held on October 15, 1996; .. PRESENTATION III Gail Krantzberg and Douglas Markoff, 154 Aylesworth Avenue, Scarborough, M1N 2J6 - Douglas Botanical Park and Nature Centre Proposal. .~ DELEGATIONS .. 1. Evylin Stroud, 89 Little Avenue, Bowmanville, L1C 1J9 - Ecology Garden; and .. 2. Otto Provenzano, 309 Kendlewood Road, Whitby, L1N 2G2 - Plaza at 1413 Highway No.2. j ... COMMUNICATIONS Receive for Information .. 1-1 News Release received from Rogers Community 10 - Ajax Rotary Club and Rogers Community 10, Pine Ridge, Follow the Mayor of Ajax to England; .. 1-2 Municipal Alert received from the Assoqiation of Municipalities of Ontario - Long-Awaited Fire Legislation Introduced; illIl I - 3 Correspondence received from Manik Duggar, Education Officer, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario - Municipalities and the Environmental Bill of Rights; ... .. .. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON q TEMPERANCE STREET. BOWMANVlllE .ONTARIO .l1C 3A6. (9051623-3379. FAX 623-4169 @ AECVCLEO PAPER Council Agenda COMMUNICATIONS 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 I - 10 I - 11 I - 12 I - 13 l - 14 - 2 - j j j j j j j j j j j j j October 28, 1996 Correspondence received from Karen Feeley, Pumpkin Patrol Co-ordinator, Rogers Pumpkin Patrol - Pumpkin Patrol; Memorandum received from Fred Peters, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing Services Division, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services - OPP Costing Moratorium; Correspondence received from Maureen Griffiths, Manager, Provincial Preparedness, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services - Application for JEPP Funding (FY 1997-98); News Release received from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency - Funding for Public Participation in the Review of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept; Correspondence received from Michael D. Harris, The Premier of Ontario - Resolution re: Photo Radar Enforcement at Intersections; Correspondence received from Linda Ploeger, Conference Chair, Ministry of Environment and Energy - 1996 Environment and Energy Conference of Ontario (EECO 96); Regional Municipality of Durham - Notice of Adoption of Amendment No. 17 to the Durham Regional Official Plan; Regional Municipality of Durham - Notice of Adoption of Amendment No. 23 to the Durham Regional Official Plan; Newsletter received from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario - Province Lifts Moratorium on OPP Costings; J j j j J J Municipal Alert received from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario - Crombie Panel Makes Recommendations on Social Services; Correspondence received from Bernard J. Kamin, President and CEO, The Mosport Park Entertainment Corporation - 1997 Events; illIl .. Council Agenda COMMUNICATIONS .. I - 15 .. 16 I - III I - 17 ... I - 18 ... I - 19 .. illIl I - 20 illIl .. I - 21 .. .. I - 22 iI. ~ I - 23 .. III ... ... - 3 - October 28, 1996 Correspondence received from Andrea Stevens Lavigne, Regional Manager, Addiction Research Foundation - Consolidation of Offices; Correspondence received from Katharine Goldberg, Association for Burlesque Entertainers - Lap Dancing in Strip Clubs; News Release received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Panel Recommends Province Pay Full Social Service Costs; Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham - By-law to Designate Waste Disposal Facilities; Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, addressed to Ms. Diana Jardine, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Amendment #18 to the Durham Regional Plan; Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, addressed to Ms. Diana Jardine, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Amendment #17 to the Durham Regional Plan; Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, addressed to Ms. Diana Jardine, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Amendment #19 to the Durham Regional Plan; Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, addressed to Ms. Diana Jardine, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Amendment #20 to the Durham Regional Plan; Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, addressed to Ms. Diana Jardine, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Amendment #22 to the Durham Regional Plan; Council Agenda COMMUNICATIONS I - 24 I - 25 I - 26 I - 27 I - 28 I - 29 I - 30 - 4 - October 28, 1996 j J j j j J J j J j J Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, addressed to Ms. Diana Jardine, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Amendment #23 to the Durham Regional Plan; Correspondence received from Carol Smitton, Committee Secretary, Regional Municipality of Durham - Initiation of Class Environmental Assessment for the Future Provision of Additional Water Pollution Control Plant Capacity to Service the Whitby, Oshawa and Clarington (Courtice) Urban Areas; News Release received from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario - Minister Introduces Better Local Government Act, 1996; Municipal Alert received from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario - Minister Leach Introduces Better Local Government Act; Memorandum of Oral Decision from the Ontario Municipal Board - By-law 95-163; Correspondence received from C.A. Bailey, Regional Manager, Ball Canada - Reclassification of the Telephone Exchange for Brooklin, Ontario; and J J J News Release received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Better Local Government Act to Save Taxpayers Money. Receive for Direction D - 1 D - 2 D - 3 D - 4 Correspondence received from Libby and Stan Racansky, 3200 Hancock Road, Courtice, L1E 2M1 - Neighbourhood Development Plans; J j J j j Correspondence received from Ms. Sanchita Fleming, Project Coordinator, Sri Chinmoy Peace Foundation of Canada - Peace-Blossoms Program; Correspondence received from Lawrence MacAulay, P.C., M.P., Secretary of State (Veterans) - Requesting proclamation of Veterans' Week; Correspondence received from John D. Leach, City Clerk, City of Vaughan - Monte Carlo Lottery Licensing; III .. Council Agenda COMMUNICATIONS ... D - 5 III D - 6 .. .. D - 7 .. D - 8 .. MOTION ... - 5 - October 28, 1996 Correspondence received from Cecile D. Bowers, Secretary Br. 178, The Royal Canadian Legion - Requesting permission to Distribute poppies and to Fly the Poppy Flag; Correspondence received from Gordon Mills, P.O. Box 183, Orono, LOB 1MO - Signage at the Intersection of Church Street and Cobbledick Road in Orono; Correspondence received from Otto Provenzano, 309 Kendlewood Road, Whitby, L1N 2G2 - Petition for a Skateboard Park; and Correspondence received from the Toronto Environmental Alliance - Recycling of Soft Drink Containers. NOTICE OF MOTION REPORTS ... 1. III General Purpose and Administration Committee Report of October 21, 1996. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BY-LAWS .. 96-182 .. II. 96-183 .. , III OTHER BUSINESS being a by-law to repeal By-law 96-139 and to authorize the entering into of an Agreement with Trulls Land Corporation, the Owners of Plan of Subdivision 18T-89022, and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington in respect of Plan 18T-89022 (Approved by Council July 8, 1996); and being a by-law to amend By-law 89-173, a by-law respecting the appointment of a Chief Building Official and Building Inspectors and to repeal By-law 96-160. I. (a) Regional Update (b) Committee/Boards Update ... BY-LAW TO APPROVE ALL ACTIONS OF COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT ... - - Council Minutes - - PRAYERS ROLL CALL - Present Were: - - Absent: - Also Present: - - - - - .. .. - - - - MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON October 15, 1996 Minutes of a special meeting of Council held on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, at 4:00 p.m., in Committee Room #1 Mayor D. Hamre Councillor A. Dreslinski Councillor L. Hannah attended the meeting at 4:20 p.m. Councillor M. Novak attended the meeting at 4:15 p.m. Councillor P. Pingle Councillor D. Scott attended the meeting at 4:10 p.m. Councillor C. Elliott Chief Administrative Officer, W. H. Stockwell Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Fire Chief, M. Creighton Treasurer,M. Marano Librarian, C. Mearns Director of Public Works, S. Vokes Director of Planning & Development, F. Wu Clerk, P. Barrie The special meeting of Council was convened in order for staff to receive direction from Council on the preparation of the 1997 budget. Marie Marano, Treasurer, provided a preliminary estimate of figures based on both a 3 percent and a 0 percent increase. Staff was directed to prepare two budget documents, one based on a 3 percent increase and one based on a 0 percent increase to be presented to Council during the 1997 budget deliberations. MAYOR CLERK .. .. MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Council Minutes October 15, 1996 .. Minutes of a regular meeting of Council held on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers .. PRAYERS ROLL CALL .. Present Were: Mayor D. Hamre Councillor A. Dreslinski Councillor L. Hannah Councillor M. Novak Councillor P. Pingle Councillor D. Scott .. .. Absent: Councillor C. Elliott - Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer, W. H. Stockwell Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Fire Chief, M. Creighton (attended until 8:05 p.m.) Solicitor, D. Hefferon Treasurer,M. Marano Director of Public Works, S. Vokes (attended until 8:05 p.m.) Director of Planning & Development, F. Wu (attended until 8:05 p.m.) Clerk, P. Barrie - .. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST .. - Councillor Novak advised that she would be making a declaration of interest pertaining to the delegations of Libby Racansky and Kerry Meydam and Report PD-133-96 (Item #5 of Report #1). Councillor Novak indicated that one of her relatives resides in the area which is the subject of the delegations and the report. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING .. Resolution #C-754-96 .. Moved by Councillor Pingle, seconded by Councillor Hannah - THAT the minutes of a regular meeting of Council held on September 30, 1996, be approved. "CARRIED" .. .. - - Council Minutes PRESENTATION ~ DELEGATIONS .. - 2 - October 15, 1996 ... Mayor Hamre made a presentation to Jim Shaw and Rob Snoek in recognition of their outstanding performance at the recent Paralympics in Atlanta, Georgia. Jim Shaw displayed the two gold medals he won in the shot putt and discus competitions and the bronze medal he captured in the javelin competition. Rob Snoek detailed his experiences, both at this Olympics and the Barcelonia Olympics, where he competed in the 100 meter, 200 meter and long jump competitions. Mayor Hamre also recognized the efforts of Nicole Devonish in the long jump competition, however, Nicole was unable to be attendance. ... .. .. Resolution #C-755-96 ... Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT we congratulate Nicole Devonish, Jim Shaw and Rob Snoek for their participation in the Paralympics and extend wholehearted encouragement for their future endeavours. .. .. "CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING RECORDED VOTE" Recorded Vote .. Yea Nav Absent ... Councillor Dreslinski Councillor Hannah Councillor M. Novak Councillor Pingle Councillor Scott Mayor Hamre Councillor Elliott ... .. Donna Robins, Chairman, Clarke Museum & Archives, 4552 Highway #2, Newtonville, LOA lJO, addressed Council in support of the recommendations contained in Report TR-83-96 - Clarke Museum Storage Shed. She advised the members of Council that the Museum Board wishes to contribute $5,000 toward the construction in an effort to help offset the cost. .. ... Libby Racansky, 3200 Hancock Road, Courtice, LIE 2Ml, requested that Council request the Durham Regional Works Department stop: .. . deepening ditches in groundwater recharge areas like Court ice North or close to the streams or headwater removing the cattails and reeds dumping garbage and/or filling in, at, or close to the Black and Farewell Wetland Complex ... .. IIIIi .. .. - Council Minutes DELEGATIONS - - 3 - October 15, 1996 Councillor Novak made a declaration of interest with respect to the next two delegations, vacated her chair and refrained from discussion on the matter. Councillor Novak indicated that she has a relative who resides in the subject area. - Ms. Racansky also addressed Council regarding Report PD-133-96. She questioned whether the Environmental Impact Study for Development 95-020 is going to be carried out for the applicant's land only or for the whole area mapped in the report. She also questioned whether the Environmental Impact Study could be carried out for the adjacent area along the Wetland Complex which became a dumping and filling-in ground, since Section 4.3.8 of the Official Plan requires preparation of such a study. .. - .. Kerry Meydam, 3828 Trulls Road, Courtice, LIE 2L3, addressed Council with respect to Report PD-133-96 (Item #5 of Report #1) and questioned whether these recommendations follow the recommendations contained in Report PD-132-96. - COMMUNICATIONS .. Resolution #C-756-96 Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Pingle .. THAT the communications to be received for information be approved with the exception of Items I - 4, I - 14 and I - 19. .. "CARRIED" I - 1 Correspondence received from Nancy Crawford, Executive Officer, Ministry of Transportation - Letter of Acknowledgement; .. I - 2 Correspondence received from Clarington Museums/Clarke Museum & Archives - 1996 Fall Events and Exhibitions; .. 1-3 .. 1-5 .. I - 6 .. .. - - News Release received from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities- FCM and Provincial!Territorial Municipal Associations Unanimous in Calling for Renewal of Canada Infrastructure Works Program; Notice of Proposed Decision of the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham With Respect to the Proposed Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington; Construction Newsletter received from the Durham Region Works Department - Signalization and Road Improvements - Liberty Street (Regional Road 14) and Concession Street Intersection in Bowmanville, Municipality of Clarington; .. Council Minutes - 4 - October 15, 1996 .. COMMUNICATIONS 1-7 Correspondence received from Andree Pinard, Resolutions Policy Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Request for Resolutions for Consideration at FCM's National Board of Directors Meeting in December 1996; ... .. 1-8 Correspondence received from Bernadette Bruzzese, Manager, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs - 1996 Farm Tax Rebate Program; ... 1-9 News Release received from the Nuclear Fuel Waste Environmental Assessment Panel - Phase II Public Hearings for Nuclear Fuel Waste .. Management and Disposal Concept Resume; 1- 10 News Bulletin received from the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association - Clean Water Infrastructure Backgrounder .. September 1996; 1- 11 Correspondence received from Tony Morris, President, Ontario ... Federation of Agriculture - Property Tax Reform; 1-12 Correspondence received from Mike Swanson, Sales Representative, Bell Canada - Technological Pathways to the Future; ... 1- 13 Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, addressed to The Honourable Al Leach, ... Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Response to the ,. Recommendations Proposed by the "Who Does What Panel" Concerning Municipal Administration, Transportation and Utilities; ... I - 15 Correspondence received from Susan Crawford, Director, Ministry of Transportation - Community Transportation Action Program (CTAP); ... 1- 16 Correspondence received from Terry Mundell, President and Gerry Houston, Chair, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, addressed to The Honourable Chris Hodgson, Minister of Natural Resources - AMO- ... ACAO Joint Protocol Pertaining to Non-Matching (Discretionary) Municipal Funding of Watershed Programs; 1- 17 Correspondence received from Terry Mundell, President, Association of ... Municipalities of Ontario - Towing Companies and Fees; 1- 18 Newsletter received from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario _ .. AMO's Response to Recommendations of the Crombie Panel on Municipal Administration; I - 20 Correspondence received from George S. Graham, Clerk-Administrator, ... The Township of Brock - Potential Abandonment of Rail Corridors in the GTA; .. .. i* .. .. .. Council Minutes COMMUNICATIONS .. - 5 - October 15, 1996 I - 21 Correspondence received from Pat Tierney, Chairperson, Veterans Recognition and Remembrance Services - Sponsored Visits; - I - 22 Correspondence received from Brenda Brown, City of Oshawa - Clarington Official Plan; .. I - 23 Correspondence received from C.W. Lundy, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Clarington - Alteration of Ward Boundaries - Municipality of Clarington; .. I - 24 Correspondence received from Mr. Bruce Manwaring, Consumers Gas - Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel; .. I - 25 News Release received from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario - Crombie Panel Releases Recommendations on Fire Services; .. I - 26 Correspondence received from George A. Mentis, Executive Director, Citizens Commission on Human Rights - Creating Crime - Psychiatry Eradicating Justice; .. I - 27 Notice of a Public Meeting received from the Health and Social Services Committee of the Region of Durham - Workfare; .. 1-28 Correspondence received from Brenda Chamberlain, M.P., Guelph- Wellington - Pledge or Oath of Allegiance; I - 29 Correspondence received from Paul Oliver, President, Ontario Restaurant Association - Public Opinion Survey on Metro Toronto Residents Regarding Proposed Prohibition on Smoking in Restaurants, Bars and Nightclubs; .. - 1-30 .. I - 31 ... 1-32 .. 1-33 .. .. .. - News Release received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Panel Recommends Greater Municipal Control of Fire Services; Minutes of a meeting of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee held on September 17, 1996; Correspondence received from George S. Graham, Clerk-Administrator, The Township of Brock - Township of Brock Municipal Alcohol Policy; and Ontario Municipal Board Order - Newcastle 1 Limited Partnership and Newcastle 11 Limited (South Courtice). Council Minutes COMMUNICATIONS I - 4 Resolution re: CN's Rationalization of Rail Lines ClO.AD I - 14 Minutes of the Bowmanville Museum Board C06.BO I - 19 Minutes of a Meeting of CLOCA A01.CL D - 1 Santa Claus Parade M02.GE ... - 6 - ... October 15, 1996 ... Resolution #C-757-96 Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Pingle ... THAT the correspondence dated September 19, 1996, from Julia Munro, M.P.P., Durham-York, regarding a Resolution pertaining to CN's Rationalization of Rail Lines, be received for information. .. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-758-96 ... Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Pingle .. THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Bowmanville Museum Board held on September 11, 1996, be received for information. .. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-759-96 .. Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Pingle THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority held on September 17, 1996, be received for information. .. "CARRIED" .. Resolution #C-760-96 ... Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the correspondence dated September 27, 1996 from Susan St. John, Secretary, Bowmanville Santa Claus Parade Committee, 57 Vail Meadows Crescent, Bowmanville, Ontario requesting permission to hold the Bowmanville Santa Claus Parade on Saturday, November 16, 1996 at 10:30 a.m., be received; ... .. THAT permission be granted provided the organizers apply for and obtain a Road Occupancy Permit from the Public Works Department; and ... THAT Susan St. John be advised of Council's decision. "CARRIED" ... .. ... lIlIi - - Council Minutes COMMUNICATIONS .. D - 5 .. Proclamation of Get Ready for Snowmobiling Week M02.GE .. .. .. .. D - 6 - Proclamation of Wife Assault Prevention Month M02.GE .. .. - .. D - 8 .. Wind at my Back Productions Filming M01.GE .. .. .. .. - - 7 - October 15, 1996 Resolution #C-761-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the correspondence dated September 26, 1996 from Bert A. Grant, Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, P.O. Box 94, Barrie, Ontario, requesting the Proclamation of "Get Ready For Snowmobiling Week", be received; THAT the week of November 24 to 30, 1996 be proclaimed "Get Ready For Snowmobiling Week" in the Municipality of Clarington and advertised in accordance with Municipal Policy; and THAT Bert A. Grant be advised of Council's decision. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-762-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the correspondence dated October 8, 1996, from Elizabeth Courneyea, Bethesda House, R. R. #2, Bowmanville, Ontario, LIC 3K3, requesting the proclamation of "Wife Assault Prevention Month", be received; THAT the month of November be proclaimed "Wife Assault Prevention Month" in the Municipality of Clarington and advertised in accordance with Municipal Policy; and THAT Elizabeth Courneyea be advised of Council's decision. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-763-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the correspondence dated October 8, 1996 from Dan Matthews, Location Manager, Wind At My Back Productions Ltd., 66 Hymus Rd., Scarborough, Ontario, MIL 2C7, pertaining to filming a few smalI scenes in the Municipality, be received; THAT permission be granted provided the organizers apply for and obtain a Road Occupancy Permit from the Public Works Department; and THAT Dan Matthews be advised of Council's decision and he be advised that Council wishes him success with this project. "CARRIED" Council Minutes COMMUNICATIONS D - 2 Economic Development Function in the GTA D02.GT D - 3 Resolution re: Creating Money for Canada ClO.AD D - 4 GTA Marketing Alliance D02.GT .. - 8 - October 15, 1996 .. Resolution #C-764-96 ... Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Novak .. THAT the correspondence dated September 24, 1996, from Don Conaby, Chair, Government Affairs/Economic Development Committee, Oshawa Chamber of Commerce, requesting that Council give serious consideration to the re- instatement of an Economic Development Officer in the Municipality of Clarington, be received; .. THAT the correspondence be referred to the 1997 budget deliberations; and ... THAT Don Conaby be advised of Council's decision. ... "CARRIED" Resolution #C-765-96 .. Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Pingle THAT the correspondence received September 30, 1996, from Gerard Mercier, Director, Pilgrims of Saint Michael, requesting endorsement of a resolution pertaining to creating money for Canada instead of borrowing it from private banks who create it, be received for information. .. .. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-766-96 ... Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Novak .. THAT the correspondence dated October 1, 1996, from Hazel McCallion, Mayor, Chair, GTA Mayors & Regional Chairs, regarding Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance - A Public/Private Partnership, be received; ... THAT the correspondence be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer and appropriate staff for review and preparation of a report to be submitted to the General Purpose and Administration Committee FORTHWITH; and ... THAT Mayor Hazel McCallion be advised of Council's decision. .. "CARRIED" .. ... ,l IIIl III .. .. Council Minutes - 9 - October 15, 1996 COMMUNICATIONS .. D - 7 Resolution #C-767-96 - Resolution re: Hospital Board Governance ClOAD Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski - THAT the newsletter dated October 2, 1996, from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, requesting endorsement of a resolution passed by the Town of Kapuskasing regarding the Health Care System, be received; THAT the Council of the Municipality of Clarington endorse the resolution passed by the Town of Kapuskasing; and .. - THAT The Honourable Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario, The Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Health and the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, be advised of Council's decision. "CARRIED" - MOTION NOTICE OF MOTION - COMMITTEE REPORTS .. Report #1 Resolution #C-768-96 GP A Report of October 7, 1996 Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Hannah .. THAT the General Purpose and Administration Committee Report of October 7, 1996, be approved with the exception of Item #5. - "CARRIED" Item #5 Councillor Novak made a declaration of interest with respect to Item #5 of Report #1 (Report PD-133-96); vacated her chair and refrained from discussion and voting on the subject matter. Councillor Novak indicated that she has a relative who resides in the area. .. .. Resolution #C-769-96 .. Trulls Road Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Hannah Woods Environmental Impact Study THAT Report PD-133-96 be received; and D 12.18T-95029 - THAT the awarding of the contract for the Environmental Impact Study for the Trulls Road Woods, be exempted from the requirement of By-law 94-129, as amended, being the Municipality's Purchasing By-law, if the value of the contract exceeds $20,000.00. .. "CARRIED" - - Council Minutes REPORTS Report #2 RFP96-2 Courtice Community Complex Section 1 - Management Services FI8.QU Report #3 Tender CL96-18 Clarke Museum Storage Shed FI8.QU ... - 10 - October 15, 1996 ... Resolution #C- 770-96 .. Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hannah .. THAT Report TR-82-96 be received; THAT a consultant be retained to review and comment on the proposals submitted for RFP96-2, Courtice Community Complex, Section 1, Management Services; and ... THAT the required funds be drawn from Contingency Account #7007-00000-0298. .. "CARRIED" ... Resolution #C-771-96 Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski ... THAT Report TR-83-96 be received; ... THAT Kraco Carpentry Service Limited, Bowmanville, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $78,997.00 being the lowest responsible bidder, meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL96-18 be awarded the contract for the construction of the Clarke Museum storage shed; ... THAT the By-law attached to Report TR-83-96, marked as Schedule "A", be approved; and .. THAT the required funds be drawn from the Clarke Museum Reserve Fund. - "CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING RECORDED VOTE" Recorded Vote ... Yea Nay Absent ... Councillor Dreslinski Councillor Hannah Councillor Novak Councillor Pingle Councillor Scott Mayor Hamre Councillor Elliott ... ... ... .. .. .. Council Minutes - 11 - October 15, 1996 .. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution #C-772-96 .. Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski .. THAT the delegation of Libby Racansky be acknowledged; .. THAT the request be referred to the Durham Regional Works Department for review and they be requested to report back to the Municipality of Clarington and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Advisory Committee; and - THAT Libby Racansky be advised of Council's decision. "CARRIED" .. Resolution #C-773-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski .. THAT the delegation of Kerry Meydam be acknowledged and she be advised of Council's decision. .. "CARRIED" RECESS .. Resolution #C-774-96 .. Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the meeting recess for 10 minutes. - "CARRIED" The meeting reconvened at 8:03 p.m. .. BY-LAWS .. Resolution #C-775-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski - THAT leave be granted to introduce the following by-laws, and that the said by-laws be now read a first and second time: - 96-176 being a by-law to amend By-law 76-25, as amended, a by-law to regulate signs in the former Town of Newcastle, now the Municipality of Clarington; .. .. - Council Minutes BY-LAWS OTHER BUSINESS .... - 12 - October 15, 1996 ... 96-177 being a by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional Municipality of Durham for the Transfer of the Daylight Triangles shown as Blocks 31 and 32, Plan lOM-775; .. .. 96-178 being a by-law to authorize a contract between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and Mopal Construction Ltd., Gormley, Ontario, for the Construction of Avondale Park; .. 96-179 being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Letter of Understanding between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional Municipality of Durham and Ontario Hydro; and .... 96-180 being a by-law to authorize a contract between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and Kraco Carpentry Service Ltd., Bowmanville, Ontario, for the construction of a storage shed, Clarke Museum. .. ... "CARRIED" Resolution #C-776-96 .. Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the third and final reading of By-laws 96-176 to 96-180 inclusive, be approved. ... "CARRIED" .. Resolution #C-777-96 .. Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Novak .. THAT the meeting be "In Camera." "CARRIED" .. Resolution #C-778-96 Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Novak ... THAT the actions taken "In Camera" be ratified. .. "CARRIED" .. .. ... .. .. Council Minutes CONFIRMING BY -LAW .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ADJOURt~MENT - .. .. .. - - - -13- October 15, 1996 Resolution #C-779-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT leave be granted to introduce By-law 96-181, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Municipality of Clarington at this meeting held on the 15th day of October 1996, and that the said by-law be now read a first time. "CARRIED" Councillor Novak made a declaration of interest earlier in the meeting and refrained from discussion and voting on the second reading of the Confirming By-law. Resolution #C-780-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the second reading of By-law 96-181 be approved. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-781-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the third and final reading of By-law 96-181 be approved. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-782-96 Moved by Councillor Pingle, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the meeting adjourn at 8:24 p.m. "CARRIED" MAYOR CLERK - COUNCIL INFORMATION I - 1 - .. MEDIA RELEASE AGENDA October 11 , 1996 For Immediate release .. .. Ajax Rotary Club and Rogers Community 10, Pine Ridge follow the Mayor of Ajax to England .. (AJAX, Ontario) - Rogers Community 10, Pi,ne Ridge, and the Rotary Club of Ajax are sending a TV. crew to follow Mayor of Ajax Steve Parish on his trip to England. A documentary will be produced to air on Rememberance Day about the trip to Gillingham and Brompton, highlights will include the reunion of HMS Ajax crew members and a memorial service. The Rotary Club of Ajax has provided funding to offset the cost of travel while Rogers Community 10 will fund the production, Rogers Cablesystems has provided money to the Town to offset the cost of the Mayor's trip. Rotary Club member Val Marshall says "This is a fantastic opportunity for the Rotary Club to get involved with this unique project, the TV. program will allow the residents to experience history in the making . . .... Rogers Community 10 has produced a series of documentaries about the unique history of Ajax, and our coverage of the Mayor's visit to England will be presented in the same successful style. Greg Grimes, Manager of Progamming and Community Relations for Rogers Community 10, Pine Ridge, said "With help from the Rotary Club, we will provide the opportunity for those who could not attend to watch the program and be part of the ceremonies. . .". Community Television Producer Chris Janusitis commented that ,. . . . by following the Mayor to England and televising the ceremonies, it will allow us to produce a program that will recognize the sacrifice made during the Battle of the River Plate, and continue the long standing relationship Ajax has with England. . .... The program "viII be aired on the Community Channel on Rememberance day, Monday, .. .. - .. ~.'. . .. .. - .. .. .. 1\2',2....;22- .. 1 -30- .. For more information: Chris Janusitis, 436-4102 .. - IB/16/Y6 22:34:14 EST; ASSOCIATIOn OF?-) .. ___..L_._~~..........- OCT-16-'96 16:49 ID:AMO 9BS 623 4169 CLERH-Clarington Mun Page BB2 TEL NO:4169297574 ~982 P01 - COUNCIL MunicipalDcr/7 ALl! INFORMATION J I Os AH.:8&.~~! 250 Bloor St. E., Suite 701 Toronto, ON M4W 1E6 Tel: (416) 929-7573 · Fax: (416) 929-7574 Ema": amo@amo.munlcom.com 1-2 .. .. For Immediate Attention .. Long-Awaited Fire Legislation Introduced .. The Issue: Solicitor General, Robert RWlciman, today introduced a new bill titled the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1996. .. The Facts: .. The Fire Departments Act had remained virtually unchanged since 1927 and no amendments had been made to the statute since 1948. Following years of review, during which AMO has repeatedly called for extensive legislation refonns, the Province today introduced legislation repealing nine Acts relating to fire services and consolidating them into one statute. Several of AMO's concerns have been addressed by the Bill. - . .. ,. .. . . - The proposed legislation will ensure that each fire department has an effective team of managers, similar to all other org~izations. The nwnber of persons perfonning managerial functions in a fire department, and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit, will be based on the size of the department. The question of whether the specified number of persons are performing managerial or excluded functions is not subject to adjudication. When collective bargaining fails, any outstanding disputes will be referred to a conciliator, before being referred to bmding arbitration. Firefighters will have a right to an independent review by any person not employed by the fire department, if they are dismissed for cause. This replaces the current firefighters' right to require members of council to hold a hearing if they are dismissed. - Other highlights of the proposed legislation include: .. · Fire prevention and public education will be made mandatory for municipalities. Most municipalities alread)' meet the necessary requirements. A Public Fire Safety Council which will be established through this legislation will provide support to municipalities as will the Office of the Fire Marshal. - Second reading of the Bill is expected to take place very soon with Legislative Standing Committee hearings to follow. AMO will review the legislation in detail - in particular, the implications of the mandatory requirements and the labour relations elements of the Bill. A brief will be prepared and submitted to the apiCropnate Standing Committee once fU1ther details are available. The Association will continue to keep the membership advised of developments on this issue. - - For further infonnation contact: Frances Pace, Policy Advisor at (416)929-7573 ext. 311 or bY/ e-mail atfpace@amo.mWlicom.com. For problems with fax transmission contact: Maria Pontes at (41'6)929-7573 ext. 326 or bye-mail at mpontes@amo.municom.com. 1 ; J.,. ~' ()cu)bef 16. 1996 ~ ~U' . III - - .. - Environmental Commissioner of Ontario COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-3 Commissaire a l' environrlkfepS de l'Ontario 12 2S PH '96 _ - .. Eva B. Ligcti LL.B_. LLM. Eva B. Ligeti LL.B., LLM. Commissaire Cornnlissiol1c-r - October 1, 1996 - Dear Municipal Leader: .. Over the past year, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's Education team has given dozens. of presentations to municipal leaders, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO Environment Committee, delegates to the Rural Ontario Municipal Association's (ROMA) Annual General Meeting, the majority of Distrid Municipal Associations plus individual councils and environmental advisory committees of council. .. .. - - - In response to the most frequently asked questions during our outreach, we have - produced the enclosed brochure, outlining the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) and the opportunities it offers municipalities. - You can find the Environmental Commissioner's first annual report on the Environmental Registry, accessible by computer and modem. You can call toll free 1-800- 701-6454 for instructions on logging onto the Registry. You can also visit our web site at http:\\www.eco.on.ca for more information on the ECO and the EBR. - - I offer the enclosed brochure as an introduction and invitation to call our office if you have any questions or comments. We will be happy to arrange an Enviro tal Registry demonstration and/or information session for your council. D1ST~~.UTfON CLERK,l.Z-d ~- ACK.BY ORIGINAL CO?itSTO~- I ,~=~~=_--r---1 ., ; : ---.--" --- --. . - --------..-----.' Thank you for your time and interest. .. - - Sincerely, ~---T7~ . Manik Duggar Education Officer ". ".. ,._----...._----~- - - , ....~._-.._--- ... - 1075 r..,.- S,r"c. Sui" 605 Tor"",::., Onf.1cio. M55 2BI Tel (-4;,,) .'25-.1377 F,-c (4;") -'25..1.170 l-~(It--- -,' I -6454 E C 0 ~ CEO r'.-'--Oo. - - .-..._.........._~ . ~ . ,.. . . 1075. ru(.Ray..burc..\L605._ Tnron'o (()i,_C~rio)H8"[{;-: T,'l: (416) 325..1.177 - nice. : (416) .125-.1.1 70 1-800-701-6454 -"--3' - f.----.-- .' ,.", - .... -rJE- '~'I - NOTE: Brochure is available in the Clerk's Dept. - - ~ ~M'~/,,:NCIl .~ -~ O fj '" CT /5 lZ 19 FM '960 0 III ~ INFORMATION 1-4 jEJIiCCralIWIal)) - OCT 1 0 1996 ... October 8, 1996 . . ;"lUWCIPALlTY OF CLARINGTOn MAYOR'S OFFICE - - Mayor Diane Hamre Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L 1 C 3A6 ~ >. Q)~ t- c. ~ '~A. stt 'YG . 5 OUr FOR '/..\fJ - AGENDA - Dear Mayor Hamre, .. Rogers Cablesystems is again in the planning stages of our community service program entitled Pumpkin Patrol. The program will utilize employee and Rogers Community 10 volunteers in our company vehicles to act as guardians on Hallowe'en night. This year, the area will include Oshawa, Newcastle, Bowmanville, Orono, Whitby and Ajax. - The program, which is in it's twelfth year in Oshawa, Newcastle, Bowmanville, Orono and Whitby and in it's second year in Ajax will work as follows. - 1. 2. 5. The area will be divided into territories for surveillance. A Rogers vehicle and two staff volunteers will be assigned to each area on Hallowe'en night. The vehicles will be identified with signs which read Rogers Pumpkin Patrol. The vehicles will patrol residential streets within each territory. The volunteers will be on the lookout for vandalism and will be available to act as a "safe haven" for children who are being harassed or are in need of assistance. The volunteers will radio our Dispatch Office when assistance is needed. Our Dispatch Office will then contact Durham Regional Police Services to provide professional assistance. Our drivers will not drive children home. The volunteers will monitor the areas from approximately 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm on October 31, 1996. 3. 4. - - 6. .. - We will be communicating our plans to children and their parents with the assistance of tne Boards of Education and local schools. The schools will be given the opportunity to present their 1st Grade classes with Pumpkin Patrol Treat-or-Treat bags, Rogers Reflective Stickers and Helpful Hints for Hallowe'en Flyers. We will also be canvassing the local GO Transit Stations on October 30, 1996 to hand out Pumpkin Patrol Bags and ReflectiveISt~GkefS-tQ interested parents. DIS1~TfON Rogers Cablesystems is proud to provide this service to our communities bnCJ. r:;;;(oOK~--'--- forward to your continuing support and assistance with this program. If you have anYi.q~est,'.i.onsor_.~-.-........"...R concems. please feel free to contact me at (905) 436-4128. ~ ';:";"" l' 1~,: '_"" 0 Sirl:erely, . . '.. - ... ... - , :'vJJ~/g~ ,i:ren Feeley Pumpkin Patrol Co-ordinator - RfjGERS'" l==~~:~.-~~-~~-~.'_'~J==- I \. !-----. ........-. - .--)..------ I'---........c-.... -" ~ -., ---. , >-----.---. -- .__._..._____"1..___.. i l I-~~-._.--~-----i.-:.-- , I i -..------R/l---/j---'j;), ~ - .. _j~/~8l% 1S: 28 : 22 ES T ; "EUS CAfiADA- > OCT 08 '96 04:08PM 9E1S 023 4109 Diane Ha/T1re Page BBZ P.l COUNCIL INFORMATION @ Ontario 1-5 - f'oKclrlO SeMC'tC Oivl,ltm f~fl/llor 25 Qrowanqr ~ TorontO ON M7A. i>>o\3 T'ltp~: (.I~) 31+3000 1111l11mile: Mlnltt". du ..lIIelt..., vt~,,,1 "d.. S'Nl~1 c:o"lcUonnt" DMllon du Iql'\fi~, 1"'0'''" It. I. pOlloo '2'"'-0' 1$1\t' OIO$~'"Qf TOfCmlQ ON M7^ aHQ TAltpllarll: (41 6) ~1'030aO n"coplevr: - M""lttty of '", SallClfer G.n.'.' Incl Cort",'on.1 UNlet.. - - MEMORANDUM TO: All Chief! of Police Commissioner Thomas.6. O'Ol'ady and All Police Ser\'ice Board Chairs - - FROM: Fred Peters ~5\$tant Deputy Minister ~olicin8 Serviccs Division AGENDA - SUBJECT: opr CO$til~g MorMOI'!urU DA Ti OF ISSV~: CLASSUlCA. tION. l\.ETlNl'ION: INDEX-NO.: PJUOlUTY; October '. 1996 Gel1~rAl ImJc..(\llltct 96.0QG4 Prlorit1 POft - - - AJ you are ..ware, in Novem'otr 1995 the lninis\ry imposed & moratoriu\n on requeStS fot' costing propusc.ls for contrll.ct policing by th~ Ontario Provincir..t Po1ic~. - Effe~ve October 8, \ 996, the l'Ilora.tOrlUln ha.$ been lifted. This move will maximize the number or options IVti1al.>te to those municipatltles whIeh al'e consi(l~rin~ a.1\ermstive selvice delivery options in order to in~rcaso the effioiency and C;O$t effectiveness of policing in their cQITllTlunlty, - Requests Cot' c:osting proposals should be addt'eucd to: Special Advisor PoUcing, Office of the Deputy Minht~r "--- . .-. -.--.... ,--~ Mil\l$try ofthe Solicitor General ll\d COlnelionlil Servicc~rl; ~-.: T)o?~ UTI (; N -r 175 Bloor Street East, #400 ! ;, i ~ i~ K I ~- L Toronto ON M4W 3M i C,:X. 8, "~ lnq oiri es on thi' ,""Iter ,.,y bo dlreetad tt,..y office ., (416)3\ 4.3 091, ( : . . .. \.~~ ~E' :~~ g;d~ - .. .. - Fred PcsterlS ~..ant DCpl.lty Mini&lcr Policing SelVices Division ,~..~..._-~ " ____~ . ~' ~'_._". . '! ;-.-..- . :_=~'=-==j=;~~0'oo r---"-(J- . . ., ., .IJ-._.%:",,::l - - .. 11_,. /- ~ .: 1 T~ ,-"'"':! ,," - - Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services Emergency Measures Ontario 19th Floor 25 Grosvenor Street Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6 COUNCIL INFORMATION Ministere du Solliciteur general et des Services correctionnels Mesures d'urgence Ontario 1ge etage 25, rue Grosvenor Toronto. ON M7A 1Y6 @ Ontari~6 - OCT I 1 12 27 Pit '96 TelephonelTelephone: Facsimile/T elecopieur: (416) 314-3723 (416) 314-3758 - File reference /Reterence: 02-04 - October 2, 1996 ------------t I ~~,STRI8UTION \ I Cu.rd', - --- I !\CK. 8Y I I ORI_~1NAL~.:U: -! "': \ l~C~1 -".-." ...., ... .... _..1 -..?'~ ----. ... I \ i r~'zl~:Y j-L ----... . : I , . --~ 1..--_ .:-, ...--.",."- - I i i l---' .. .-.-..- ~ I .----.....' ." I I .--.--.-......- ---- . --~i!..- \ tL' , I 1---.- .- -~- ') 1 l.,i.!~.::..".:::._-: ..71;. ..~1:::.;1 - - Mr. William Stockwell Chief Administrative Officer Municipality of C1arington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 - Dear Mr. Stockwell: .. Subject: Application for JEPP Funding (FY 1997-98) - Project Description: EOe equipment - This \\111 acknowledge receipt of your application(s) for funding under the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP) for fiscal year April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998. - .. All applications are being reviewed. You will be notified sometime after April 1, 1997, as to whether or not the application( s) from your community has/have been approyed. No work should commence on any project until confirmation of approval has been received from this office. .. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (416) 314-8616 or the Community Emergency Measures Officer for your area: Mary Cann, Southcentral Area, Toronto (416) 314-8625, Randy Reid, Southe:b'lern Area, Kingston (613) 545-4590, Steve Beatty, Southwestern Area, London at (519) 679-7055, Wayne Bennett, Northeastern Area, Sudbury (705) 675- 4474. L'\r Gary Kerton, Northwestern Area, Thunder Bay (807) 473-3191. .. - - ;;~"erelY, ~ Maureen Griffit s Manager. Provincial Preparedness - MG/rm - -. .~:"~.3::~.:-:-:':: . 1 ""95) - Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency COUNCIL INFORMAlImNN 1-7 News !\eleq~l{;o7AM'96 M;~;Jm\ - - - - FUNDING FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE REVIEW OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE DISPOSAL CONCEPT - OTT A W A - October 8, 1996- The federal goverrunent has awarded funds to help individuals and groups participating in the envirorunental assessment review of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept to review the supplemental technical information received from Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL). .. Recipients include: Saskatchewan Envirorunental Society, Northwatch, Serpent River First Nation, Mr. Tom W. Lawson, Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, Nuclear Awareness Project, The Chemical Institute of Canada, Energy Probe, Canadian Nuclear Society, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Inter- Church Uranium Committee, York Centre for Applied Sustainability, Voice of Women for Peace, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Northumberland Envirorunental Protection, Science for Peace, Canadian Coalition for Ecology, Ethics, and Religion. - - .. The assistance, totalling $92,515, will be provided under the Participant Funding Program which is administered by the Canadian Envirorunental Assessment Agency. The funding will help recipients prepare for and take pan in hearings to be held in Toronto in November 1996 to review the supplementary technical information from AECL. - A funding administration committee, independent of the panel, was appointed to review participant funding proposals. Members of the committee were: Phil Byer, University of Toronto, Rene Parenteau, Universite de Montreal and Mike Lascelles of the Canadian Envirorunental Assessment Agency. - 30 - .. .. For information on the Participant Funding Program or for a list of successful applicants, the work for which they were funded and the amount of funding provided, please contact: .. Suzanne Latour. A/Manager Participant Funding Program Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 200 Sacre-Coeur Blvd. Hull, Quebec ~IA OH3 ~ ,,~;"j~;;l~~lWiirl'O'[~J- \RIlt(cmItW~'\' , 'J._..R,{ .1-'iL.-J__ . , " It!] , C' ~ :. ~1"l - ~;;t' :. .' -~- _cL___1 GCi 1 6 '995 --, c: CLARING10N ~;'\J';\llCIPALlTY ?: . ~.~AYQR S QEttGr .. i r/;;~ !;: ) - Tel: (819) 0::-:-5537 Fax \S19)9~"':'-1-+69 e-mail: slatour@gsro.carleton.ca (Also available in French) - 1+1 Government Gouvernement of Canada du Canada . . , m .:_+~---~ . ' .. ~.,- -_...~._.. ; . . .. . -;------'-~ I I ,.-'---1 .. /-11/t;--.--7)- i - ......:.-..:~~:~-C. Canada - - .. ltj ~1mllII" Ontario COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-8 - - The Premier of Ontario Le Premier ministre de l'Ontario OCHTIz 2lJ;~la~$Building Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1 Hotel du gouvernemen Queen's Park Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1A1 - October 7, 1996 - - - Ms. Marie P. Knight Deputy Clerk Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LIC 3Z6 - - Dear Ms. Knight: .. Thank you for your letter informing me of council's resolution supporting the initiatives of the Region of Peel and the-City of Mississauga regarding the use of photo radar enforcement at intersections. - I welcome this opportunity to hear council's views and appreciate your keeping me and my Cabinet colleagues apprised of your activities in this regard. - Sincerely, - :--;;~-: T ;;-I";;-U TI6'N-'--l I .-, ,- . .. f>0) I j l-/i tj(,-\ __ .J T ~ i 'I -'1 A.CK. GY Ii t , , i l;i~I;.:~:~AL TO:. ' ___n_ ! 1.___.- _..~.___.._...__...._----,,-..._._--, 'i ~~i~~ - .. Michael D. Harris, MPP - - .J -- ,- - --j . - ---' .'- -'--, \ \ ," ~-T-----'-l .....__.~--. . ~ - --- ----~ '-, , ,', - 'c IC', d[),;--.~--: - .---~ "='~ ... - - - .. ... - -. ... - ... - - - ... - - - - r:-. ...--.......-;.;,-. \,.-:- ~-" @ Ontario COUNCI~ INFORMATION 1-9 . ., .' ~~~i~~~m~nt .~~~~~~n~~enBR. JJ.f1t. milQ.,.~. vonuowJJcr 16::::~FN". .~. . .,!XJeSt. ..., . . ". \!J. 14 V 1P5 Toronto ON M4V 1 " and Energy et de l'Energre .,' ..,.. , '" AG'EN DA ' -OCT'1 5 1996 ' October 8, 1996 To Municipal Officials: . MUNtClPALI.TY OFCLARlNGTON . ' . . MAYOR'S OFF.lqe . , .,. .' .. '.' r am writing to invite you and members of your m'unicipalcouncil andit~ agenci.estQ attend '. . th~ upcoming 1996 Environment a.nd Eilergy Confere~ce of Ontario. (EECo-96).EEGO i~ the largest, and most comprehensive conference of its kind. in the province, and. this y~ar ~n . focus on awide..rarige of municipal.and business issu~s which will -impact on the citizens; .,: commercial sector and industry' in your regio:,:. int9 the ne'xt: ~ili~nniuni; . . . " . . This year- for the firsttime, the-:"Economi~ Developers' Council of Ontario (ED CO) has joine'd with a number of ot~er agencies to host the ~vent. and.pclrt,itipate on the~onfer~rt~e ste~~ing,; . '. and program co~ittees. ..' . . . . . .' , . . . .' Just recep.tly, The H~nourabIeMike Harris, Premier ,of Ontarip,.has b~en confirmed for the. conference prograni. Mr. Harris'will.be .ma19ngms .firs~ a.ppear.ance as .Prer,nier a~ a:major environme~t and energy forum. ' , . Many other. events ~t .EECO 96will also be ofinter~st to YOl.!aiid your collea.gues: " . . ' 'Energy cOITIpetition, c1lt.ernative delivery niechaQism~ for muriicipal servi.ces~ regulatory review and reform, environmental law, changes to the enviroruhental assessment process and waste management, and transport~tion issues will be the focus of a number:of verbal sessions and -. workshops~ Site visits 'and a trade show are added attraction~.' . '. . , The enclosed program tells you everything that you need to know; when; where, arid how to register. A special registration rate is available for members of EDCO, and there is a discounted early registration rate. for other dele~ates. -For further information, co.ntad Ro.ger Scott'at the Industry Conservation Branch, Ministry of Enviroriment and Energy, '. "- . . at {4l6) 327-8073. Hope to see you in :Nove.mber at .EECO 96" . --.-..--.----------------.-..---------- i. ~"l'ml~"'" . . --'."r".r I f 1. ~..l..:;t ,- .: __, i ",..),\) . 'I r' ~R". .. , . j .... !..'-. : ._.:...r.... ---,.. I .10;.. ;'y' : : ...."...!\...: ,....,..-.. !. f I OHI(;l~.!M"'" _.D., 1 1--. - -...-,' ..- --.----,___~_._': I (... '.. f 1-::~:-':' -_.:. -- ---. -.. --,-- -; L~~ ~e,\>-/ Linda Ploeger Conference. Chair NOTE: : f i o./.g,. .P.i..._~,. ........-.r=. ~~..-' 1 : ......-.-... "" '--. .....- -:-':~"""--' ,-.-............... '. . .. '.. ...-1........_..._4 I. : r';'.:I-;'~----'- ;;/4:''772- I.. """. ...1'9.".:, .;,," ;,.(,J:w,',;::r..r.<o Progra~ is;av~ilablein the Clerkls CJ161 DE ('03,~ 100% UnbloaChed Post-COnsumof Stock () C~- 0) 1/1, .. - - - .. - - - - - ,~-. :. .. - - - - - - - - COUNCIL INFORMATION AGENDA j~{)~'(cnllr\WTRij ft" J.!a~ 1-10 OCT 1 0 1996 OCT IS IZ 19 PM '96 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM ~;llJi\UGIPAlITY OF Cu ~INGTOl MAYOR'S OfFI ~ NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 17(17) OF THE PLANNING ACT, AS AMENDED, ("PLANNING ACT") Pursuant to Subsection 17(15) of the Planning Act, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham adopted Amendment No. 17 to the Durham Regional Official Plan by By-law No. 61-96 on September 25, 1996. The purpose of this Amendment is to address areas of non-conformity and to enable the approval of the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington. In preparation of the Clarington Official Plan, the Municipality of Clarington analysed its, transportation requirements, and requested changes to the Region's transportation network in Courtice and Bowmanville that would support the land use structure of the Clarington Official Plan. In addition, three site specific Durham Regional Official Plan policies regarding lot creation, were identified as having been fulfilled, and thus warrent deletion. A copy of the Amendment and background materials are available to the public for inspection at the Planning Department, Regional Municipality of Durham, 1615 Dundas Street East, Fourth Floor, Lang Tower, West Building, Whitby, Ontario and at the Clerk's Department, 605 Rossland Road East, Second Floor, Room 207, Whitby, Ontario, Monday to Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Any person or public body is entitled to receive Notice of the Proposed Decision of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding this Amendment if they submit a written request to be notified of the proposed decision directly to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Amendment is being sent for approval to the Director, Plans Administration Branch, Central and Southwest, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E5. o~ 7. /f9~ / R~n~~ Date (j c, / (\ I, \ OCT I: 12 19 PH '96 co. U..NCIL INFoRMATloNltflBCCIEilW]]I1\\ area.~:- ~ ~~ .tN~Jtth:Dn 81 OCT 1 0 1996 I - 11 .. - - ;';IUrJ1CIPAllTY OF CLARf~ TON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM MAYOR'S OFFICE - NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 17(17) OF THE PLANNING ACT, AS AMENDED, ("PLANNING ACT") .. .. - Pursuant to Subsection 17(15) of the Planning Act, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham adopted Amendment No. 23 to the Durham Regional Official Plan by By-law No. 66-96 on September 25, 1996. .. The purpose of this Amendment is to delete Prestonvale Road as a Type C arterial north of Bloor Street. .. A copy of the Amendment and background materials are available to the public for inspection at the Planning Department, Regional Municipality of Durham, 1615 Dundas Street East, Fourth Floor, Lang Tower, West Building, Whitby, Ontario and at the Clerk's Department, 605 Rossland Road East, Second Floor, Room 207, Whitby, Ontario, Monday to Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ... .. Any person or public body is entitled to receive Notice of the Proposed Decision of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding this Amendment if they submit a written request to be notified of the proposed decision directly to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. ... - The Amendment is being sent for approval to the Director, Plans Administration Branch, Central and Southwest, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E5. - ... ()~. -7) 199~ Date ~. -z0 ~_.~ Regional Clerk. - - - - - 18/18/96 ZZ:58:38 EST: ASSOCIATION OF?-) OCT-l0-'96 15:59 ID:8MO 985 6Z3 4169 CLERH-Clarington Mun Page E1E1Z TEL NO:4169297574 ~906 POl COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-12 J ...~ j Municipal .t:te AMottlllon of MllnlclplUtl.. of Ontario - PorY Information 250 Bloor 51. E., Suite 701 Toronto. ON M4W lE6 Tel: (416) 929-7673 . Fax: (416) 929-7574 Emall: amo@amo.municom.com - our For Immediate attention .. Province Lifts Moratorium on OPP Castings - The Issue: - On October 8, 1996, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services advised all Chiefs of Police, Police Services Boards and the Ontario Provincial Police that the moratorium on opp costings was lifted. The Facts: - In November 1995, the Ministry imposed a moratorium on requests for costing proposals for contract policing by the Ontario Provincial Police. .. .. According to the Ministry, the lifting of the moratorium is intended to, "maximize the number of options available to those municipalities which are considering alternative service delivery options in order to increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policing in their community." . - Under the current Police Services Act, municipalities responsible for the delivery of police services can maintain a local police force, contract with the OPP, contract with another municipality, or use any other method approved by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS). - During the 1996 Police Summit, AMO pressed the Solicitor General to lift the moratorium. In subsequent meetings with the Ministry and other stakeholders, AMO asserted that the moratorium created an unacceptable barrier to effective planning for the delivery of cost effective municipal police services. - Current Status: - AMO \"'elcomes the news that the moratorium has been lifted. AMO will continue to monitor developments regarding police services in Ontario, including any recommendations that may emerge froJ?_th~91'9~))ie-S11-Q-------~' l', Panel on Emergency Services. j .,~_':!~;;TRI8UTION 1"" j Enquiries about OPP costings should be directed to: Bill Crate, Director _ SUpt. \ "_LR" -' J -.-- First Nations and Contrct POlicing Braribh .." I Ontario Provincial Police 'i 50 Andrew Street South . __n .-=.:.:::~.:.:.:.:.:':':':-; ~;:~~~o~~ ~~~)73;~_6200 '~, ~'.:-j~---'_: Brian Rosboroogh, Policy Advisor, at (416) 929-7573 ext~ e-mail atbrosborough@amo.municom.com . ! i---.--- - .- . \...- -" .n'-'l Maria Pontes, Administrative Assistant, at (416) \929-7573 ext. 326-\- --. _-00_-' or bye-mail atmpontes@amo.municom.com \ . ',H .-.--.---\ i Pate III :- _______~ ! \ + ._--_._,--,-~ ~.-f,i'1_10& &J~:_-._:~~: F or mort; Information contact: - - .. For transmission problems contact: - OcIOM 10.. 19% - - - - - - - 18/14/9& 22:13:49 EST: ASSOCIATIOn OF?-) OCT-11-'96 18:47 ID:AMO 1-13 AallOd8tlon of Munlelpalltlea of OIMrlo 250 Bloor Sf. E., Suite 701 Toronto. ON M4W 1E6 Tel: (416) 929-7673 . Fax: (416) 929-7574 E-mail: amo@arno.munioom.eom For Immediate Attention CROMBIE PANEL MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS ON SOCIAL SERVICES The Issue: _ On October 11, David Crombie, Chair of the Who D09s What Panel, released a letter to The Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing outlining the Panel's recommendations on welfare, employment programs, and child care. - - - - - - - - - - " '\ \ - The Facts: The Panel has made a number of recommendations to the Minister, including: > The Province should be the overall manager of the social services system in Ontario. > The Province should fully fund Ontario Works and child care (ie. phase out existing cost share). > The Ontario Works program (social assistance, employment services, and emergency hostels) and child care should be delivered as a single service envelope. >-- A 3 to 5 year transition period should take place, with a gradual transition to provincial funding. >-- Municipalities should be the delivery agent for the Ontario Works program during the transition period. >- During the transition period, the number of delivery agents should be decreased through consolidation of municipal social service administrations to approximately 50 service delivery units. > Effective the fiscal year 1997/98, 100% provincial funding of program costs would apply once an Ontario Works business plan has been approved. > The current provincial-municipal cost share on administration of these programs should be phased out over the 3-5 year transItion period where provincial requirements are met. > Effective the fiscal year 1997/98 the Province should provide 100% funding of child care fee subsidies currently cost shared with municipalities. .. Following the transition period, the Province would have the authority to contract out service delivery if provincial requirements are not met or if a municipality chooses to opt out of being the delivery agent. > The province should fund and deliver the Guaranteed Support Plan for seniors and the disabled. > Municipalities should be responsible for licensing child care in their communities. The Provincial Government has not yet made a decision regarding these recommendations. The Who Does What Secretariat will fax copies of today's release to all heads of municipal council. AMO's president has provided some comments to Minister Leach on today's release. See attached letter. For further information, contact: Jill Vienneau, polley Advisor at (416) 929-7573, ext. 314 or by E- mail at jvienneau@amo.municom-com For fax transmission problems contact: Lilian Cheung at (416) 929-7575. ext. 308 or by E-mail at Icheung@amo.municom.com 1/2 Octobtr 11. 1996 lB/14/9& 22:14:3& EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-} Q(I~+1-'96 18:48 ID:AMO 9BS &23 41&9 CLERH-Clarington Mun Page BB3 TEL NO:4169297574 ~924 P02 .. .bte .. .,. unilt's Onl"rio 's munic-ipalili,s October 11, 1996 Association of Municipalities of Ontario .. Ule Honourable Al Leach Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17th Floor, 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2ES ... Dear Minister Leach: ... Today, the Who Does What Panel, chaired by David Crombie forwarded recommendations to you regarding social assistance, employment programs and child care. I am writing to respond to the recommendations in relation to the responsibility, delivery and financing of these services. .. The Crombie Panel has recommended that social assistance, employment programs, and child care are a provincial responsibility, As such, they have recommended that the Province be responsible for financing these services, and for making decisions about how to deliver these services. AMO agrees with these recommendations, as there is a Provincial interest in having consistent, province-wide programs in these service areas. AMO recognizes that while the Province should be responsible for these programs, there may be an interest in calling on service delivery agents outside the Provincial Government. .. .. While the Panel has recommended that these social services are a provincial responsibility, it has also said that municipalities are the appropriate delivery agent for Ii 3 to 5 year transition period and the preferred delivery agent following the transition period. Municipalities currently deliver the provincial General Welfare Ass"istance program according to provincial standards. As such, there is a ready base of knowledge, skills, and infrastructure which would fulfil the expectations set by the Province for social service programs. The Crombie Panel recognizes, and AMO agrees, that the soon to be implemented Ontario Works program would benefit from municipalities being involved as that program's delivery agent. AMO suggests that a service contract for delivery of these services, with responsibilities explicitly defined would be useful in clarifying the relationship between the Province and the delivery agent. .. .. ... As you know, AMO has consistently asserted that the property tax base is an inappropriate funding source for income redistributive programs such as social assistance. AMO is aware that your Government must consider the cumulative impacts of the recommendations of the Crombie Panel in making a decision regarding social assistance, employment programs, and child care. There will be future recommendations about who should be responsible for other services such as policing, education, and transportation. Municipalities are anxious that the Government's decisions will reflect an appreciation of the financial capacity of our respective tax bases to support the changes in responsibilities as we sort out Who Does What. While all recommendations have not yet been received by your Government, we urge you and your Cabinet colleagues to carefully consider the recommendations regarding social services within the larger context of the Who Does What initiative. .. .. .", The recommendations relating to social assistance, employment programs and child care are an important first step toward defining more appropriate roles and responsibilities for both levels of government in the social services area. I would be most interested in meeting with you to discuss these recommendations. I have asked AMO staff to arrange a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss this important issue. .... .. Yours truly, ~~ sident 150 Bloor Street East . Suite 701, Toronto, Onl<lrio M4W H6 . Tel('phonc (416) 929.757] . Fax (416) 929-7574 .. .. \ I11III P.l - COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-14 - OCT 10 3 03 PH '96 - CANADA'S HOME OF MOTOR RACING October 2, 1996 - .. - Mayor Diane Hamre Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LIC 3AS AGENDA - Dear Diane: - It appears to me at this moment in time that aside from our race schedule for 1997 which is increasing in number of events over 1996 that from a stand .alone concert point of view we will have at least 4. - My best guess at the moment is as follows: - July 5,6,&7, 1997 July 26, 1997 August August 30 & 31, Eden Musicfest The Warped Tour T.B.A. The Next Adventure 3 days only I day only 1 day only 2 days only - - I believe I have sent you a preliminary of our race events, if not I enclose a copy including the Mosport International Speedway. We expect to have more events at the Speedway in 1997. .. Otherwise our facilities should be rented out for driving schoo~ driver and team testing from the middle of April 15, to November 15, 1997 (depending on snow). Prior to our Trans Am Weekend and Chrysler Mosport 500 Weekend we intend to have a dinner and golf tournament respectively. Also 8S part of each event as we will discuss with you shortly, we will have the Mosport Foundation incorporated and functioning as a charitable fund raising mechanism for both the Municipality and the Region. We will be asking you for the names of community representatives to sit on its Board and direct where the funds raised will be allocated. In the first year I hope to be able to raise between $250,000.00 to $500,000.00, all at no cost to the Foundation. In subsequent years I believe that the amount can be doubled. - .. - THE MOSPORT PARK ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION - 825 DENISON STREET, UNIT 16 · MARKHAM, ONTARIO. L3A 5E4 PHONE: (905) 513-0550 WEBSITE: WWW.MOSPORT.COM FAX: (905) 513-0566 . Mosport Pari( LimQed . C,O,B, Mospon Park . Mosport Resources Inc. . Mosport's Ascot North Inc. - C.O.II. Mospott International Sp$edway - -730516 Ontario limited . Clarington concert (1) Ventures lim~ed - 9027-0310 Quebec Inc. (VancoverStock EXchange. Symbol MPM_) - IIIIIIII ... .. CANADA'S HOME OF MOTOR RACING .. Mosport intends to make a greater commitment then ever before to the Municipality and the Region especially in these economic times of government cut backs. I believe that we can provide leadership and be a catalyst in the community in fund raising efforts. .. I look forward to seeing you in the near future, III Your Sincerely, THE MOSPORT PARK ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION ~/ President and CEO .. .. .. III DISTRIBUTION !,': ;' ~'\ ~, '\., ,"'. ....._--~....-._---..__...-. III ;'. :-, ~"; 'f ,- -~'l.--''-'"..'"''_--____''' L r\ !:._l; ;'~ :.~~ ,\): '""~------, .. ,(!~ ~. L . ~'~".~-.J-- i"'." .+.r. -2~.-'~------'--~ . -/j .., '. . ,--.7'- '_', \"'. ....... .,- , "j ! 7 - /" ..7.~: ~,"'-' ..-. '. -.- .: -------"": · PI / t1o~~-~ -:C~/ IIIIIIII .. - ... THE MOSPORT PARK ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION 825 DENISON STREET, UNIT 16 · MARKHAM, ONTARIO. L3R 5E4 PHONE: (905) 513-0550 WEBSITE: WWW.MOSPORT.COM FAX: (905) 513-0566 · Mosport Par't< Umitec - ~.O,il. Mosport Park . Mosport Resources Inc. . Mosport's Ascot North Inc. - c.o,e. Mosport InternatIonal SIXl~y . i30S16 On:="j" U'71:~ . Cfarington concert (1) Ventures Limited · 9027-0310 Quebec Inc. (Vancov ..--c. r T- ,,',~ 'r. - ,_;",,1 'AOlJ \ ... 3 ... .. - - .. Addiction Research Foundation Fondation de la recherche _ sur la toxicomanie Whitby Area Office 1615 Dundas Street East Ste, 202 .. 2nd Floor, Lang Tower West Whitby Mall Whitby. Ontario L1 N 2L1 - Bureau de Whitby 1615 est. rue Dundas 2e etage, Bureau 202 Tour Lang Ouest Whltt;y Mall - \\ ..."tby (Ontarro) L''-i2L1 Tel (416) 576-6277 Fa" (416) 576-1281 .. Central Office' SIege social: 33 Russell St. To:'onto, Ontario - Canada M5S 2S1 33. rue Russell TC'".Jnto (Ontarro' C,",ada M5S 2S1 - T~ 416) 595-6000 ~.~\ (416) 595-5017 .. .. .. - - - ... ... COUNCIL INFOftMmmCCnnIWIl1J) OCT 1 0 1996 1-15 ), AnF OCT 15 '- -w . Ii oJU MU~~CIPAUTY OF CLARINGTON MAYOR'S OFFICE September 27, 1996 AGENDA Mrs. Diane Hamre Mayor of Clarington Municipality of Clarington Municipal Office 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6 Dear Mayor Hamre: Along with other organizations in the health care sector, the Addiction Research Foundation (ARP) is facing major budget reductions. The Ministry of Health is reducing the Foundation's core funding by $8 million over three years. The challenge for the Foundation is to maintain cutting edge research, deliver quality programming and meet the needs of the province while facing these cuts. In light of these reductions, the Foundation underwent a strategic planning process and has begun restructuring and focussing its services. Three priority areas were identified as the focus of the Foundation's work over the next few years: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation in Ontario's Treatment System; Application of Treatment Interventions; and Community-based Prevention Interventions. A written update on strategic planning at ARF is available. Further, a number of other measures are being implemented to achieve the reduction targets. For example, administration is being restructured and delayered. In addition to changes resulting from both strategic planning and budget reductions, an. external review of the Foundation took place over last winter and spring, and into early summer. It is hoped that the recommendations will be available in the fall. It is possible . that these recommendations will further impact the restructuring and refocussing begun in the spring, and on the next phase of implementation steps planned for the fall. As part of the budget reduction process, a province-wide plan for the Community Programs Department (CPD) has been developed. The Department will be consolidated :md will operate twelve offices across the province. This consolidation of offices will begin October, 1996 and be largely accomplished by March 31, 1997. These changes will allow us to reduce our administrative and lease costs. Once the implementation is complete, offices will be located in Hamilton, Kenora, Kingston, London, Metro An agoncy of tho Provlnco 01 Ontario Un organisrne do Iii provinco 00 l'Ofll,HH) ~ AUF .. .. .. Toronto, North Bay, Ottawa, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins, and Windsor. In those locations where offices are closed, the program consultants will continue to live in and serve that area. You will be informed of any changes in their phone numbers, etc. as soon as they become available. .. .. However, the restructuring of the Community Programs Department is going to change the way we work in communities across the province. For example, this will mean some changes in the way ARF information services such as library, videos, and pamphlets, can be accessed in the future. Strategies to improve access to information are a priority and will include both central and local distribution points. Included with this letter is a pamphlet describing how you can access information centrally through our Info-ARF line. We will be working with our local partners to identify potential local distribution points. IIIIIl WI .. In keeping with the spirit of the Foundation's mission, the Community Programs Department is committed to working with our partners in communities as we implement the necessary changes. We look forward to discussing these challenges and opportunities with you. If you would like further information, or wish to discuss concerns and suggestions, please contact me or any of the local ARF program consultants with whom you have worked. '--D' '. c. . -:;---;:;:- ,..., '. f.1f f ::1:<':> I r-;!f!jJ I ruN n i I. .........-.---.-._. t, , :\! " . t.:'O'KrL.- ~ ,:~,',.; _/,,~^-, 9 :...J i..... f t i f--_. 1---.- L..__.. ... IIIIIl Sincerely, WI ~- ~' . , /.-_/. I,' , (/ ',~/lL/( c.(_ _ \' . ..~ cu /1,-,,2/44<; L-Z., .. Andrea Stevens Lavigne Regional Manager -....-...-1 ... i NOtE: Pamphlet is ailailable in Clerk'1-:--~.. ._:~:-l Department. 1 : C-~.~~:~.- .'I--c',." .r~d ----~ I.:., ~.: ',:.:../. - .-L-; .lil::". ------{: T he Add iction..Res(lar~lj..Fol1ndllti()l1'~..miSSiOl1~st()wOr~..Wit.lj.lts.p#(.fners:t{LCr~llJe;;3Jl_<l~i!!ll$Jrnowledge to prevent and reducethe harm associatedwitllalcohol, tobacco and other drugs in Ontario communities. .. "'" .. .. .. III COUNCIL INFORMATION / 1-16 - - Katharine Goldberg Association fur OCT 17 1107 nH'Uurlesque Entertainers PO Box 65239,358 Danforth Ave Toronto, Ont M4K IMO (416) 651-8783, fax (416) 467-8262 - - - Municipal Council Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L lC 3A6 iRlBrr:mrrWIRID OCT 1 6 1996 October 1'1, 1996 .. - :AUWCIPALlTY OF CLARINGTON MAYOR'S OffICE - RE: LAP DANCING IN STRIP CLUBS - Municipal Council: AGENDA - Here are some updates of information sent to you concerning "lap dancing" in strip clubs. .. /:&~ - Katharine Goldberg - .- 'C. '" _ _. ____"'0-' __ ~._ ......-.... L'..~_~.,..< ~. r:,i:::-;-TA~ Tl 0 N ; ~,',.c.:.t\L~~~"'_~_.h__ I j."O - .. - - . .. -.----, ..._-1 - L ,;/-et ~.-.~. ... ~- ... In Ontario "lap dancing" is like cockroaches in a house ... to get rid of them and keep them gone, it isn't enough to spray just one room, one has to spray every room. We need bylaws in each and every town and city. ... Why a complete no touching bylaw is still needed: .. A complete no touching bylaw is needed because our goal is not to get people convicted of crimes, but to protect everyone's health and lives. .. Unfortunately too many strip club owners in Ontario have shown that they can not be trusted to voluntarily restrain themselves from having IIlap dancing". Even if the current owner and ... managers of strip clubs are genuinely willing to refrain, owners and managers change and new clubs can be opened. Bylaws are needed and should be put in place to prevent problems. Strip clubs that claim they don't have IIlap dancingll and claim they don't want it, they have no real ... reason to object to a bylaw. If IIlap dancing II isn't going on, a bylaw is a very essential but inexpensive insurance against it being sneaked in. Using the Criminal Code alone is not the answer Many police forces have agreed with us that a bylaw can be more easily and economically enforced than the bawdy house or indecent theatrical performance sections of the Criminal Code. Bylaws are also better at preventing assaults on the women since they prevent the situation where dancers are put at such great risk of assault. Former Metro Toronto Police Chief William McCormack is only one of the many police officers who have agreed with us that the best approach to stopping "lap dancing" is to use bylaws. A complete no touching bylaw: ... .. .. .. · draws a clear line setting out what isn't allowed. · can be easily followed, · can be easily and fairly enforced for the same reason. · sets community standards, · protects dancers from being pressured to try to get away with as much as possible. · prevents the hiding of unsafe sexual activities, and · provides a layer of protection that, if strictly enforced, economically and reasonably heads off the unsafe sexual activities and heads off the commission of the crimes. ... .. ... It might seem prudent to wait for all the court cases to be completed. But what is really prudent, given the dangers of&lap dancing', is not to take chances, but to protect everyone in the community with a bylaw. . Strip clubs sometimes point to the lack of bylaws in some cities as an excuse to keep fighting to keep "lap dancing II because they say that means there is still not a IIlevel playing field". A requirement that all seNices be provided within plain and unobstructed view of the main stage, also helps prevent assaults and helps prevent the hiding of unsafe sexual activities. When you realize what a horrible and dangerous thing &lap dancing' is, it is hard to understand why anyone would want to allow it to remain lurking in any town or city, even as a possibility. ... .. .. ... Association for Burlesque Entertainers ... "" - What about CZarington? People in at least 48 Canadian communities are now protected by bylaws against "lap dancing": Barrie, Brampton, Brantford, Brockville, Burlington, Calgary, Cambridge, Capreol, Cobourg, Collingwood, Cornwall, East Yor~1 Etobicokel1 Flamborough, Fort Erie, Guelph, Hamilton, Innisfi I, Kingston, London, Markham, Mississauga, Newmarket, New Tecumseh, Nickel Centre, North Yor~1 Orillia, Oshawa, Ottawa, Port Colbome, Rallside-Balfour, Richmond Hill, Saint Laurent, Quebec, Scarboroughl1 St. Mary's, St. Catharines, Stoney Creek, Stratford, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Torontol1 Valley East, Vancouver, BC, Victoria, BC Whitby, Windsor, Woodstock, and City of York.1 (Based on information received as of 96-10-15) 3 - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - 1 via Metro Toronto - ... 7' SELECTED COURT DECISIONS Ontario Divisional Court unanimously upheld Metro Toronto's bylaw against Illap dancing II Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and two other justices of the Ontario Divisional Court, upheld the validity of Metro Toronto's "no contact" bylaw. The Court ruled: >';..;\ · "lap dancing" in strip clubs is not protected under constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, and any expression involved in "lap dancing" was trivial and insubstantial, not worthy of protection. Even if "lap dancing" is a form of expression, the bylaw is still a justifiable limit on that expression. · the bylaw is not criminal law, and is not in conflict with the criminal law. · the bylaw is a valid law to regulate business activity, to protect the health and safety of dancers, and for the prevention of crime. · physical contact is "not an essential element" for the operation of an adult entertainment parlour. · a bylaw that regulates can prohibit specific behaviours. · "given the objectives of health safety and the prevention of crime, it is difficult to conceive of another form of regulation that would achieve those objectives. " · "the bylaw codifies what had previously been an accepted practice." · there was evidence from a licensing inspector, police officer, exotic dancers, and so on, about what 'lap dancing' is, including that sexual activities were going on, · there was some evidence from public health officials and from Dr. Diane Riley, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto, that "lap dancing" results in health risks. Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously rules Illap dancingU is so harmful it is a crime QUef Justice Charles Dubin and four other Justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal have ruled that "lap dancing" is a crime. The Court convicted two strip club owners and one manager. In the Queen vs .\lara and Eas~ the Court ruled: · ".., tI1crc is .0 real risk of physical harm to the performers. ;';:'C harm of unwanted sexual touching, of sexual as...~ult "By reason of the nature of the activities there is also a risk of spreading infectious diseases by oral and genital contact. " · "The conduct ... is harmful to society in many ways." · "It degrades and dehumanizes women and publicly portrays them in a servile and humiliating manner, as .. sexual objects, with a loss of their dignity. It dehumanizes and desensitizes sexuality and is incompatible with the recognition of the dignity and equality of each human being." .. · the activities can cause attitudinal harm. "It predisposes persons to act in an antisocial manner, as if the treatment of women in this way is socially .. acceptable and is normal conduct, and as if we live in a society without any moral values." · "even in our permissive society, such conduct exceeds the community standard of tolerance". · the conduct of the lap dancers is also a form of prostitution. · strip club owners and managers can not escape criminal responsibility for the "lap dancing" by hiding behind their staff or by turning a blind eye to the activities going on in their strip clubs. · the consent, or apparent consent, of the participants can not make the 'lap dancing' any less indecent. The portrayal of apparent consent may make the 'lap ... dancing' all the more harmful. .. ... .. In the Queen vs Ludacka, the Court held that freedom of expression guarantees do !Wt protect "lap dancing". It .. held that "lap dancing" is !Wt protected expression, but that even if it was, the infringement was reasonable. Supreme Court of Canada In the Queen vs Tremblay, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized there is a connection between touching in strip clubs and the risk of assault and of spread of disease. .. .. Michigan Supreme Court has ruled IIlap dancingU is a crime In Wayne County Public Prosecutor vs Dizzy Duck Inc. the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that "lap dancing" is a crime. .. .. Texas Appeal Court has upheld Uno touchingU bylaw The Texas Appeal Court in the case of 2300 Inc. vs the City of Arlington, upheld the Qty of Arlington's bylaw that prohibits all contact between dancers and their customers in strip clubs. ... .. .. Other Canadian cases Other Canadian criminal cases involve bawdy house charges laid against strip clubs in Metro Toronto, Peel Region, York Region, Niagara Region, Ottawa-Carleton Region, and Montreal. Two criminal cases in Metro Toronto involve charges of extortion against men for forcing women &0 "lap dance". So Car as is known, Ilone of these have Jec I'eached the Court of Appeal. .. l1li .. Association for Burlesque Entertainers ... .. - - .. .. - - - - .. .. .. .. - - - - - .. s LAP DANCING" IS A PUBLIC HEALTH DANGER ANYWHERE. The public health dangers of -lap dancing- have been confirmed by: .. Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health (in a private communication to Katharine Goldberg) · the Ontario Ministry of Labour (has listed "lap dancing" as a health hazard) · Dr. Sheelah Brazur, Medical Officer of Health, East York · a representative of the Etobicoke Health Department (speaking at the Metro Ucensing Commission), . the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre · the Toronto Board of Health (which heard from its Acting Medical Officer of Health, exotic dancers, and "lap dancers) · Niagara Region Community Health SeNices Committee (their Board of Health) · Dr. Jerry Green (in a public letter to the Toronto Board of Health), · Dr. Diane Riley, Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto (wrote mainly about serious risks of hepatitis, and violence, etc.) · Dr. Ann Phillips, Director of Microbiology, Toronto Hospital; and Associate Professor, Department of Medicine & Microbiology, University of Toronto · Dr. Peter Cole, Medical Officer of Health, Peel Region (whose department met with both exotic dancers and "lap dancers", concluded the risk was high) · Dr. Graham Pollett, Medical Officer of Health, London-Middlesex (who said that because of the public health risks alone it should be banned) · Dr. Unda Panaro, Associate Medical Officer of Health, Durham Region (said there was no doubt of the risks) · Dr. Robin Williams, Medical Officer of Health, Niagara Region . Medical Officer of Health, Perth County . Medical Officer of Health, Frontenac County · representative of Alberta Health Dept. speaking to committee of Calgary council . Deputy Medical Officer, City of Calgary · Dr. Raymond LaForest (speaking to Oshawa City CounciQ · Dr. Jon Sellors, McMaster University (unintentionally confirmed the risks, although he was the expert who made out an affadavit for the strip club owners, and although he wasn't told the truth about all the activities going on, even he was unable to say there was no risk) As one city of Mississauga councillor put it, you don't have to be a doctor to recognize the obvious public health danger of what is going on as "lap dancing". IlLAP DANCING" IS, OVERALL, HIGH RISK BECAUSE THERE IS A LOTOF UNSAFE ACTIVITY GOING ON, INVOLVING LOTS OF PARTNERS, AND THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES ARE SERIOUS OR EVEN FATAL. Association for Burlesque Entertainers o .. Some of the health dangers of IIlap dancing II that have been identified, include: .. .. spread of AI DS and other sexually transmitted diseases to dancers spread of AI DS and other sexually transmitted diseases to customers, spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases to customers' wives, spread of AI DS and other sexually transmitted diseases to dancers' husbands, similarly, spread of skin diseases and other diseases spread through close physical .. contact, .. ... possible spread of some of those diseases to breast-fed children (many dancers are ... of child-bearing age), unwanted pregnancies for dancers, fill physical damage and mental damage to dancers as a result of assaults or rapes by men, ... severe stress on dancers' physical and mental health from working in an enviroment where assaults and disease are very much a danger, ... '/:~ harmful impacts on the mental health of dancers of having performed sexual activities for money with numerous men, or dancers having those activities performed on them by those men, including negative self image, depression, anger, resentment, impaired ability to have social or sexual relationships, harmful impact on dancers of increasingly using denial of what they are doing as a method of coping, alcohol and drug abuse by dancers as a method of coping with what they are doing or having done to them, psychological coercion and physical violence to dancers from pimps, impact on the behaviour of men, as they become used to getting away with, and getting rewards from, aggressive and violent behaviour towards women, and the impact of that on other women whom they meet or have relationships with in the community harmf'.J1 impacts of dancers' negative self image, anger, resentment, and depression, on t.,e mental health of all those with whom they have relationships, such as their spouses and children. .. .. III .. .... wi .. Association for Burlesque Entertainers .. .. - ... - - - - - ... - - - - ... - ... ... ... - ... SAMPLE BYLAW 17 I. DEFINITIONS 1. For the purposes of this By-law: (l)(a) "Adult entertainment parlour" means any premises or part thereof in which is provided services appealing to or designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations; (b) In this clause, (Q "to provide" when used in relation to services includes to furnish, perform, solicit, or give such services in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation and "providing" and "provision" have corresponding meanings. (iQ "services" includes activities, facilities, performances, exhibitions, viewing and encounters; (iiQ "services designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations" includes, (a) services of which a principal feature or characteristic is the nudity or partial nudity of 8r'rf person; (b) services in respect of which the word "nude", "naked", "topless", "bottomless", "sexy" or any other word or any other picture, symbol or representation having like meaning or implication is used in anv advertisement; . (c) When used in reference to an adult entertainment parlour, (Q "attendant" means 8r'rf person other than a licensed owner or operator who provides services designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations at an adult entertainment parlour. IV. RELEVANT SECTIONS OF SCHEDULE 36 TO BYLAW 20-85 Relating to Owners and Operators of Adult Entertainment Parlours and to Attendants at Adult Entertainment Parlours 1. In this Schedule: (2) "Attendant" means a person licensed or required to be licensed under clause (61) of section 2 of this By- Law; (4) "Services" means services designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations, as defined in clause (1) of section 1 of this By-law; (5) "-0 provide" and "services designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations" shall have the meaning given to them respectively in clause (1) of section (1) of this By-law; 36. No owner or operator shall, in respect of 8r'rf adult entertainment parlour owned or operated by him, knoYlingly permit any attendant, while providing services as an attendant, to touch, or be touched by, or have physical contact with, any other person in any manner whatsoever involving any part of that person's body. 37. No attendant shall, while providing services as an attendant, touch or have physical contact with any other person in 8r'rf manner whatsoever involving 8r'rf part of that person's body. 38. (1) No attendant shall provide or perform any services as an attendant in an adult entertainment parlour except while within the plain and unobstructed view of the main stage on 8r'rf floor of the premises. (2) Every owner or operator shall ensure that no attendant provides or performs 8r'rf services as an attendant in an adult entertainment parlour except in accordance with subsection 1 of this section. 39. F()( the purposes of s.38 of this Schedule, where an adult entertainment parlour is equipped with more than one stage on any floor of the premises, the owner or operator of such adult entertainment parlour shall, by filing a notice with the Commission in the approved form, designate one of the stages for each floor as the main stage. Association for Burlesque Entertainers In Case of Transmission Difficulties, Please Call 416-B63-21@1 Please Deliver To: MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-17 .. - Del 15 IZ 25 PH '96 News Release Communique - October 11, 1996 - a full social service costs .. Welfare, employment programs and child care fee subsidies in Ontario .should be managed and fully funded by the provincial government, Who Does What panel chair David Crombie recommended today. - In a letter to Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister AI Leach, Crombie and Grant Hopcroft, chair of the Who Does What social services sub-panel. went on to recommend that the 20-per- cent municipal contribution be phased out as Ontario Works is implemented. During a three-to-five-year transition period, the Province Would move to 100-per.cent funding of approved administrative costs of those municipalities delivering Ontario Works according to provincial requirements. - Municipalities would continue to deliver social services during the transition period: But at the end of the transition period, the ProvInce would have the authority to contract out the service delivery if provIncial requirements Were not being met. ThIs would encourage mare efficient and cost effective service delivery. - The panel also recommended that: - The Province pay 100 per Cent of the child care fee subsidJes now cost shared With some municipalities; Social service delivery be consolidated. so that full-time prOfessional service would be delivered by about 50 delivery units across the province; MunicIpalities license child care programs according to standards set through provincial legislation and regulations. .. .. The social services sub-panel will continue to look at a number of other issues, incruding child welfare, domiciliary hostels, shelters for women, Social housing, public health and homes for the aged. .. The "Who Does What" panel was appointed May 30 to begin 8 complete overhaul of who does what In the delivery and funding of many government services. The goal is to ensure the very best service delivery by reducing waste, duplication and the over-all cost of government at the provIncial and local government levels. - CopIes of the recommendations are available from the Ministry of MuniCipal Affairs and Housing's Customer Assistance Une at (4161 585-7041. For more information, please contact: - 30 - . .. David Crombie Who Does What Chair 314-9468 Sally Sheppard Who Does What Secretariat (416) 585-6900 Sue McDonald Who Does What Secretariat (416) 585.4~37..___ .. ._._ ....--;1d...--.'. :'1'('. '- I ~ ~;.. ~. w: . .._ I.... ..'.,4 ....~~.~." (; /-=JP .. Disponible en francais - - - /),-- /1 cfo . c c - .. ... October 11, 1996 .. .. The Honourable AI Leach Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17th Floor. 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario MSG 2E5 .. ... Dear Minister: In this first report of the sub-panel on social services. we submit for the Government's consideration, recommendations in the areas of income assistance, employment services, emergency hostels and child care as part of our review ofprovinciaJ/municipal roles and responsibilities in social services. In undertaking our review, the sub-panel has benefitted from the work of several earlier reviews. .. .. We have initially focussed on these services in recognition of the govenunent's priorities in the areas of welfare reform and improvements to the child care system. Wise investment of pub fie resources in services to help people move to and maintain financial independence will contnbute to improved quality of life in Ontario communities. ... .. The sub-panel supports the general directions of the government regarding welfare reform. Refonn of the existing Family Benefits and General Welfare Assistance programs will move seniors and people with disabilities offwelfare into an income support plan that will better meet their needs. The welfare reform initiative will also assist other clients to gain financial independence through an aCtive labour market program. The sub-panel acknowledges the provincial commitment to improving the child care system and endorses the goal of more subsidized spaces for low-income families. .. ... ... FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR DELIVERY OF A SOCIAL SERVICES SYSTEM The Current System ... Currently in the areas of income assistance, employment programs and emergency hostels, the province sets policy. passes legislation and regulations, and cost shares and monitors delivery of .... 1 .. .. IlIIIi .. .. - General Welfare Assistance by municiPalities. Municipalities deliver mandatory and discretionary benefits under General Welfare Assistance, exercise discretion within the scope of legislation and cost share with the province. The province funds 8()C1/o of mandatory program costs (allowances and benefits) and 50% of approved administrative costs, with the municip.uty funding the remainder (in unconsolidated areas, most municipalities fully fund administrative costs). General Welfare Assistance is delivered by about 195 regions, counties, separated cities, towns, townships and viUages. In nonhem Ontario, in addition to municipal delivery, six District Welfare Administration Boards deliver the program in some areas and the province delivers in unorganized areas. .. .. .. In the area of child care. the province sets policy. passes legislation and r.egulations, cost shares child care fee subsidies, and licenses and inspects. Municipal participation in child care is discretionary. Those municipalities who are involved, cost-share fee subsidies, manage the fee subsidy system, purchase licensed care from private and non-profit programs (some municipalities directly operate licensed child care programs), and inspect child care programs from which they purchase spaces. The province funds 80% offee subsidies. municipalities fund the remaining 20%. Nmety-four municipalities are involved in child care. Nmety-two non-profit corporations approved by the province, provide subsidized care where there is no or limited municipal involvement. - .. - - The Ministry of Community and Social Services has 1UlI10unced the Ontario Works program, covering those cwrentJy in the General Welfare Assistanee program as well as sole support parents in the provincial Family Benefits prograzn. Ontario Worts will move from a passive welfare system to an active, mandatory labour market program which matches recipients with available community service, training opportunities, and full time employment through placement services. The Ministly is also in the process of developing improvements to the child care system. These programs are inter~re1ated. Child care is a cridcal support to the successful implementation of Ontario Wor.tr, as well as supporting working parents to maintain their employment and their financial independence. .. .. Future Direction. .. - The sub-panel articulated a number of objectives which guided its recommendations: · Ontario Works (income assistance, employment services, emergency hostels) and child care should be viewed as inter-related, component parts of a service system. The overall management of this system or "envelope" of services should be the responsibility of one level of government. · The responsibility for funding the services should rest with one level of government and reflect the income redistributive nature of the services. · A single delivery agent committed to delivering responsive and efficient services in the community, should be responsible for the delivery of this envelope of services. .. ... .. 2 - .. - .. · A consolidation of service delivery units must take place to achieve fewer, more viable and cost.etfective administrative units, with the capacity for full-time professional administration. · Business practices must be ttansfonned with the help of new technology to support administrative efficiencies, achieve lower costs and maintain the integrity of the system. · The momentum in implementing Ontario Works should be maintained as Changes to the service delivery system proceed. · The number of subsidized child care spaces should be increased to support low income parents and social assistance clients to enter the workforce and to assist Jow income working parents to stay in the workforce. ... .. ... Based on these objectives, the sub-panel has developed future directions for the social services system. Since the future directions represent significant change, the sub-panel recognizes the need for a transition period before implementation of the directions. .. .. Recom~lJdations for FIlture Di~OM The sub-panel rt!Commerul8 tlaat: """ The Province he the overall mtlIUIger of a social services sptem including Ontario Wor/u (incoIM 4fSistance, employment programs, emergency laosteh) and child care. ... The ProvillCe fully fund Ontmio Worb aIId child ctl1'e, ie t~ existing cost sharing arrangement with lIUl1ficiptllities H phased Ollt After a trtuuition puiod, the province Iutve the tmthority to contract out the service delivery of Ontmio Works and chUd Ctll't! if p1"l1VilrcW requiremeltts are not met or if" nmnicipality chOOJes to opt Ollt. Mllllicipalidu contigfJ to tkliver services dllring the Irtmsitio" period. """ ."" The sub-panel recognizes that the financial impact of moving from the current cost sharing arrangement to full provincial tUnding must be carefully considered by the govenunent in making decisions about provincial and municipal funding roles. Howe\>'er, there is a strong argument to be made for the shift in funding responsibility, an argument which has been made in previous reviews. The sub-panel thinks that the services should be funded by one level of government. Since these services are income redistributive in nature, we believe that the provincial tax base, and not the local property tax base. should support them. When the local economy is poor, demand for income assistance is higher and the municipality's ability to respond from its revenue base is lessened. Therefore, funding from the provincial tax base is more appropriate. . .. II1II ... .. ... .. 3 ... III ... - - ProvinciaJ responsibility for the funding and overall management ofthe services will improve accountability to the taxpayer. The province will be accountable for determining the appropriate number of delivery agents for efficient service delivery, set criteria and monitor performance of delivery agents and require a common tec~ology to be used to achieve administrative efficiencies. The authority to contract out if provincial requirements are not met" would encourage more efficient and cost-effective services and is a fundamental tool for proper provincial accountability. - - .. Although provincial authority to contract out is necessary, the sub-panel believes that municipalities are the preferred delivery agents given their experience and expertise in the delivery of social services, the service infrastructure which is currently in place in .many municipalities and the ability of municipalities to respond to local circumstances. We think that most municipalities will wish to continue to deliver these services beyond the transition period and will demonstrate their ability to deliver responsive, cost-effective services through consolidated service delivery uniu_ - - A Transition Period - The sub-panel believes that these directions for a more. efficient, effective and accountable social services system cannot be achieved overnight. As the province IDO\1es to implementing the directions, it is important that there is a smooth transition and that services to clients are not disrupted. A transition period of three to five years is needed to prepare for implementation of the future directions set out above. .. - The province will need to develop legislation which addresses service requirements for Ontario Works, new funding arrangements, consolidated delivery units, criteria for delivery agents, including performance incentives and penalties, tools to monitor and manage delivery agents and authority to contract Out on full competitive basis if standards are not met. - .. Municipalities would continue the process of implementing the Ontario Works program. The transition period gives municipalities the opportunity to determine how to consolidate delivery responsibilities for greater administrative efficiency and to work with the province to implement the new teclmology and perfonnance measures and reporting requirements. Municipalities currently managing child care subsidies would continue to do so for the existing spaces, assessing the need for additional subsidized spaces in their communities. Other municipalities would determine plans for municipal involvement in child care. .. - Transition Period Recommendations .. The sab-pand recommends that then be a thru to five yetU' trtuuition period, with a gradual transition UI fila provincUll f""ding. Specifically: - 4 - - .. .. · The ProvillCe fund 1 oo~ of th~ appmved program costs of those municipalities who lU'e delivering Ontario Works according to provincilll reqlliremDIts, effective in fi$ctzl year 1997198. "'" ... · Until a municipality', app1'OVed Ontario Works business pi"" is implemented, the municipality continue to operate "ruler the cllrrent (80% provinc;td/20% municipal) progrllm cost shanng anYlIIgemell.t . .. · The Province nwvefrom current arrtmgemenu for shan", tulmi"istrative com, to 100" provincial "'nding by the end of the tl'ansitUln period, where provincial requiremell1s, such as consolidation 01 service delivery, are met. .... · Effectin in fIScal year 1997/98, tlte Province provide 100" fundi"g of child can fee subsidies cuI'I'ently cost shared witlt mIlnidpalitiu, determining tlTrangements with numicipalities for new subsi~d 'plU:e&. ... TJu sub--panel recOmllfeNls tlull thue services be deliW!red by I~, more viable unib providing full-time pl'OfessiontJI service. Approxilll4tely 50 cOlfSolid4ted service tklively "1U1s are recommerukd. .. .. During the transition period, the funding for welfare will shift from the current 80% provincial funding of program costs (allowances and benefits) and 500.10 (or less) funding of administrative costs, to 100% provincial funding when provincial requirements are met. Where there is municipal involvement in child care, funding will shift from 80% provincial funding of child care subsidies to 1 CO%. During the transition period, the province wiJ1 gradually move to 100% funding of approved administrative costs by the end of the transition period. ." .... The sub-panel recognizes that the implementation of Ontario Worb should proceed without delay. The sub-panel also notes the difficulties many municipalities are experiencing under the current cost sharing arrangements for child Care subsidies~ with the possible risk of communities 10siDg critical subsidized spaces. The sub-panel believes that the recommendations for a transition period help to address these issues. ." ... Consolidation of service delivery to create fewer, more viable units will result in cost savings through more efficient and effective service delivery. The sub-panel believes that it is preferable to achieve consolidation through locally-defined solutions but recognizes that the province should have the legislative authority to bring about consolidation where required. As a first step, service consolidation within counties and districts where municipalities currently deliver welfare on a part-time basis, should take place. This would result in approximately 80 service deliverers instead of the current 195. Further service delivery consolidation, ego where counties and separated cities each have their own separate welfare administration, should take place, bringing the number of service deliverers to approximately 50. The sub-panel believes that consolidation should proceed quickly. .... ." .... .. 5 ." .. ... ... - !he funding arrangement provides incentive to expedite the consolidation of service deliveryt unplement Ontario Works as soon as possible and preserve existing subsidized child care spaces. The transition period provides time to develop and implement the tools and systems to facilitate efficient and responsive service delivery. - Income Support for Seniors and People With Disabilities - The sub~pane1 agrees with the direction to move seniors and people with disabilities off the welfare system and into a plan that can better meet their needs and provide a stable source of SUpport. - The sub-panel recOlll1nLnds that: - The P,ovince be responsibk for funding and delivering the new Utt!t1me support pllln /01' seniors and people with disabilities. - Funding and delivery of income support for persons with disabilities and seniors is CWT'eIldy a provincial responsibility under the Family Benefits Act. As a pension-type program, the new program is appropriately a responsibility ofthc provincial government. Provincial funding and delivery ensures clear provincial accountability. The sub-panel recognizes the role Ontario Works . offices may play in providing a point of access to the income support program, particularly in light of the improved technology system which will be implemented as part of welfare refonn. .. - Licensing of Child Care Programs .. Currently, a license is required under the Day Nurseries Act where care is provided to more than five unrelated children under the age of 10. The province is responsible for issuing licenses. monitoring compliance and conducting inspections, as well as program development. In some areas, municipal staff conduct inspections of child care programs from which they purchase spaces. Municipalities also have other inspection responsibilities, eg. public health and fire safety. The recently released report ;'Improving Ontario ~ Child Care System" noted opportunities to improve and streamline the current approach. .. - The .sub-panel recommends thai: - Mlllfidpalities license child t!Ql'e programs IU:cord/ng to stll"dards set through pravillcilll legislmion and regulations. .. Municipalities currently have responsibility for inspection and licensing in other areas and some municipalities are conducting inspections of child care programs. The sub-panel believes that assigning responsibility for licensing chUd care programs to municipalities will lead to efficiencies for both levels of government. .. .. 6 - - - .. Next Steps ... The sub-panel will continue to discuss issues related to the delivery of Ontario Works and child care, in particular. issues to be addressed in the transition period. In further reports, the sub-panel will be developing recommendations on child welf8l'e, domiciliary hostels, shelters for women, social housing, public health and homes for the aged. . ... .. ~.ti~t David Crombie Chair Who Does What Panel ,.... .. "-." ," /-..,/. ..... ../,,". .... --~~Y:~~ Grant Hopcroft Chair Social Services Sub-panel 'III .. cc. Who Does What Panel ... .. '~ - .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 7 ... III ... .. .. .. The Regional .. Municipality, of Durham Clerk's Department .. ' 605 Rossland Rd. Ea~t P,O. Box 623 Whitby, Ontario Canada L 1 N 6A3 .. (905) 668-7711 ' Fax: (905) 668-9963 .. C. W. Lundy A.M.C.T. Regional Clerk , .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. COUN~Il INFORMATION 1-18 October 15,1996" , OCT 17 II OsMf '96 Mrs. P.L. Barrie., Clerk Municipality o(Clarington ' 40 Temperance Street ' Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6 , ' , , , " By-law to Desianate Waste Disposal Facilities ;.. Our File: 'C09-1 , . Mrs. Barrie, attached is a ,certified copy of By-law 1179-96, being,a by-Ia~ . to designate one or more facilities for the receiving, dumping'and disposing ~f residential solid waster:nater.!al.. . . , Would you kindly draw the provisions.of t~e by-law to the attention of your . Council and appropriatestatt. ' , , ce.~.~ C.W. Lundy, A:M.C.T. ;' Regional C"erk, ' , l'--.D'-;-;~~-. ;:-;":, "--u'-':r'-J 0"'. N' ':--j ,~, ~ "'" , I ~ i'l'fltk ' . , ~, ,.... '. .., '. .---.- I t ' '. ~ pCi<'.'"i'{','" '..q. '_.~-~-.'-7~~- /, , . ~~.~!,~~~.?i'>:::::.. ' ;.~ --~~,i CWL/db Encl.' . cc: J.L. Gartley, Commissionerof Fina~c~ V.A. Silgailis, Commissioner of. Works " . t.r.. ~'. t \ . .-.,.....__..4 ,....__._, i. ! . .--.'..--- ~._,-.:_,_...;. i . . . - ..t-. ....... ....,.' .-.....:.}~ . >. . ,.-.~...__.. i .1 .1....._.4__..._.::... , I ~. I t ':-. '~'-":---:1 ~-"""""'~'~""........, '.~"-'.----1 . l~" ~';',",13(f7" ;;:.r--A~, :~~-: ~,. "-;::,:, \."I'VJ{./:'t:.,~<~," ~, \;t.1 100% Pas.! Consumer BY-LAW NUMBER 79-96 OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM ~ERTIFIED A TiU,JE cOPY! os T i 5--1996 ... ~~~~ -'C:W:'I~)'()t::f.Ei!-- &i;i;m.a!, C~k ... being a by-law to designate one or more facilities for the reeeiving, dumping and disposing of residential solid waste material. .. WHEREAS The Regional Munieipality of Durham has entered into agreements with various contractors for the transfer. haulage and disposal of residential solid waste generated by the residents of The Regional Municipality of Durham. with the exception of residential solid waste from the Township of Brock; .. IllIII AND WHEREAS residential solid waste from the Township of Brock is received. dumped and disposed of at the Brock Waste Management Faeility; ... AND WHEREAS in accordance with Subsection 36(5.2) of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. R.S.O. 1990. c.R.9. as amended. the Regional Council may. for each area municipality. designate one or more facilities for the receiving. dumping and disposing of waste or any cIass of waste: .. .. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a By-law ofThe Regional Municipality of Durham by the Council thereof as follows: ... I. Each area municipality shall utilize the facilities for receiving, dumping and disposing of its residential solid waste which are designated as follows: .. Town of Ajax Town of Pickering Town.,hip of Uxbridge Durham Materials Recovery Facility Inc. 1220 Squires Beach Road Pickcring, Ontario LI W 3NX II1II .. City of Oshawa Town of Whitby Township ofScugog Pebblestone Multi-Services Ine. 2000 Wentworth Street Whitby,Ontatio L1N RW9 .. Municipality ofClarington Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. Richmond Township Landfill R. R. #6, Beachwood Road Napanee, Ontario K7R 3L1 ... Town"hip of Brock Region of Durham Brock Waste Management Facility C22480 Sideroad 17 Cannington, Ontario II1II .. 2. With : ",c exception of the designation pertaining to the Township of Brock, the above desiglUlions shall come into force and effect upon the commencement dates of the respective agreements entered into by The Regional Municipality of Durham with each of the contraaors and shall continue so long as those agreements arc in full force and effect unless and un.11 altered by a further by-law of The Regional Municipality of Durham. liIIIiI .. .. - 2 - .. 3. The designation peltaining to the Township ofBrock shall come into force and effect upon the passage of this by-law and shall continue unless and until altered by a fUlther by-law of The Regional Municipality of Durham. .. .. .. BY-L^ W read a lirst time this 9th day of October. 1996. UY-L^ W read a second time this 9th day of October, 19%. BY-LA W read a third time this 9th day of October, 1996. .. -.-1(JJwL lY. 'NITTY, Chair -:, '. T. ~ ACnNG.~GIONAL CHAIR -e.~ ~ C.W. LUNDY, C rk .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. The Regional .. Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department . .. 605 Rossland Rd. East P.O. Box 623 . Whitby, Ontario Canada L 1 N 6A3 ... (905) 668-n11 . . Fax: (905) 668"9963 .. COo W. Llindy A.M.C.T. . Regional CI.erk. .. .. - .. .. .. . .. .. .. - ... .. COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-19 October 8, 19.96 OCT 10 3 0.. D\.I '01". 1. I it JJ Ms. Diana Jardine, M.C.I.P.. Director Plans Administration Branch . Ministry 'of Municipal Affairs 14th Floor, 777 B~y Street. Toronto, Ontario' M5G 2E5 . . . . Amendment '#'18 to th~ O'urham Regio~al O'ff,daJ pian Our File: 95-007iO(18Y '. . . ". . .' Ms. Jardlns, the.PI.an:ning COrh.mi~t~e of.Regi6nal'Council'consid~redth.e' above matter and at a meeting held hn September 25,1996 CqWncH ..' .' 'ad~Pted. the. foIl9Wing.r~c~omrnen~ati.on ofth~Co.m!'T1i~e~:_ .' : '.. .... '. . . . "THAT the amendment'tb the Durha.m Regicinal Official Pia:n.~ _.'. .,' reque~'~ed by TUI1~ey Planning Inc. on behaff.,?f.28.~i143 Ontario.. . . '. Limited, ,File: OPA #95-007, be adoptec;i.as Ari1~nd~enr#18 to the . Plan.asindicated.inAtta"chm,ent3 to Cominissioner's R~p6rt ',. . . #96-P-82; that .the. necessary by-law .b~ passed; and further, ;that the. 'Arnendnierit be fO'rwarde9 't6 the Ministry Of Munidpat Affairs a'nd Housing' for 8:pprovat" . '. . .' . . . . Enclosedareth'e.folJo~ir)g documentsjn connection with th~ above' :Amendmentwhichwas adoptedby By-law /t62-96 On September 25, 1.996: ..' . . . . . 1. . One original Amendn:'ent document. 2. '. . . . T\yo c;iuplicat~ .originals of the Amendment document. Twenty Worki ng copies of the Amendment docu'f)1ent. 3. 4. . . - . . . Co'py of the area hlonicipal. council resolution regarding the Amendment. 2/.... : o 100% Posr Consumer - 2 - 5. .. IIIIIIiIl .. Copy of all public notices and schedules of newspaper advertising, including a statement certifying that the requirements for the giving. of notica and holding of a public meeting in accordance with Section 17 of the Planning Act have been met. IIIIIIiIl .. 6. True copies of all written submissions and comments received regarding the Amendment. 7. Copy of all.reports and background'materials dealing with the Amendment. . . .. 8. . Certified copy of the decision of Regional Council adopting the . Amendment. - . . .. 9. Certified extracts of minutes of the Planning Committee held on .' September 10, 1996 which delegations were received with respect . .to the Amendment. . . . . 10. Ministry of rV1unicipal Affair's Official PlanAmendnient For~. .. ... .. . . . . I hereby'. confir!l1.that the provisions as co.ntained in Section 17(7) of the Planning Act,' R.S.O. 1990,have been .complied with. . Would you kindly arrange for the Amendment to receive Ministerial approval as soon as possible. ce.%)~ C.W. LLlndy, A.~C.;: .' Regional Clerk CWLlsv Enc/. c.c. M. Freedman, 289143 Ontario Limited K. Tunney, Tunney Planning Inc, G. West H. Allin R. Cowie P. Barrie. Clerk. Municipality of Claringtoll. A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning .. ... .. , -.' c,"... ""_.~._." F : r~: ; ~: -' ~;- ;:.~~ ; E.j r.J"I~ i :=,'-; ['.} . r i ..-.-..-----..--.. i ! ... ! !'.i: :d'\ ! . , l'''J:;~ j":: l . .'* h.. ..~....___....... I' f' I I ., ~', i J" '..- ..,':.. !:. ,11 A';. . u: ... ~riC. 2-:~i~:_z:..-.; :. '. - -~~~~_4 ~~ ..J ~a -' ~:y?r--'" ..... I.. . . .... '.' . "r-.-v;;'.\.. ..' 1_. .... "'.':-" .....~ . I '. 'T'"'--''' ~~~..: . --, "'. . .... ~- --,-~.~.~ ...... III 'i ' ..----.K-.--<:g. "'-~~'-'~_H_': . . :'l} 0. .v'0..li.",.""." . IIIIIIiIl .. 1"T.':)'r!171ED /!... .:'~d t:..;O?Y ~........:a... . OCl 0 7 \996_ ~ ~ ~.:... ..-C:Vij~U't~D~A::re. Regional Clerk. OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Dl!RHAM BY-LAW NUMBER 62-96 .. Being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 18 to the Durham Regional Official Plan .. .. WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham Act and the Planning Act, as amended, authorize the Regional Municipality of Durham to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and amendments thereto. .. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a By-law of the Regional Municipality of Durham by the Council thereof as follows: - I . That Amendment Number 18 to the Durh~ Regional Official Plan, being the attached Explanatory Text and Exhibit 'A', is hereby adopted. .. 2. That the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 18 to the Durham Regional Official Plan. .. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of final passing thereof. .. - BY-LA W read a first time this 25th day of Sept.aIDer , 1996 BY - LA W read a second time this 25th day of Sept.aIDer , 1996 BY-LA W read a third time and finally passed this 25th day of Sept.aIDer , 1996 ... .. de: tj !Lb2!f gional ca . ~~ ~ Cf-=!t. Clerk .. .. ... .. - - ... .. .. Amendment No. 18 to the Durham Regional Official Plan Purpose: .. Location: Basis: Actual Amendment: Implementation: Interpretation: The purpose of this amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan is to change the designation of certain lands in Courtice from "Employment Area" to "Living Area" to permit the development of a residential plan of subdivision (OPA 95-007). .. ... The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Regional Road 22 and Prestonvale Road in Lot 33, Concession 1, in the former Township of Darlington, in the Municipality of Clarington. It is 17 hectares (42 acres) in size. .. .. The proposed change in land use will not adversely affect the Munic,ipality of Clarington's supply of Employment lands or its ability to fulfil its economic development objectives. The changes would allow the Municipality to obtain a desired community park for Courtice. Robinson Creek valley is a suitable boundary . between Employment Area and sensitive Living Area uses. .. .. The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by amending Map A5 - Regional Structure, as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment. .. ... . The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. ... lIIIIIii The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. .. .. .. .. IIlIIII .. .. .. .. - .. - .. .. - .. l' - .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM REGIONAL STRUCTURE MAP !A@ LEGEND ---- WATERFRONT GENERAL AGRICULTURAL AREAS URBAN AREA BOUNDARY MAIN CENTRAL AREA r............j ..............--. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. - ................. ................. ................. ~ ~. .' .. 'I . .. . . ... - - :~:::~.~.~..-::~:~:~.~.::~ :j LIVING AREA SUB-CENTRAL AREA MAJOR OPEN SPACE EMPLOYMENT AREA ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS .. .. - - ... ... .. This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham by By-law No. 62-96 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and under Section 96 of the Regional Municipalities Act R.S.O. 1990, c.R.8, as amended, on t:his 25th day of Sept;arl:ler , 1996. - .. .. ?~~. ~'c~~Of=f; CORPORATE SEAL OF MUNICIPAUlY I .. ... ( I, ' ; '{' '. i ',' . \ ' '. ,,' , I.: I, } . ,\.' '1'11'1 II,' ,.1" .. ... .. .. iii ... .. ..., ... ... .. The Regional' . Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department' ... 605 Rossland Rd. East P.O. Box 623' Whitby, Ontario Canada L 1 N 6A3 . .. (905)668.7711 . Fax: (905) 668-9963 . ... C. W. Lundy A:M.C.T. Regional Clerk ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - ... COUNCIL INFORMATION' 1-20 D.. ''1 '~j j i..J ,..... o O-:} ,:-',',~ :{)t'\ ~, 'Ii Jb October 7, 1996 Ms. Oian.e Jardine, M.C.I.P.. Director . Plans Adm'inistration Branch Ministry of Municipal Affairs 14th 'Floor, 7778ay.Street . . Toronto; Ontario. .' M5G'2E5' . '.Amendment.#17 to the Durham .R~gio.nal Official'Plan . Our File': OPA #96-002/0. #96-003/0. 96-006/~ (~ -e) (17)' - ~ ... ., .. .~~. Jardine, the. Planning Committee of Regional Council'consider~d the above matter-and at a meeting held on September 25! .1996. Council' adopted ttie following recommendation of. the Cqrnmittee: ~'THAT the amendm'eritsto: the Durham Regional.Official' Plan . , . . req'uested by. th'e'Mi.midpality of Clarington.to enable the '~pproval'of cert?-in deferreq parts of the Official Plan of the M~ni6ipality .of . . . Clarington, Files: OPA #96-002, #96-:003, #~6-'O06, be~adoptedas.'. Amendment #17 tothe Plan as indi.c~tediri Attachmen~ 2 to . . . Commissioner's Report"#96,.P-82; that the n~cessary by-Ia~ be . 'pasSed; and further, that the Amendm.ent be fo~arded to' the Ministfy. of Municip~1 ~ffairs'and Housing for approval." Enc.losed are the followingdocuments:in connecti.on wlththe;abpve.: Amendment which was adopteo by By~law #61-96 on September 25; 1996: . .... '. ....... ." .' . . One certified copy' of the proposed Amendment (adopting By-Ia~ and the Amendment); . 2. Three certified duplicate copies of the proposed Ar'!1endment; /. , 1. 3. Twenty-five working copies of the proposed Amendment; Twenty-five copies Of the MMA's "Record to be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Approval of anA~opted Official . Plan or Plan Amendment" form; 4. 2/... .. .@ l,~ 100% Post Consumer till - 2 - .. 5. A copy of Planning Reports considered by Regional Council; 6. A list describing the information that was made available to the public prior to the adoption of the p~oposed Amendment; ... .7. a) Sworn Declaration by the Director for the Planning Department regarding Subsection 17(18) of the Planning Act, as amended, and Subsection 3(2) of Ontario RegulationA2/95; .and b) 'Sworn Declaration by the Regional Clerk regarding Subsection' 17(17) ofthe PlanningAct,'as amended, and Subsection, 3(1 )(f) of Ontario Regulation 42/95; .. ... till '8. .. , A copy of the minut~s of the publi~ Iileeting(s); , ... , 9. . . A copy of all written submis'sions and .comments received from, review agencies and the'public and t~e dates on which they'were received; .. . till 10. . . .A coPY ofthe Notice of Adoption; .. , , 11. A copy o.f all information or reports indicated' in the completed MMA form n'oted in item 4.; and' . . 12. A list of outstanding objectors and their addresse~ on file at the time of preparation of this information package. I hereby confirm that th~ provisions as contained in Subsection 17(7) of till thePlanning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P. 13 have been complied with. ... ... . , Would you kindly arrange for the Amendment to re'ceive' Ministerial approval as soon as possible; . h'i:)i~'i':l~-Ri-81.JTiDN ~.~~ C.W,' Lundy, A.M.C.T. , Regional Clerk ... : ~ I ~. '.t., , --....-............. n__'~-1Ill! I.. . " ~: . ,'\_ ,i: .__..__.,._.~__..~.. ':~) l '\':' 1";-1 . 0__ . -.... --- .-_... ----.. cc P,L. Barrie. Clerk, Municipality of ClaringtorL B.J. Roy, Regional Solicitor A.L. Georgieff, Commissroner of Planning CWL:sv Encl. . i -.... -.--....."1; '0 ill"'-D ~-"_" .. liliiii .. CERTIFIED A TRUE COPYj OCT 0 4 199{~ "'-~:L~)~tfu.~ Re~i-::r.:ll Clck';' .. BY-LAW NUMBER 61-96 OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM .. Being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 17 to the Durham Regional Official Plan .. WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham Act and the Planning Act, as amended, authorize the Regional Municipality of Durham to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and amendments thereto. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a By-law of the Regional Municipality of Durham by the Council thereof as follows: - I. That Amendment Number 17 to the Durham Regional Official Plan, being the attached Explanatory Text and Exhibits 'A', 'B', and 'C', is hereby adopted, - .. 2. That the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affair,s for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 17 to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of final passing thereof. .. .. BY-LA \V read a first time this 25th day of Sept;.eIDe- , 19% BY-LA \V read a second time this 25th day of Sept.arta- , 1996 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 25th dayof Sept;.eIDe- ,19% - .. ft:/~ .e, -V~_ Clerk .. .. .. - - / - .. ~ Amendment No. 17 to the Durham Regional Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan is to address areas of non-conformity and to enable the approval of the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington. Basis: In the preparation of the Clarington Official Plan, the Municipality of Clarington analysed its transportation requirements, and requested changes to the Region's transportation network in Courtice and Bowmanville that would support the land use structure of the Clarington Official Plan. .. IIIil .. .. ... .. In addition, three site specific Durham Regional Official Plan policies regarding lot creation, were identified as having been fulfilled, and thus warrant deletion. .. Actual Amendment: The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by: i) deleting Sections 10.2.2.3 c) and i), and by deleting the words "18T-24002 in the Municipality of Clarington,lJ in Section 10.4.2.8 of Appendix 1; ii) amending Map AS - Regional Structure, as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment; iii) amending Map B1 - Regional Structure, as indicated on Exhibit "8" attached to this Amendment; and iv) amending Map B2 - Regional Structure, as indicated on Exhibit "C" attached to this Amendment. 'Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. .. .. IIlIII .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. - .. ... .. .. .. .. - ~',' .. .. .. - .. - .. - .. OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM REGIONAL STRUCTURE MAP ~~ EXISTING . .-.- 1"........... .~ ............:-;... ~?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~ ~ ,..:......'. ;'.r':;'~1 .:~:..... "..::"-;:.:::. :e-:':;: GO STATION GO RAIL FUTURE o . . MAIN CENTRAL AREA SUB-CENTRAL AREA MAJOR OPEN SPACE URBAN AREA BOUNDARY LIVING AREA EMPLOYMENT AREA ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS WATERFRONT GENERAL AGRICULTURAL AREAS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Map ffilJ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM FROM TYPE II e" ARTERIAL TO TYPE "8" ARTERIAL .. .. !III .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. EXISTING .. . * LeGend FREEWAY TYPE A ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE B ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE C ARTERIAL ROAD GO RAIL INTERCHANGES GO STATION FUTURE - - - -. ... --- -- REGIONAL TRANSIT SPINE URBAN AREA (GENERALIZED) I I RAILWAY .. ... - . * ... .. ... OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Map lTIlJ .. - - o a: HWY.2 o a: o a: ... :~ -- . !l! ~ ~ ... .. .. ... RE-ALlGN TYPE C ARTERIAL Amend. 17 .. .. DELETE TYPE C ARTERIAL Amend. 17 .. .. .. ADD FUTURE INTERCHANGE Amend. 17 FROM EXISTING TO FUTURE TYPE C Amend. 17 .. .. . * FREEWAY TYPE A ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE B ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE C ARTERIAL ROAD GO RAIL INTERCHANGES GO STATION Wws1 FUTURE - - - 1IiWo'll1 REGIONAL TRANSIT SPINE URBAN AREA (GENERALIZED) RAILWAY EXISTING .. - -. --- - . * .. - .. .. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN ... ... .... This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham by By-law No. 61 -96 in accordance with the provisions of Sections .. 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and under Section 96 of the Regional Municipalities Act, RS.O. 1990, c.RB, as amended, on the 25th day of September . 199 6 .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ~J(~' .. ~ -z0.~_ ... h:\2-S\ropalcert,pg . Corporate Seal IIIiI .. ... .. .. .. The Regional .. Municipality of Durham Clerk's Departmeni - 605 Rossland Rd. East P:O, Box 623 Whitby, Ontario Canada L 1 N 6A3 - (905) 668-7711 Fax: (905) 668-9963 _ C.,W. Lundy A.M.C.T. _ Regional Clerk - - - - - .. - .. - .. - .. COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-21 OCT 10 .':>. 0 ~.,D\I r n/". v 1. i Jitl' October 7, 1996 Ms. Diana Jardine, M.C.I.P. Director, , Plans Administration Branch Ministry of Municipal Affairs 14th Floor; 777 Bay' Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5" Ame~dment #19to the Durham Regional'Offi.cial Plan Our File: 95-015/0(1'9) , , Ms. .Jardine, thePlanni,ng Committee of Regional Council considered the above matter andat ameeting'heldon_September 25,1996 Council' . adopted thefollowihg recorTIl11e,ndationsof the Committee: ' . . , , , , "a) THAT the Qffi,cial, Plan Amendr.ne'nt application submhted by DufferinAggregates to am~rid theDurharn He.gionaIOffiGial,Plan, OPA #95-015" to permitthe expansion of an' existing Iicen'ced pit , . - be adopted as Amend'ment"#19, as indi'cated,in 'Attachment- 2' to Co'mmissioner'sReport #96-P-93; that the necessary by~law be passed; and further, that the Amendment be, forw.arded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;'and b) THAT the applicant and the Council of th~ Municipalityof , Clarington be so advised and forwarded a copy of'Commissioner's , Report #96-P~93.',',", " , Enclosed are the 'following documents in connection with the above Amendment which was adopted by By-law #63-:96 on September 25, 1996: 1. One certified copy of the proposed Amendment (adopting By-law and the' Amendment); '2, Three certified duplicate copies of the proposed Amendment; 3, Twenty-five working copies of the proposed Amendment; 2/.... . , '1j0 \:C) 100% Post Consumer 4. 5. 6. 7. .. .. - 2 - .. Twenty-five copies of the MMA's "Record to be forwarded to the . . Minister of Municipal Affairs for Approval of an Adopted Official Plan or Plan Amendment" form; .. A copy of Planning Reports considered by Regional Council; A list describing the information' that was made available to the public prior to the adoption of the proposed Amendment; ,a) Sworn Declaration by the Director for the Planning Department regarding Subse~tion 17(18) of the Planning . Act, as amended, and Subsection 3(2) of Ontario Regulation '42/95; and . . . . ... ... .. b) Sworn Declaration by the Regional Clerk regarding '. Subsection 17(17) Of the Planning Act, as amended, and Subsectio.n 3(1 )(f) of Ontario Regul~ti6n 42/95; - .. . . 8. A copy .of the minutes of the public meeting(s); , 9. 10: . ,11.' .. A copy Of all written submissions and comments received from review.agencies and the public and the dates on which' they were received; - A 'copy of the Notice of Adoption; and - Acopy of all information or reports indicated in the completed MMA fOrm noted in item 4.. ... I hereby confirm t~at the provisions as contained in Section 17(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, have been complied with. Please note that at .. the time of preparation of this record, there are no outstanqin9':op'J~_(~J9rs,---,,:; ,:~_:'__ on file.. . . ! L_l__,. (~1.8_.. I, ',j.,,, j ,.,:\ ~-~.._-.......--..,,-- ....--- . 3/.... . "[':':, I( ..__.....-.~-- '-~""" : :'.:' :",:..'\L I'D: ..~.. . .: '.:.:..a . ... ~ . -- .. - . -., - - '. - ~ . () 0 <{J'~ \\~\ ---- .. .. - 3 - .. .. . Would yo~ kindly arrange for the Amendment to receive Ministerial approval as soon as possible. ' .. ~ ~ Cf:::!r .. C.W. Lundy, A.M.C.T., Regional Clerk. .. CWUsv . Ene!. - - c.c. M. Fre~dman, 289143 Ontario.Limited P. Barrie, Clerk. Municipality of Clarington ' B.J. Roy, Regional Clerk A.L Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning .. .. .. .. - - .. .. .. .. CF.R1"'1FlED A "&'RUE Ct.?:!' BY-LAW NUMBER 63-96 OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM OCT 0 71996 '''C.~i~y;r3Zr(r R~ona! Clerk ... ... Being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 19 to the Durham Regional Official Plan ... WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham Act and the Planning Act, as amended, authorize the Regional Municipality of Durham to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and amendments thereto. .. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a By-law of the Regional Municipality of Durham by the Council thereof as follows: ... I. That Amendment Number 19 to the Durham Regional Official Plan, being the attached Explanatory Text, is hereby adopted. .. 2. That the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 19 to the Durham Regional Official Plan. .. ... 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of final passing thereof. .. BY-LA W read a first time this 25th day of Septarber , 1996 BY-LAW read a second time this 25th day of Septarber ,1996 BY-LA W read a third time and finally passed this 25th day of Septarber .. , 1996 ... fi:::JMijj .. e. ~ oy--!J_ Clerk .... ... ... ... .. III .. -, - AMENDMENT NO. 19 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: The purpose of this Amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan, is to increase the size of Resource Extraction Area 42, identified on Map A5 and described on Schedule 4, from 54 hectares to 57 hectares. - .. LOCATION: The parcel is located on the north side of Concession Road 10, approximately 1 km, west of Highway No. 35, in part of Lot 27, Concession 10, former Township of Clarke, in the Municipality of Clarington. - - BASIS: Policy 19A.3.2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan indicates that no expansion to an existing pit or quarry operation shall be permitted beyond the applicable Resource Extraction Areas identified on Map 'A' and described on Schedule 4 other than by amendment to this Plan. A number of sand and gravel extractive operations presently exist in the area. Mitigative measures will be taken by the applicant to screen the site from surrounding residents. This Amendment would enable the site to become part of the existing aggregate operation. .. - ... .. ... ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by: - a) Changing Area 42 to Schedule 4 "Aggregate Resource Extraction Areas" as follows: .. Area Former Lot(s) Concessione s) Area Identified Municipality (Ha) on Map 'A' 42 Clarke Twp. Part Lot 27 X 57 - - - IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. .. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. - .. ... .. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT NO.1 9 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN .. .. .. This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham by By-law No. 63-96 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act. RS.O. 1990, c.P.13. as amended, and under Section 96 of the Regional Municipalities Act, RS.O. 1990, c.RB, as amended, on the 25th day of Seotember I 1996 .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ... ~~v~ g;Ona&air e. -z0..0-"~ Clerk - .. n:\2-S\ropa ICert. pg Corporate Seal .. till ... - - -, - The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department - 605 Rossland Rd, East P,O, Box 623 Whitby, Ontado , _ Canada L 1 N 6A3 (905) 668-7711 Fax: (905f668-~963 .. C. W. Lundy A.M.c,T. Regional Clerk- ' .. .. .. .. - - ... ... .. - - .. COUNCIL INFORMAIreN 1-22 October 7,1996 OCT 10 3 01 FN '3S Ms. Diana Jardine, M.C.I.P., , Director , Plans Adniihjstration Branch Ministry of Municipa,l Affairs 14th Floor, 777 Bay Street , Toronto,' Ontario: . , MSG 2ES, :' Amendment #20 to'the Durham Regional Offiqial Plan' ' Our File: 96-008/0(20) , , ,-Ms. 'Jardine, the P'lanning Commitfee of Regional ,Council Cbnsideredthe. above matter 'i:lnd ata meeting held on September 25,1996,Council, " adopte~thefollo~ingrecommendatlons' of the Comi11itt~e:' . ' , , :"ar ,t~AT Aniendment#20 to the' Durhan;'Regional'Official Plan to ease the reqqirement-for on~y prestige ~mployment uses !;llong' freeways, Type, A al)dType B ar(erial roa~s, and to permit,' . , exceptions to the right-of.:way width requirements for specific ' sectio'nsof arter'ial.roads in Central Areas arid Hamlets, be adopted as indica'ted in Attachment 1 to, Commissioner's' Repor,t " #96-P-94;that the necessary by~lawbe passed; and further, that th~ Al1:1endmentbe forwarded to the Ministfyof Municipal Aff~irs , and Housing for approval; and, THAT a copyofCbmmissioner's Report #96-P-94 be forwarded to the area municipalities, ~nd all those who made submissions be so ' advised." '. . '. . b)' Enclosed are, thefollowing'documents in co'nnect"ion with the above Amendment which was adopted by By-law"#64-96 on, September 25, 1,996:' 1. One certified copy of th'e proposed Amendment (adopting By-law and the Amendment); 2. ,Three certified duplicate copies of the proposed Amendment; 2/..... _ '€, 100% Post Consumer .. ... - 2 - ... 3. Twenty-five working.copies of the proposed Amendment; . ... 4. Twenty-five copies of the MMA's "Record to be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Approval of an Adopted Official Plan or Plan. Amendment" form; , ... 5. A copy of Planning Reports consid~red by Regional Council; ... 6. A list describing the information that was made available to the public prior to the adoption of the proposed Amendment; ... 7. a} Sworn. Declaration by the Director for the Planning . Department regarding Subsection 17(18} of the Planning .Act, as amended, and Subsection 3(2} of Ontario Regulation 42/95; and, . ... b} Sworn Declaration' by the Regional Clerk regarding Subsection 17(17}of the Plarming Act, as amended, and , Subsection ~(1 )(f) of Ontario ~egulation 42/95; ... 8. . A copy of the minutes of the public meeting(s); ... 9. A copy of all written submissions and comments received from review agencies and the public and the dates on which they were received; and . .. .. 10. A copy .of the Notice of Adoption. I hereby confirm that the provisions as contained in Section 17(7} of the Planning Act, R.S'.O. 1990, have been complied with. Please note that at the time of preparation of this record, there are no outstanding objectors ... on file.' , -;;:';;"r:-r;--l-s-.U"';:;'-)f" i l. ',. 'I. I . . '41! ... 3/... .. i_,1_.~. ;::i'\ ...-.__....~-r~_....~.,-_..._..~ . I -\:(:i,.. :3Y .._.......;..__.;_~.._..__ ~ "h",':" -, 1:..jC~~::__:~. _~::::.:.:-.. j . 1':1 '-'I "ij'.j . ~- - '~ ---, ~:L ~ ~t.. . .~.. .............-! ----~j '__ _ i~ Or7],- :-r<' ij . ---- .. - - 3 - - Would you kindly arrange for the Amendment to receive Ministerial approval as soon as possible: - - ~.~~ - C.W. Lundy, A.M.C.T., . Regional Clerk cWUsv Enc!. - - .. C:C. ' M. deRond, Clerk, Town of,Ajax G. ,Gr~ham, Clerk~Administrator, Township of Brock 'P. Barrie. Clerk. Municipality of Clarington . B. Suter; Clerk, City of Oshawa . . B. Taylor,Clerk, Town of Pickering , ECuddie, Administrator-Clerk; Township of Scugog. W. Taylor, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge.' D. McKay, Clerk,Town of Whitby " B. Roy, Regional Solicitor' , A.L. Geergieff, Commissioner of planning - .. .. - - - - .. - - - CERTIFIED A 'fRU4=. COPYj C:CT 0 7 1996 BY-LAW NUMBER 64-96 .qW~.~:i-'" OF Regional Clerk THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM _ . - Being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 20 to the Durham Regional Official Plan WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham Act and the Planning Act, as amended, authorize the Regional Municipality of Durham to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and amendments thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a By-law of the Regional Municipality of Durham by the Council thereof as follows: \, That Amendment Number 20 to the Durham Regional Official Plan, being the attached Explanatory Text, is hereby adopted. 2. That the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 20 to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of final passing thereof. BY-LAW read a first time this 25th day of Sept.arta- , 1996 . BY-LA W read a second time this 25th day of Sept.arta- , 19S6 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 25th day of Sept.arta- , 19$ It:: .. ~!/ . 'gloo>l Cht! ~ -e -zJ Of:!; Clerk .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ) .. .. .. .. .. ... - - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM - AMENDMENT NO. 20 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN - .. - This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham by By-law No. 64-96 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and under Section 96 of the Regional Municipalities Act, RS.O. 1990, c.R8, as amended, on the 25th day of September . 1996 - .. .. .. - - - - .. ~<<4 gional air e.-z.)~ Clerk : , I .. h:I2-: uopalcert,pg Corporate Seal .. - .. Amendment No. 20 to the Durham Regional Official Plan .. .. Purpose: .. Basis: The purpose of this amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan is two-fold: i) to permit other employment uses in addition to prestige uses along freeways, Type A and Type B arterial roads within Employment Areas; and .. .. .. ... .. .. ... ii)' allow exceptions to the right-of-way width requirements for specific sections of arterial roads within Central Areas , and Hamlets in recognition of local circumstances. ... Actual Amendment: ii) to allow exceptions to the right-of-way width requirements for arterial roads within Central Areas and Hamlets. The. basis of this amendment is to: i) provide opportunities for other employment uses, in addition to prestige employment uses, in locations along freeways, Type A and, Type B arterial roads within the Employment Areas; and The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by: Prestige Employment Uses i), deleting the words "allow only" and replacing it with the word "encourage" in the first sentence in Section 11.3.10, and by adding a new sentence to the end of this Section as follows: "Other employment uses may also be permitted by designation in area municipal official plans." ) ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. - such that Section 11.3.10 reads as follows: - - "It is the intent of this Plan to encourage prestige employment uses with high employment generating capacity and greater architectural, landscaping and sign controls along Highways 401 and 407, and Type A and Type B arterial roads. Area municipal official plans shall designate areas for prestige development and specify design and landscaping controls for such areas. Other employment uses may also be permitted by designation in area municipal official plans. "; and - - - - Right-of-Way Widths ii) adding the words "outside of Central Areas and Hamlets" at the beginning of the first sentence of Section 16.3.14; deleting the words "In addition, requirements other than right-of-way widths" and replacing them with the words "Within Central Areas and Hamlets, speed and access spacing requirements of Section 16.3.13" in the last sentence of Section 16.3.14; and, adding a new sentence at the end of this section as follows: - - - - - ''The right-of-way width requirements shall apply unless it can be demonstrated, in consultation with the Region, that exceptions to the right-of-way widths are appropriate for specific sections of arterial roads. These exception~ shall be incorporated into the area municipal official plan." - - such that Section 16.3.14 reads as follows: - - "Outside of Central Areas and Hamlets, the right-of-way widths, speeds and access spacing requirements of Section 16.3.13 shall generally apply to the arterial roads shown on Map 'B'. However, if the intent of this Plan is adhered to, and following adequate study to the effect - - ... Implementation: Interpretation: i~~ ... that such provisions are impractical and cannot be implemented precisely, the authority havin,g jurisdiction on such roads may deviate from these provisions without the need for an amendment to this Plan. Within Central Areas and Hamlets, speed and access spacing requirements of Section 16.3.13 shall not apply to arterial roads. The right-of-way width requirements shall apply unless it can be demonstrated, in consultation with the Region, that exceptions to the right-of-way widths are appropriate for specific se~tions of arterial roads. These exceptions shall be incorporated into the area municipal official plan." ... ... .. ... .. The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. .. .. The provisions set forth in the. Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. - - .. The Regio",!1 Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department - , , 605 Rossland Rd, Eajit p,O, Box 623 " Whitby, Ontario' _ Canada,L 1 N 6A3 (905) 668-7711. , " Fax: (905) 668-9963 " - C. W. Lundy A.M.C,T. ' Regional-Clerk '. ' - .. - - - - .. - - - - - GOUNCIL INFDRMATION 1-23 October 7, 1996 Ocr 10 3 01 fi! '96 Ms. Diana Jardine, M.C.I.P. . Director , Plans Administratian Branch Ministry of Municipal Affairs 14th FlaarJ 777 Bay Street Tara rita,Ontarla M5G 2E5, , , " Amendment #22 to. the Ourham,Regional Official ,Plan ' Our File: '96-005/0(22) " , 'M~. ~ardJn'e, thePiafln,ing' Committee of 'Regioflal Council_ cOQsioered the - 'above ni~tter and atamE3eting held on September 25; 1996 ,Council ' adopted the fall~wing recommendatiat:1 aOhe C~rnmittee: ., , , "THAT'the amendm, ' ent to' ~he DU,rha-ril Regional. O,fficial Plan ,-, reques~ed by the,MUnic!patity afClarin,gtart, File:OPA#,96-005,' to., , ,permit a place af, Worship, at the northeast carner af Blo.or Street Q.nd " :H~nback Raad, pe 'adopte~:as Amendment#22 to the Plan, the ' 'amendnieri,t to. 'read as fo.llows:, " , Add a new section 5.3.30 as fallaws: : ' , Natwithstanding,Section 5.2,.1, a place of worship is permitted at, the nart,heast carner afHancack Raad andBlaar Street;,' ' That the necessary by-law ,be' passed; andfurther" that the AlTJendment be' farwarded to. the Ministry af Municipal Affairs and , Hausing far approvaL" , , Enclased are the, following dacuments in cannectian with the abave Amendment which was adapteq by By-law,#65-96 an September 25, 199q: . 1. Onecertifiedcapy af the propased Amendment (adopting By-law and the' Amendment); 2/..... ~.:\ ,." 1 1:'- , 1 00% Posl Consumer ... ... - 2 - .. 2. Three certified duplicate copies of the proposed Amendment; .. 3. Twenty-five working copies of ,the proposed Amendment; 4. Twenty-five copies of the MMA's "Record to be forwarded to the .. . , Minister of Municipal Affairs for Approval of an Adopted Official Plan or Plan Amendment" form; .. 5. A copy of Planning Reports cons!dered by Regional Council; , . 6. A list describing the information-that was made available to the ... public prior to the adoption of the proposed Amendment; 7. a) Sworn Declaration by the Direc~or for the Planning .. Department regarding Subsection 17(18) of the Planning Act, as amended, and Subsection 3(2) of Ontario Regulation .. 42/95~ and b) Sworn Declaration by the Regional Clerk regarding . .. Subsection 17(17) of the Planning Act, as amended, and Subs~ction 3(1)(f) of Ontario Regulation 42/95; . '. .. 8. A copy of the minutes of the public meeting(s); 9. A copy of all written submissions and comments received from' , .. review agencies. and the public and the dates on which they were received; . , .. 10. A copy of the Notice of Adoption; and 11. A copy of all information or reports indicated In the completed MMA .. form noted in item 4. 3/.... . .. .. .. .. - - 3 - - Would you kindly arrange for the Amendment to receive Ministerial approval as soon as possible. ... ... - e,~.~ .. .. .c.w~ Lundy, A.M.C.T., Regional Clerk . .. CWL/sv Ene!. - , . C.c. .P. Barrie, ,Clerk. Municipality of.Clarington ,RJ. Hoy, Reg'ional S.olicitor A.t. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning. .. .. ... f-["TST-i:i,iii JT iOi~-'-t' I /,." (1';" , I 1 .,L-t'nn,."..~_,.,....__._____,~ : .' l 1 'r:.r:;~. flY ,,~.... _._.___~___ i : '''11 'I)~r l T'I ! I 11'.' u~: ,'... ~~....::. .'.:.::_:.:=--:.:~::..:J ! (11.1'1::; ::j i . ~_. '~'-A:(l:L~~~=-; i ~ -I~ ; :<: :zr~ ... . /.':. -~~- ~. -, A .':..-- ..._; / r.-' / . -' .-..: [. ~ _71-. I . . ..:......._"_.. ,,,,,"w4 . . :D.v9<' .r)li'.:'-~::~J - .. .. .. .. - CERl1lF'lliP A TRUE COpy OCTO 11996 BY-LAW Nl1MBER65-96 -~~rfff:"!f.- OF . C.W. LUN:), M. . THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM Regia Clerk "'" .. Being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 22 to the Durham Regional Offic:1I1-plan .. WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham Act and the Planning Act, ;is amended, authorize the Regional Municipality of Durham to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and amendments thereto. ... NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a By-law of the Regional Municipality of Durham by the Council thereof as follows: - III I. That Amendment Number 22 to the Durham Regional Official Plan, being the attached Explanatory Text, is hereby adopted. ... 2. That the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 22 to the Durham Regional Official Plan. . ... 3. This By-law shall come into force ltnd take effect on the day of final passing thereof. ... BY-LA W read a first time this 25th day of SeptaJDer , 199 6 . BY. LA W read a second time this 25th day o~ SeptaJDer , 19% BY-LA W read a third time and finally passed this 25th day of SeptaJDer .. ,1996 . III - ~~-~ "onal cY . . - ~~0-:5 Clerk .. .. .. III III .. III - - Purpose: - - Actual Amendment: .. .. Implementation: - - Interpretation: - - - - - .. - - - - - Amendment No. 22 to the Durham Regional Official Plan The purpose of this Amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan is to permit a place of worship in the General Agricultural Area, at the northeast corner of Hancock Road and Bloor Street, in the Municipality of Clarington. The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by adding a new section 5.3.30 as follows: "5.3.30 Notwithstanding Section 5.2.1, a place of worship is permitted at the northeast corner of Hancock Road and Bloor Street. The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. ... ... REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT NO. 22 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN .. .. .. This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham by By-law No. 65-96 in accordance with the provisions of Sections ... 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and under Section 96 of the Regional Municipalities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.R.8, as amended, on the 25th day of September , 199 6 ... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ~ C/?1!f!j' e ional c51 - - ~.~~ Clerk :" .. ... h:\::-5\ropa\cert, pg Corporate Seal .. I ~ .. .. - .. .. The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department .. .. 605 Rossland Rd. East P,O, Box 623 Whitby, Ontario Canada L 1 N 6A3 (905) 668-7711 Fax: (905) 668-9963 .. C. W. Lundy A.M.C.T; , Regional Clerk .. .. ... .. - COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-24' October 7, 1996 OCT 10 3 01 PH '96 Ms. Diana Jardine, M.C.I.P. , Director Plans Administration Branch Ministry qf Municipal Affairs 14th Floor, 777 Say Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E:5 " Amendment :#2$ to the Durham Regional Official Plan , Our File:' 96-002/0(23) Ms. Jardin'e, 'the Planning' Committee ,of Regional C~uncil conside'red" the above matter a,nci at a meeting held on September 25; 1996' Council adopted the followingrecom'meridations of the Committee: , , "THAT the amendtnentto the Durham Regional' Official Pla'n . requested by the MunicipaiityofClaringtoi1,~He: OPA #96.,002, to , delete the designation,of Pr~stonvale Road tromaType "C" Arterial ' " Roadriorth of Bloor Street b~ approved,as Amendm~nt #23 to the Plan; thatthe necessary by-law be"passed; 'and further, that ~ the Amendmentbe fOrWarde~ tq theMini~try,'of Municipal Affairs and, ' Ho"usi rig for approval." , ';.' _ , ,,' . ' . :. ' , . Enclosed are the following' docum,entsinconflection with the above' . ' Amendment which was ad.opted by By-law #66-96 on September 25, 1996: '. ," , , . " .. 1. - 2. .. 3. 4. . .. ..' .. - One certified .copy of the proposed Amendment (adopting By-iaw and the Amendment); , Three <?e,rtified duplicate copres' of the proposed Amendment; Twenty-five working copies of the proposed Amendment; Twenty-five copies of the MMA's "Record to be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Approval of an Adopted Official Plan or Plan Amendment" form; , 2/.;... o 100% Post Consumer ... - 2.. IIIIi 5. A copy of Planning Reports considered by Regional Council; 6. A list describing the information that was made available to the public prior to the adoption of the proposed Amendment; .. 7. a) Sworn Declaration by the Director for the Planning Department regarding Subsection 17(18) ofthe Planning Act, as amended, and Subsection 3(2) of Ontario Regulation. 42/95; and ' . . ... .. b) Sworn Declaration by the Regional Clerk regarding . Subsection 17.(17) of the Planning Act, as amended, and Subsection 3(1 Hf) of Ontario Hegulatidn42/95; 8. . A.copy of the minutes of the public meeting(s); .. .. 9. A copy' of all written submissions and commEmts received from review agencies and the public and the dates on which they were received; . IIIIi .. 10. A copy of the Notice of Ad~ption; and 11. A copy of all 'information or reports indicated in the completed MMA form noted in item 4. ' .. I hereby confirm that the provisions as contained in Section 17(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, have been complied with. .Please n.ote that at the time of preparation of this record, there are no outstanding objectors ... on file. . . .. CWL/sv Encl, Would you kindly arrange for the Amendment to receive Ministerial approval as soon as possible. ...__.. _ __ _ __._ __,.._ _. _____ , '-),..c.;.'..'.R i/'::, I IT/ON 1 1 '.- ,..-1 ., . ...... .~.. 1 y;,i:.,._____...._____.______ ; 'I i\;~<. 1- '/ .~._-....____._.._..__.___ ~ j n:Y:;:,:'.L ~;; . ._......_ " '. .1-- .. . ...........--.....-......... ..._- 't :: ~' i ~'! :"...: .. . E. .....;,:; ~~ ......... I ,.."........ '.'i"--"-~"- ....~.u. p. Barrie. Clerk. Municipaiit~ of Claringlon ~.. _~:';~~ ~:~: ~~~'r~:~:o~~~~~~ii~~er of Planning 1=.. . ." ..' ,~.~~:.~.y .. ;";~':O'c9; :,' t> ~C...,~c".",~ ,..... . .... "",., ..... .'. ...'..... .. e -0 Cf-!i- C.W. Lundy, A.M.C.T., Regional Clerk .. .. , ... c.c. IllIIi - BY-LAW NUMBER 66-96 OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM -....nm;on A TRUE COpy ct.\< 1 1.1""'~ OCT 0 7 1996 . -e.~ -~~ <--;~:,'i.i-:itJN~~j::W::g f/'39o=1 Ckrk - .. Being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 23 to the Durham Regional Official Plan - WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham Act and the Planning Act, as amended, authorize the Regional Municipality of Durham to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and amendments thereto. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a By-law of the Regional Municipality of Durham by the Council thereof as follows: .. .. I. That Amendment Number 23 to the Durham Regional Official Plan, being the attached Explanatory Text and Exhibit 'A', is hereby adopted. .. 2, That the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 23 to the Durham Regional Official Plan. - 3. This By-law shall come into force and take. effect on the day of final passing thereof. .. BY-LA W read a first time this 25th day of Se.pt.aiDer BY-LA W read a second time this 25th day of SE!pt.aTb!- BY-LA W read a third time and finally passed this 25th day of ,1996 . ,19% ~ ,1996 . .. - - - !t::tf ~. gional C . ~. -.u~ Clerk .. - .. - .. .. Purpose: Actual Amendment: Implementation: Interpretation: -,.. .. Amendment No. 23 to the Durham Regional Official Plan .. The purpose of this Amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan is to delete Prestonvale Road as a Type C arterial north of Bloor Street. . ... The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by amending Map B2 - Regional Structure, as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment. .. The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. IIIIiII .. The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. .. .. .. IIIIiII .. .. .. IIIIiII .. .. IIIIiII .. ... ... - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM .. AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN - This amendment was adopted by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham by By-law No. 66-g6 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and under Section 96 of the Regional Municipalities Act, RS.O. 1990, c.R8, as amended, on the 25th _ day of Seotember , 199 6 - .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. ... .. e-~0- - h:\2-5\rcc,alcert.pg \ I - .. - Corporate Seal OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Map ffi~ .. .. .. o a: .. .~ .. .. - .. RE-ALlGN TYPE C ARTERIAL .. Amend. 17 ... DELETE TYPE C ARTERIAL .. Amend. 17 REDESIGNATE lIIIIl AS TYPE 8 Amend. 17 .. ADD FUTURE INTERCHANGE Amend. 17 FROM EXISTING TO FUTURE TYPE C Amend. 17 .. .. ~ EXISTING . * FREEWAY TYPE A ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE B ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE C ARTERIAL ROAD GO RAIL INTERCHANGES GO STATION FUTURE - - - -. W-.TJlW.i ~2Ei(1 REGIONAL TRANSIT SPINE .. - URBAN AREA (GENERALIZED) I I I I RAILWAY - --- ---------- . * .. I11III .. .. .. .. The Regional Municipality of Durham .. Clerk's -Department 605 Rossland Rd, East_ P:O, Box 623 - . Whitby, Ontario . Canada L 1 N 6A3 . (905) 668-7711 . Fax: (905) 668-9963 - C, W. Lundy A.M.C,T. Regional Clerk - - .. .. - - .. .. - .. , .. - COUNCIL INFORMAIIDON 1-25 OCT 22 9 56nH '96 . October 21, 1996 Ms. P.L. Barri.e CI.erk The Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Str.~!3t . Bowmanville,.Ontario . L 1 C3A6 He: INITIATION OF CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE FUTUREPROVISION OF AQDITIONAL W~TER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CAPACITY TO SERVICE THE ., WHITBY, OSHAWAAND CLARINGTON (COURTICE) UHBAN AREAS (96-W.;130) Our File: E03-G .' . ' . . Ms;'Barrie, the Works Committee of Regional Council considered the above matter and at a meeting held on October 15, 1996, the. Committee passed .the following recommendations: "a)" THAT.Report#96-W-130 of the Commissioner of Works be receiv~d for information; and . b) . THAT a copy of Report #96-W:-130o~ .the Commissioner of Works be forwarded.to the MunicipalitiesofWhitby., Oshawa and Clari~gton.'.' Enclosed, as directed by the Works Committee, is a copy of Report . #96-W-130 of the Commissioner of Works.. ~ofL~~ , , . Carol Smitton, A.M.CT. . Committee Secretary , ~~I__~ ..:~ ~ 01 , 4 -=. .. ... .1-- -1 . _...o....-~_~I_____~ -"-';~----=i ~ . ~. ' . ;._~.~lL~~ ~ i?:.- . :~~~1 cc: V.A., Silgailis, Commissioner of Works &~, 1 DO%. Post Consumer .. egional Municipality of Durham orks Department Commissioner's Report to Works Committee ... ... Report Date 96-W- 130 October 15, 1996 ... Subject ... INITIATION OF CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE FUTURE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CAPACIlY ... TO SERVICE THE WHITBY, OSHAWA AND CLARlNGTON (COURTICE) URBAN AREAS ... Recommendations .. A. THAT this report be received for information. B. THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Municipalities of Whitby, Oshawa and Clarington. ... Report .. 1.0 Background iii On June 5, 1991 Regional Council adopted a revised Durham Region Official Plan (DROP) which provides a framework for growth in Durham Region to the year 2021. In order to identify ... infrastructure requirements to service the development areas outlined in the DROP, the Regional Works Department commissioned a Sanitary Sewerage Planning Study in 1992. The purpose of the Sanitary Sewerage Planning Study was to examine the capacity of the existing sewerage systems .. and to identify infrastructure requirements to accommodate future growth. As part of the Sewerage Planning Study, staff of the Works Department and the consulting filii engineering firm of Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited conducted a detailed assessment of wastewater treatment plant capacity required for the Whitby, Oshawa and Courtice Urban Areas. The Regional Sanitary Sewerage Planning Study concluded that, based on the new DROP, additional water pollution control plant capacity would be required in order to service the municipalities of Whitby, Oshawa and Clarington (Courtice). .. ... EPS2 rd .. .. 85 ... .. .. Page 2 Report 96-W-130 Date October 15. 1996 .. Report cont'd, .. - Additional capacity will be required to service the eastern portion of the Oshawa Urban Area (Harmony Creek Watershed) and the Courtice Urban Area in Clarington in the near future. Flow records from the Hannony Creek WPCP indicate that 85% of the Harmony Creek WPCP capacity of 15 M.I.G.D. is currently being utilized. Sewage flows have also been diverted from the Harmony Creek WPCP to the Corbett Creek WPCP in Whitby in order to reduce peak flows to the Hannony Creek WPCP and take advantage of the recently expanded plant capacity at the Corbett Creek WPCP, .. .. Based on Greater Toronto Area (GT A) Planning Studies, additional WPCP capacity may be required as soon as 1999. Historical growth rates in the Region would establish the need for additional treatment capacity sometime between the year 2002 to 2008. - The establishment of additional wastewater treatment plant capacity requires the project to be planned under the Class Environmental Assessment Process for Municipal Wastewater Projects. - .. Initiation of the planning process is required to establish the method of providing for additional plant capacity for the Oshawa and Courtice Urban Areas. It is necessary that any solution for the provision of additional capacity be consistent with the long term sewerage requirements for the Whitby/OshawalCourtice area established under the Durham Region Official Plan. .. The consulting engineering firm of Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited has been retained by the Region to undertake the Class Environmental Assessment for the project. 2.0 Class Environmental Assessment (EA) - 2.1 Class EA Process .. Planning of municipal projects or activities are subject to the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. The procedure being followed for this project is outlined in the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects, prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association and approved by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). The Class EA for this project includes the five phases shown in Attachment No. 1 and described below: - - Phase 1 Identify the problem or deficiency, - Phase 2 Identify planning alternatives to resolve the problem and, by taking into account public and related government review agency inputs, select the preferred planning alternative, - Phase 3 Examine alternative design concepts for the implementation of the preferred planning solution and select the preferred design concept based upon the existing environment, public and related government agency input. .. 86 ... .. Page 3 Report 96-W-130 Date October 15 1996 .. .. Report cont'd. .. Phase 4 Document, in an Environmental Study Report (ESR), the planning process and provide opportunity for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days. Phase 5 ... Design and prepare contract drawings and documents. Proceed with construction and monitor construction and operation to ensure adherence to environmental provisions and effiuent quality requirements. .. One of the fundamental requirements of the Class EA process is to provide opportunities for the public to participate in the planning and design aspects of the project through public consultation ... at points of important decision making. 2.2 Project Status ... The Problem identified for Phase 1 of the Class EA Process may be defined by three statements as follows: .. 1. Additional treatment capacity may be required at the Hannony Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. ... 2. One of the two treatment plants at Hannony Creek WPCP is nearing the end of its useful life without proceeding with major rehabilitation and/or upgrading. .. 3 The total potential plant site capacities of the existing water pollution control plant sites servicing the Whitby/Oshawa/Courtice Urban Areas are insufficient to meet the ultimate sewerage requirements of the study area and additional water pollution control plant site capacity will be required. ... The Class EA Process requires the identification of alternatives designed to address the problem. The following preliminary list has been prepared and will be used for discussion with review agencies and the public to arrive at the preferred alternative: ... ., · Expand the Hannony Creek Water Pollution Control Plant by approximately 7.5 MlGD (million imperial gallons per day). ... · Construct a new water pollution control plant in South Courtice with an initial capacity of approximately 10 MlGD, ." · Divert sanitary sewage flow from the Harmony Creek Drainage Area to an existing water pollution control plant .. · Flow reductions through inflow/infiltration reductions and water conservation methods · Do nothing III 87 .. - - Page Report Date 4 96-W-13Q October 15. 1996 - Report cont'd. - The Regional Works Department will be proceeding with the publication of advertisements in local newspapers during the weeks of October 27, 1996 and November 3, 1996 to advise the public on the initiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the project (Attachment No.2). - - A public information centre (PIC) will be held on Thursday, November 7, 1996 at the Lake Vista Community Centre in Oshawa to present project material and receive public comments. - The Public Information Centre is the first of several mandatory points of contact with both the public and review agencies. A project information document has been prepared for the public and review agencies for their information and comments. Regional staffwill report back to Works Committee and Council during the progress of the project. Copies of the project information document are available at the offices of the Regional Works Department at 105 Consumers Drive, Whitby, for review. - - - . . Silgailis, P. Eng. mmissioner of Works - - - - - - ... - 88 ... = .THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY Of" DURHAM .,. WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING & DESIGN PROCESS FOR CLASS LA. TYPE MUNICIPAL WATER AND WASTE WATER PROJECTS .,- ,...--------, : IPHASE 51 I : I I <<>-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) Uo..' lOR rOR I I E"I/lRONuENI"l I I PRO'w1SlONS ANO I I C~J,jjTUENIS I I I L-________.... NOTE: __ --- ., .. .... ~ IlC _ ..., ... ....... -.u tICI:UI _ .. ...., ...., -....." ... . - I I I I I I I ~ I I I , ~ I I I ,..--------------., I IPHASE 41 : I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J 1 I J .. I I I I I I -, J OPPORTUNITY FOR BUMP-UP REOUEST TO l./INISTER \Ill Tl1IN JO DA YSI OF NOTIFICATION ----"'------"'-- I I Y Y I I ~ I I I I I I I I I _________J 2 ENVlRDNl./EN I Al STUDY REPORT (ES'l PLACED ON PuBLIC RECORD NOTiCE Of COMPlE TiCN TO REVIEw "GENCIES ok PUBLIC FIRST . OPPORTUNITY FOR LAND ACOUISl TiON (OR EXPROPRIA TlON FOR SCHEDULE C PROJECTS BUMP-UP DENIED \Ill TH OR \IIlTl1OUT IoIINIST~RS CO'...D/TICN S \jANDAIORY "UBlIC ec"l"c' "::,:o,'S C!CISlON P()N;$ C' C~OC[ OF SC~:~\"Il: ':o,o,e,,;;:$ PCSS 3'.! ,',,\'S 'IlJICA .:5 \lA'~A .:~.. :'0':,-5 .,.),e,,',s ;'Ie3A2.' :",,';; D C) ---> -- ---+ BU"'P-UP GRAN TED. PROCEED \Ill TH INDIIIIDUAL E.A. OR ABANDON PROJECT DlSCREnONARY PUBUC CONSULTAnON TO REIIIEW PREFERRED DESIGN , , I- , I oJ r-------------- , IPHASE JI I I : 1 IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR PREFERRED SOlU TlON 2 DETAIL INVENTOR\" OF NA TURAl. SOCIAL. AND ECONOMIC ENVlROHMEN T J IDENTIFY IMPACT Of AL TERNA TIVE DESIGNS ON ENIIIRONMENT. AND MITIOA TlNO MEASURES 4 EVALUATE AL TERNA TlVE DESIGNS. IDENTIFY RECOMENDEO DESIGN. t- 5 CONSULT REI/IEW AGENCIES /Ie PREIllOUSl. Y INTERESTED /Ie OIREClL Y AFfECTED PUBUC c= 6 SELECT PREFERRED DESIGN c= ~EI/IEW ENI/IRONMENTA SIGNIFICANCE /Ie CHOlC \ OF SCHEDULE t 7 PREUlolINARY FlNALlZAnON OF PREFERRED D€SlCN ,- ----1 -~.----------t SCHEDULE A l- I FIRST. ,________, I : OPPORTUNITY : ).. FOR LAND I Y. AOUISlTlOH I (SCHEDULE B) I I BUMP-UP I GRANTED. : PROCEED \IIlTH OPPORTUNITY I INDlIllOUAL FOR .BUMP-UP f E."" REQUEST TO OR ABANDON MINISTER \IIlTl1IN PROJECT JO DAYS OF ....".. _ _ NonFlCA TION NOTICE OF COIolPLETION TO REIIIEW I AGENCIES /Ie PUBUC ,--- --..., r-+-----of SCHEDULE B t. I ,--------, + I I I ________ I J f 'I t-+-----of SCHEDULE C.... I ,. 1..._______': r:----:1 I I --~---_f INOME OUAtt_~-1 I__,:~__J r--------------., : IpHAse 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I IDEN Ilr Y ALTERNA liVE SOlUTIONS TO PROBLEM ~ I -_\..- r----------, I PHASe 'I r I , I , , I I I I I I ). I I , Y ^ I I I '1' I : 2 DlseRE IIONARY : I PUBLIC i-J . , CONSUL IA.ToQN TO I ~ I RE~EW PROBlEY I I I , L__________J I ~ I : ) IDENTIFY IMPACT Of I A.L TERNA. livE SOlUTIONS I ON THE ENVlROMEN T. I AND I MllIGA TlNG MEASURES I I I I I I I I I I : : J 5 CONSUL T REIIIEW L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .J.. -<r I ACENCIES /Ie PUBUC I Re PROBLEM AND : : ALTERN A TlVE SOlUTIONS I I , I I Ir:- I 116 I I I I I I I I I I I L co ~ I. 1 All~CH't.ENT N{'. 1 1 I I I I I , I -!>- I ~A~O lolAV Dp.,C" l I -->- I I I - - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM WORKS DEPARTMENT - INVITATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE - - CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CAPACITY TO SERVICE THE WHITBY, OSHAWA AND CLARINGTON (COURTICE) URBAN AREAS - - Population growth and planned development in the Oshawa and Courtice urban areas has resulted in the need to plan for additional water pollution control plant capacity in these communities. Flow records for the Harmony Creek Water Pollution Control Plant which services the eastern portion of the Oshawa and Courtice urban areas indicate that the facility is nearing its design capacity. The Region of Durham is therefore conducting a Class Environmental Assessment to identify a method of providing additional water pollution control plant capacity for the Whitby, Oshawa and Courtice urban areas that is consistent with the long term servicing requirements identified in the Durham Region Official Plan. This project is being planned in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects - Schedule 'C'. A Public Information Centre to provide additional details regarding the project and present potential solutions will be held: - - - - - Thursday, November 7, 1996 3:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Lake Vista Community Centre Lake Vista Park Emerald Avenue Oshawa, Ontario Staff of the Region of Durham and their consultant, Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, will be available to answer questions and discuss the project with members of the public. For further information on this project, please contact the following: - - - Rob Simm, P.Eng. OR Project Manager Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited 300 Water Street Whitby, Ontario L1\! 912 (90~) 068J1363, Ex! 200 Thorn Sloley, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Planning & Studies Region of Durham Works Department P.O. Box 623, 105 Consumers Dr. Whitby, Ontario L I N 6A3 (905) 668-7721, Ex!. 5289 - - This notice issued October 18, I c)96 - J \\'itty Regional Chair gO V.A Silgailis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works - ATTACHMENT NO.2 ... DATE: October 22, 1996 TIME: 20:12:08 PAGE: 1 ATTENTION: Marie A. Marano Maureen Reid Marie Knight Nancy Taylor Patti Barrie, Municipali ty of Clarington CDUNC I L I NFORMA TI ON PLEASE COpy AND DISTRIBUTE TO THOSE LISTED. 1-26 - - - . .. Association of III' Municipal Clerks . .. and Treasurers 11111 of.Ontario - ... AMCTO EXPRESS ~ ~ ~ - MINISTER INTRODUCES BEITER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 .. - Among other things, the Better Local Government Act, 1996 provides for a ne\v Municipal Elections Act which implements many of the proposals put fonvord by the Crombie "Who Does What" panel. AMCTO has had considerable input into this aspect of the proposed legislation but it continues to have concerns with some of its provisions. The Association will continue to pursue these matters thrcnigh the legislative process in an effort to secure additional amendments prior to third reading and Royal Assent. At the same time, AMCTO supports a great many of the proposed changes. Every municipal clork is encouraged to obtain and review the legislative proposals carefully. AMCro Illld its Municipal Elections Project Team will be reviewing the new act and llD1ending existing training and advisory materials and preparing new materials to assist municipal clerks. In addition, AMeTO will be scheduling a series oftrllining seminars across the province in the new year to acquaint municipal clerks and their staffwith the details of the new legislation. The new election legislation is trademarked by the level of responsibility placed on the municipal cleric in the condue1 of the election and by the need for municipal council to implement many aspects of the election and related activities. by bylaw. Foc the most part these bylaws must be passed before Janua:y 1 oian election year. For the 1997 election, that date has been extended to March 31st of the election year. Some of the more significant proposed changes include: · qualification period for electors will be from the Tuesday after Labour Day until voting day II< undischarged bankrupts will no longer be prevented from holding office and IOClll government officials that wish to seek office will be granted an \U1paid leave of absence from Nomination Day until election day - if elected, the individual will be deemed to have resigned as of the taking of the oath of office. all eiected bodies except the Federal Government are pennitted to place a question on the ballot without OMB approval and the municipality will be able to recover applicable costs. the clerk will be authorized to reject a nomination fonn ifhelshe is satisfied th~Jhe c.~.Qid!lt$.;.is.nQt_...~ qualified r~I,~~~~I.~~_- i i ;f!!A;!JO' 1. ,'., ! .,,' " , --..... "^ H .. i , , "^ \ 'ra '() ! ~ _ , . . _ ,.\oJ ....~. - - ..I _ _.."...~.. ~T" ._..,)2 .- . - .. - .. - - '" - - I~_. -~~"-'-.". _..~ ~~I\_=_'~""'~~~j:J ---.. .~ . .. .~....-_.- ._,..-.,..........,...., i"'---" .:- . .... .._.i-,......_~_.- '1',,".--.',".-- " ~ _ ,.....~.._......_..,..."l ; I i. ....;..-. .-..-'~...-..~".,.,..~ - ~ ....."'..,..,..~ - , a .-'.' 'f1r/.";fi"" : DATE: October 22, 1996 ATTENTION: Marie A. Marano Marie Knight Patti Barrie ' Municipality of TIME: 20:12:08 Maureen Reid Nancy Taylor .. PAGE: 2 Clarington .. PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE TO THOSE LISTED. .. - 2- .. . alternative voting approaches will be pennitted; where such mechanisms are used the municipality may eliminate or make changes to advanced polling and proxy voting requirements, including the elimination of these activities; otherwise, one' advance poll is required but a municipality will be pennitted to set the holU"S, locations (including locations outside of the municipality) and to permit continuous voting. voting hours on election day elm be extended by opening earlier than the required 10:00 a.m. time. specific municipal enumerations will not be required; this is consistent with the announcement on October 21st by the federal government that the enumeration process for federal elections is being eliminated; thesc things will move Ontario one step closer to a pcnnanent voters list. VINs and supplemenuuy enumerations will be discontinued. the registration and nomination forms will be combined; individuals will not be able to submit nomination forms for more than onc office; if a second nomination fonn is submitted it will automatically cancel the first form submitted. 11 refundable deposit will be required of all candidates where notice is required to be given, the clerk will be responsible for providing such notice in a reasonable manner faxed documents will not be accepted deputy returning officers will be required for each tlvoting plnce"; the appointment of all other election officials will be at the discretion of the municipal clerk. the clerk shall fix the time during and the manner in which changes and corrections may be made to the voters list, except that this period will be up to and including the day of the election. the manner of giving notice of the date, time, place of an election and the manner of voting are no longer prescribed but arc left to the discretion of the clerk. the procedures for the use of vote counting equipment will no longer be prescribed in regulation; these procedures will be established by the elerk and must be in conformity with the principles of the Act; these procedures must be in place at least 60 days prior to an election to which they will apply. voting places need not be accessiblc to the mobility impaired but the clerk must consider the needs of the electorate. Polls may be established outside of the municipality. DROs, at their discretion, could take the ballot box to an elector to facilitate the casting of a ballot. the Minister will be able to prescribe what is an acceptable mark on the ballot for the pmposes of counting. automatic recounts would be eliminated and the entire recount procedure would be simplified and access to the process would be restricted. several chartges in the area of financial reporting, the status of any campaign surplus, cnmpnign periods, campaign contributions and donated services. the number of prescribed forms will be reduced to five including registration/nomination, proxy, two for fmancisl disclosure and the ballot. - .. .. . * .. . . .. .. . .. * ... .. * .. ... * .. ... .. .. wi . " - * A3 previously noted, you are encouraged to obtain and review a copy of the Better Local Government Act, 1996 in its entirety. AMCTO will be developing a number of tools to assist municipal clerks in the conduct of elections during the coming year. The Association will also bc continuing its efforts to obtain further refu:ements to the current bill prior to third reading. Please advise of any concerns with respect to the content of the bill that you would like the Association to consider in its ongoing deliberations. ... . .. - 18/17/96 22:38:88 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-) OCT-17-'96 19:00 ID:AMO 98S 623 4169 CLERK-Clarington Mun Page B82 TEL NO:4169297574 ~000 P01 COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-27 - Municipal ALE ~bt. ... A..ocl.llolI of M""ldpallll" 01 OllW!6 250 Bloor St E., Suite 701 Toronto. ON M4W 1E6 Tel: (416) 929-7573 · Fax: (416) 929-7574 Emall: amo@amo.munloom.com - - , For Immediate Action Minister Leach Introduces Better Local Government Act - The Issue: - The Better Local Government Act contains the first phase of a comprehensive rewriting of Ontario's municipal legislation. The Bill, introduced today, contains amendments related to the Municipal Act, the Municipal Elections Act and consequential amendments to other related statutes. - The Facts: - I The majolity of the Crombie Panel's municipal administration recommendations released August 14 have been Incorporated into the legislation. The most notable exception: · The municipal election date will not be changed at this time in order to give municipalities working to restructure additional time to complete that work, The Minister has indicated he will consider changing the date before the elections In 2000. - - Also in the Bill are reforms to remove redtape and other barriers that impede the development of coordinated and integrated community transportation services. Some highlights of the changes contained in the Bill: - - Municipal Act . Council Composition and Sl~e: · Lower tiers and single-tier municipalities will require a minimum of five members including head of council; changing the size will not require OMB approval or special legislation but will require public notification and meeting; - - Change in size for counties and regions (except Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton which have direct election) will require "triple majority" approval; · A Council will decide what its members should be called; · Municipalities will be given more discretion to decide whether council members should be elected in wards. at large or a combination thereof. - Need for specific municipal enumeration is to be eliminated; "\ c\ : I ~ . ,>'j '" ~: ',,~, i.'r",I- --i,'-i--H-i f', . '1\iI' -~ I . ; \:, ,~. t '. .,1 --' I i ~ ' ~~~ ;; ~c ~>.' ;,: ~,:~ ;,' :1'. i,' ,...., '_'_J . . 1/2 \- ~ - ;, -, I t \~ ~ - Munlclpa1 Elections Act - Among the many changes: · Municipalities will be able to open the polls earlier than 10:00 a.m - ()dcber171\11S1S "-3 ~ ~ - 1B/17/96 22:3B:51 EST; ASSOCIATIon OF?-) 9B5 623 4169 CLERK-CIarington Mun Page B83 OCT-17-'96 19:01 ID:AMO TEL NO:4169297574 ~000 P02 .. Municipal Alert: Minister Leach Introduces Better Locs' Government Act .. · Campaign period Is January 1 to December in an election year, unless a candidate is erasing a campaign deficit; .. · Registration and nomination forms will be combined into one form; · Recounts will only be held if there is a tie vote or if the council or local board decides a recount is necessary in the .public interest,. or the Ontario Court (General DivisIon) is satisfied there is reasonable grounds for holding one; · Election campaign financing will be changed by eliminating the role of the Commission on Election Finances in municipal elections; by permitting any person to bring a court action for violations of campaign finance provisions; council or local board can undertake a compliance audit and the time for lodging a complaint Is to be 90 days after the filing deadline. III .. .. Liability · Municipalities and public utility commissions will be protected from nuisance costs resulting from failure of municipal sewer. and water systems; · Limits of care and limits to liability applied by the courts afe being codified in legislation for non- discretionary and discretionary responsibilities; · Ministry of Transportation will have the regulatory authority to set standards for the inspection and maintenance of municipal roads and bridges, which if met, would protect muniCipalities from liability claims. .. .. .. ) Municipal Debt and Investment · Municipalities will be permitted to invest in a range of instruments to be defined in regulation; · Municipalities will be required to prepare a Statement of Investment Policies and Goals and to prepare an annual report on the compliance with the Statement; · Municipalities will be given the authority to issue variable rate debentures provided the municipality has at least a AA. credit rating; · Municipalities and other broader public sector bodies will be pennltted to cover each other's short tenn borrowing requirements. ". ". .. .. AMO will be reviewing the legislation in detail and will comment on it. The Legislative Standing Committee hearing has not been scheduled as yet. We will keep the membership informed on the matter. ". ". For further information, contact: Pat Veninl, Senior Policy Advisor at (416) 929.7573 ext. 316 or e-mail pvanini@amo.municom.com .. For problems with fax transmission. contact: Lilian Cheung at (416) 929-7573 ext. 308 or e-mail Icheung@amo.municom.com III IlIIi 00Ir:>>tt I 7 I Qo96 m lIIlI - ~~. P ,rOt _<-I ~ ..'"';! rt';. H ~". .,'~ ; .I~ ~"'-, ~ "',;vw_~ f. [t o'er 16 1996 · I '~EC!S'ON l~St!f .DATE - . - ... - - - - - - .. - - .. - ... - ... COUNCIL INFORMATION 1-28 R960052 Ontario Ontario Municipal Board ommission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario Charles John Hynes h~s appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law 95-163 of the Municipality of Clarington .0 COUNSEL: Cctroi Po.. ~iben Tor .- erry Klawitter MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION delivered by A. DELFINO on September 4. 1996 The subject property at the north-westerly comer of Liberty Street and Baseline Road in the Municipality of Clarington is presently improved with a fuel bar and a drive-thru donut Jcjosk. The owner wishes to add a five bay coin operated car wash and an automatic car wash on the northerly and westerly part of tile property and has requested a zoning by- law amendment which would allow him to proceed with his propos31. The Municipality enacted By-law No. 95-163 which ("hanged the zone designation of certain lands from "Urban Residential Type One (R1)" and "Services Station Commercial (C7-3)" and reduced the rear yard minimum setback from 10.0 m to 6.0 m. Charles John Hynes, a former partner of the aj)pli~nt s:aooealed to tMis ~oarrt ~!"'rt gave evidence at the hearing on his own behalf. The applicant was represented by counsel and retained a planner who testified in support of the proposal and whose testimony was reinforced by a planner for the Municipality. The evidence of both planners made reference to the existing planning regime and the effects of the by-Jaw amendment. The property is designated "living Area" in the Durham Region Official Plan. Policy 10.3.2c) of the Plan allows special purpose commercial uses serving specialized needs such as automotive. sales and service. The property is designated "Residential" in the former Town of Newcastle and Sed ion 7 of the -2- Plan provides policies for Automobile Service Stations use. Both planners are of th~ opinion that the proposed use conforms to the policies of both Plans. The parts of the property currently zoned "Urban Residential Type One (R1)" are the result of land acquisition to enlarge the site. To the north the property adjoins Memorial Park which carries a residential zoning. The site specific reduction in the required rear yard setback from 1 Om to 6.1 m in the opinion of the planners will have no impact to the users and has the effect of removing a residential lot isolated between a commercial use and a ~~rk ("-. .,. .. ~ J j .. .. .. ... The appellant raised a number of concerns and made reference to his letters of December 10, 1995, April 1 0, 1996 and September 4, 1996 to the Board which is entered .. as Exhibit 7c. The major concerns as outlined are as follows: a) The rezoning of the property to the north removes a residential lot which acts as a buffer between the commercial property and the park. b) Potential noise from driers in the automatic wash to the residential properties to the east, especially in view of possible redevelopment to higher densities. c) Closeness to an existing car wash owned by the appellant and potential impact to the economic viability. d) The possibility that contaminated soil is present on the subject property. e) Difficulties with ingress and egress to the property and matters related to the elevation as it effects drainage. The planner addressed each of the items of concern to Mr. Hynes and informed the Board that all of the reviewing agencies have expressed no concerns with the application 'Nhich is subject to a Site Plan agreement at which time all the outstanding matters will be finalized before permission is granted. Moreover, there is a recent Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Barenco Inc., Environmental Engineering and Site Remediation Services, dated August 1996 which has looked at a number of locations .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. III .. - - - - - - - - - .. - - - .. - - - - - -3- R960052 connected with the car wash operation and concludes that no soil or ground water remediation is currently required at the site. The Board has considered all of the evidence and finds that the proposed by-law amendment is based on good planning principles. conforms to the Regional and former Town of Bowmanville Official Plans and that the proposal will not have an adverse impact to the adjoining properties or to the planning regime of the Municipality. The Board accepts the testimony from the two planners that all of the area of concerns have been addressed properly and that the proposal results in good land use planning. The Board therefore dismisses the appeal to By-law 95-163. The Board's order will not issue until the Board is notified by the M4.nicipality that a Site Plan Agreement has been executive between the owner and the Municipality. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the applicant requested that the Board award costs against the appellant. The basis for the request stems from the appellant's motivation for the appeal which is driven by a desire to discourage or avoid competition which has resulted in delays and costs to his client. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellar.t, at an earlier stage. was counselled by the Board to "seek advice from qualified counsel as to the relevance of issues raised and to the proper procedures to follow." the appellant came to the hearing unrepresented. without any expert witness and with little preparation. except for Exhibit 7 A which is a letter reiterating the concerns. On the other hand, the appl;cant has been forced to hire counsel. a planner and has the author of the environmental site assessment report on a stand-by in case his presence is required. Counsel requested an award of $3.000.00 to cover the applicant costs. Mr. Hynes responded by stating that in his opinion he has prepared well for the hearing and that in presenting his case he backed off from matters that are not related to planning ~ues. He has attempted to hire counsel but due to other commitments he could not attend to the hearing. Mr. Hynes expressed surprise that the applicant has hired counsel and expert witnesses and stated that he expected that the Municipality would be involved at the hearing. -4- While the Board can understand that Mr. Hynes may have little knowledge of the hearing process, the Board finds it difficult to accept that having been counselled by a vice- chairman of this Board to seek advice from qualified counsel he did so as indicated in Exhibit 7C and still proceeded with the appeal and attended to the hearing without a professional witness to give expert evidence in support of his appeal. His assertion that he expected the Municipality to be there sounds hollow as the Municipality has enacted the by-law and supports the proposal therefore one cannot see any benefit flowing to Mr. HyTies case fromi:;16 Municipaiity's presence. As to his claim that he was not aware that the appellant would have hired counsel and expert witnesses, there is enough of a paper trail to show that it would be difficult for a longstanding businessman like Mr. Hynes to make an oversight of this magnitude. There is no question that there is animosity between the two former partners and now soon to be competitors. Whatever may have been the reasons, they should not result in the abuse of an appeal process that is costly not only to the applicant but to the Municipality and the Province. The appellant in this case is the least burdened by the costs of the appeal. The Board in finding that an award for costs against the appellant is warranted, cannot fail to take into account his lack of knowledge in these matters and the pressures that may have been present as the result of the dissolution of a long standing partnership. The Board awards an amount of $600.00 to be paid by the appellant to the applicant. i~:;:f';~:-:;;"i--~ ,.,L.X, !:'Ll.__.___.__ ~ I ',,~I{ nv &~' . "l.l\. UI _~ .. . ~ i r".'~~::"!l. T 7= ~ I .1" .....1; ,of ,L t. _.. _ .. I - _ _.._'<_"~" _.._... ___. ,~__, .__..._..' i~'(~~-1{' ';.~ .'~. ;L,-.:....._~..' .._..._-...~ r.' ".. ,~ ~ ~ l. UA;tL/.~... '. "_ i I --....----..'.......f-- "." .' "''''.' A. DELFINO MEMBER ; , i. ..---.---,--.~.. ......n.1. .---....---i: : \ :.-.~~- :-.=-.=:.~-.~~~_..~,~ --==---=1 I , Lh......... ----~.....-..-1.._.-...---._1 . . __,........ .l;... ....__: ... ::'.j) /L/.fJE4...~c .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. ... .. ... ... ... - ... III .. Bell COUNCIL INFORMATION li(mCCmITWiltll' .,. ~!I} OCT 1 7 1996 1-29 - - - CA. Bailey Regional Manager Bell Canada Fir. 4 - 66 Bay St. S. Hami/iton, Onto L8? 4R7 Tel. (905) 526-5 J 00 Fax. (905) 528-9344 }W~J)CH\\L1TY OF CLARINGTON MAYOR'S OFFICE ... AGENDA - 19961010 - Diane Hamre Mayor, Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance St. Bowmanville, Onto LIC 3A6 - - Dear Ms. Hamre, .. - This is to inform you that we have filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to reclassify the telephone exchange of Brooklin, Ontario. . - As you probably know, telephone exchanges are classified into various rate groups according to the total telephone-number count of the local calling area of each exchange. - .. Rates for local exchange telephone service are based on the value of the service to the user, which. increases in proportion to the number of telephones that can be called without incurring long distance charges. - This method of establishing rates ensures that customers in exchanges of approximately the same size, according to the telephone number count, pay the same rates. This enables our Company to comply with the terms of Section 27 of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits unjust discrimination or undue preference between groups of customers. .. - Attached is a copy of Telecom Order CRTC 94-55 which outlines the process Bell Canada must follow to ensure that our exchanges are classified in the correct rate group. Subject to approval by the CRTC, the new monthly rates for a telephone line, for the exchange of Brooklin, Ontario, effective 1996-12-04 will be as follows: - - .. - .. Present * (Rate Group 9) Pro Dosed * (Rate Group 10) .. Residence Service: Individual line Two party line $ 10. 75 $5.50 $11.15 $5.75 .. Business Service: Individual line Two-party line Trunk line $33.90 N/A $54.45 $33.90 N/A $54.45 .. .. * Based on rates in effect as of September 1996. We have also enclosed a copy of our filing letter to the CRTC for this exchange. .. I trust you will find this information useful. If you have any questions regarding the filing, please contact me per the above letterhead, and I will be happy to answer them. .. .. Yours very truly, /1 ~ &.1. / Regional Man ger ~ - .. ,~.: Attachments .. .. - - ..~." .. ~ ..,-.. ..... .-- ~-._- OiS'~UTi6-r~'-'1 i> 'lil\I_~___..._____ I L;'i.:';,~~~1 i CUPI f3 if): '--1 r--.~--_.'''''''--'-'--~~, _._,--~ .. .. - !"H.. .... _. ._...._ i... ,-'---, --"-.. i -" --'. ------j- ---. "---. .. ___ __ .... t , , '.,. ......,'_._.._-~ .. , .'.- ..' ,~~....,!, IT/~: jj~. ~ III . - 1+1 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission - Order ... TELECOM ORDER CRTC 94-55 Ottawa, 21 January 1994 - - IN THE MATTER OF an application by Bell Canada (Bell) under Tariff Notice 5027 dated 20 December 1993, for approval of proposed revisions to the company's General Tariff Item 60 with respect to rate groups for exchanges in which the telephone number count for rate group purposes has exceeded the upper limit of the exchange's current rate group by 1% or more for two consecutive months as of November 1993. - - - - - WHEREAS, under Telecom Order CRTC 79-387 (Order 79-387) dated 19 September 1979, the Commission approved the criterion which requires that exchanges be reclassified to higher or lower rate groups when the total number telephone count for rate grouping purposes has been over or under the limits of its present rate group by SZ or more for two consecutive months; - - - - WHEREAS the objective of the 5% margin was to avoid rate adjustments resulting from brief and temporary changes in total telephone number count; - - - - Canada ... Conseil de 1a radiodiffusion et des telecommunications canadiennes Ordonnance ORDONNANCE TELECOM CRTC 94-55 Ottawa, le 21 janvier 1994 RELATIVEHENT A une requ~te pr~sent~e par Bell Canada (Bell) en vertu de l'avis de modification tarifaire 5027 du 20 d~cembre 1993, en vue de faire approuver des r~visions propos~es A l'article 60 de son Tarif g~n~ral relativement aux groupes tarifaires pour les circonscriptions dans lesquelles le nombre total de num~ros de t~l~phone en service, aux fins du groupe tarifaire en cause, a d~pass~ d'au moins 1 % le plafond du groupe tarifaire auquel la circonscription est assign~e, pendant deux mois cons~cutifs, en date de novembre 1993. ATTENDU QUE, dans l'ordonnance T~1ecom CRTC 79-387 du 19 septembre 1979 (l'ordonnance 79-387), le Conseil a approuv~ le crit~re selon leque1 il faut reclassifier a un groupe tarifaire sup~rieur ou inf~rieur une circonscription dont Ie nombre total de num~ros de t~lephone en service, aux fins du groupe tarifaire en cause, a ~t~ sup~rieur ou inf~rieur de plus de 5 % aux limites du groupe auquel elle est assign~e, pendant deux mois cons~cutifs; ATTENDU QUE la marge de 5 % vise a ~viter des rajustements tarifaires r~sultant de brefs changements temporaires dans le nombre total de num~ros de telephone en service; . .. /2 WHEREAS the Commission notes from the record that all of the 165 exchanges in Bell's territory whose telephone number-count for rate group purposes exceeded the upper rate group limit by 1% or more for two cons~cutive months during the period from April 1990 to October 1993 have remained consistently above the rate group limit; WHEREAS the Commission also notes that, based on the company's current forecast, over the next ten years, no exchange which exceeds its upper rate group by 1% or more for two consecutive months would subsequently downgroup; and WHEREAS the Commission is satisfied that the application of a 1% margin would meet the objective of avoiding rate adjustments resulting from brief and temporary changes in telephone number count _ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The proposed tariff revisions submitted by Bell under Tariff Notice 5027 are approved effective 1 February 1994. Allan :. Darling Secretary General .. - 2 - .... - ATTENDU QUE Ie Conseil note, d'apr~s Ie dossier, que les 165 circonscriptions dans Ie territoire de Bell dont Ie .. nombre total de num~ros de t~l~phone en service a d~pass~ d'au moins 1 % Ie plafond du groupe tarifaire auquel .. chacune est assign~e, pendant deux mois cons~cutifs au cours de la p~riode d'avril 1990 A octobre 1993, sont toutes rest~es constamment au-dessus de- ce plafond; ATTENDU QUE Ie Conseil note ~galement que, d'apr~s les pr~visions actuelles de la compagnie, au Cours des dix prochaines ann~es, aucune circonscription qui d~passe d'au moins 1 % Ie plafond du groupe tarifaire auquel elle est assign~e, pendant deux moins cons~cutifs, passerait par la suite A un groupe tarifaire inf~rieur; et .. .. .. ATTENDU QUE Ie Conseil est convaincu que l'application d'une marge de 1 % atteindrait l'objectif qui consiste A ~viter des rajustements tarifaires r~sultant de brefs changements temporaires dans Ie nombre total de num~ros de t~l~phone en service _ .. .. .. IL EST PAR LA PRESENTE ORDeNNE CE QUI SUIT : .. Les r~visions tarifaires propos~es, soumises par Bell en vertu de l'avis modification tarifaire 5027, sont approuv~es A compter du 1er f~vrier 1994. de ., .. .. Le Secr~taire g~n~ral Allan J. Darling .. .. ... - -- \ .----::::.- \~..-.....> (---.'--::::_N_ 4~'----",o-~ Bell - Richard S. Tropea Director Regulatory Matters - Bell Canada 105, rue HOtel de Ville, 6e etage Hull (Quebec) J8X 4H7 Telephone: (819) 773-6030 Fax: (819) 770-7638 liS: RTROPEA - - 1996 1 0 1 0 - - Mr. Stuart MacPherson Executive Director Telecommunications Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON2 Dear Mr. MacPherson Associated with Tariff Notice No. 5840 In accordance with Telecom Order CRTC 94-55, attached for the Commissionls approval is a proposed revision to the Company's General Tariff reflecting a change in rate group for the Brooklin, Ontario exchange. Reclassification of this exchange to the next higher rate group is warranted because this exchange has exceeded the limits of its present rate group by more than 1 % for two consecutive months. Present Rate Group: 9 Rate Group Limit (+ 1%): Total Telephone-Number Count: Proposed Rate Group: 1 0 176,750 177,953 - - - - - - - Written notification of this reclassification has been forwarded to the official representatives listed on the attachment. Yours very truly, (2 wCdJ ~~ Director - Regulatory Matters - - Attachment ... - ... .. Attachment Page 11 1 .. Copies sent to: Diane Hamre .. Mayor, Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance St. "" Bowmanville, Ont. LIC 3A6 .. Nancy L. Diamond Mayor, City of Oshawa 50 Centre St., South .. Oshawa, ant. L1H 3Z7 .. Wayne Arthurs Mayor, Town of Pickering 1 The Esplanade .. Pickering, ant. L 1 V 6K7 .. Howard Hall Mayor, Township of Scugog P.O. Box 780 .. . . 181 Perry St. Port Perry, Onto .. L9L 1A 7 Gem-Lynn O'Connor ... Mayor, Township of Uxbridge P.O. Box 190 51 Toronto St., South .. Uxbridge,Ont. L9P 1T1 .. Thomas J. Edwards Mayor, Town of Whitby 575 Rossland Rd., East ... Whitby, Onto L1N 2M8 - .. II iIIII COUNCIL INFORMATION I-3D - - News Release Communique ~ Ontario - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and HOU$ing Mlnlstet-e du Affalroo municipates d du Logement - October 1 7, 1 996 - - Better local Government Act to save taxpayers money . . - Municipalities will have new authority to deliver services at lower cost to taxpayers as a result of legislation introduced today by Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister AI Leach. - The Better Local Government Act is the first step toward a broad reform of legislation affecting municipalities. It includes amendments to the Municipal Act and more than 40 other statutes, recommended during the summer by the Who Does What panel. - - "The people of Ontario want efficient government that meets their needs in the most cost effective way," Leach said. "Current laws governing municipalities are out of date, and cost taxpayers money. They prevent municipalities from finding better, more affordable ways of doing things." - - Among the legislative changes introduced today are measures to help municipalities: - 4 reduce the number of local politicians: - simplify municipal election procedures, reducing the number of required forms from 40 to five, for example, and shortening the election period; - get the most benefit for taxpayers when they borrow and invest; - better manage liability risks. - - leach also introduced changes related to the Community Transportation Action Program. The changes will help communities to do more for less by better coordinating their existing transportation facilities. - ;-) ~0 /.--'.. ) ,,/'. " 'I - ,,''>!:._=~--- .j) - /2 - ~.._,.._---_... . ._----- I J [ t==~~~- -. _~~ ~,= i =_:~_==:J I ~ .: ( '.-.. -tT'". /7/,., ./;J!~_.,-.-_-J.. \ L/-i..- .L:' .l). V C_ __ _' - .. .. - 2 - .. "Municipalities have long been asking for change to the current system. We are delivering a new system that responds to local needs, cuts bureaucracy and works well for the voter," said leach. .. .. He said there will be more changes in'the spring to further streamline the legislation that affects municipalities. Central to these changes will be anew, . less restrictive Municipal Act, which will give municipalities more flexibility to get things done. .. - 30 - .. For more information, please contact: Doug Barnes Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (416) 585-7270 Christine Burkitt Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (416) 585-6932 .. Disponible en fran~ais .. .. ... .. .. .. .. Visit the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's World Wide Website at http://www.mmah.gov.on.ca - .. III ., - - BACKGROUNDER - Composition and Election of Municipal Councils - Council size and composition - Issue: Although the people of Ontario. believe there are too many politicians, current legislation makes it difficult for municipalities to reduce council size or change the composition of council. What's changing; As a first step, the Municipal Act is being amended to allow municipalities to decide on council size and composition. In lower.tier and single-tier municipalities, a minimum of five members including a head of council, wtll be required. Changing the Size of council will no longer require a change in legislation or the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. Municipalities will be required to notify the public of intended changes and hold a public meeting. In the case of counties and regions (except for Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carteton, which have direct election), any change in council size will require "triple majority" approval. That is to say, it will require a majority vote in county or regional council, and approval by a majority of the local municipalities in the county or region, representing a majority of residents. Councils will be able to make decisions about down-sizing council size in time for the 1997 elections. - - - Members' tJt/os - Issue: The Municipal Act sets out what members of council can call themsetves. In cities, they can call themselves either "alderman" or "councillor', but in towns, townships and villages, only "councillor" can be used. - What's changing; The Municipal Act Is being amended to allow coundls to decide what mem~ers should be called. For example. they will be able to decide whether the head of council should be called "mayor', hreeve". "warden" or something else, and they will be able to call themselves "councillors" or "aldermen" or any other title they choose. If they do not choose otherwise, the Act provides for "mayor" and "councillor'. - - Ward structures - Issue: Municipal legislation allows for the election of council members at large or by ward. Changing between systems or adjusting a ward system has been a complicated matter. involving either changes to legislation or the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. - What's changing; Municipalities will be given more discretion to decide whether councillors should be elected in wards, at large, or a combination of the two, with a requirement that they give the public notice before making the decision and hold a public meeting. While the decision may be appealed to the OMS, if there is no appeal. council's by-law comes into effect light away. - October 17, 1996 - - ... - .. .. BACKGROUNDER Other Municipal Issues ... Delegation af TNpon$ibllity ."" Issue: Some municipalities believe the Municipal Act prevents councits from delegating operational responsibilities to committees or staff, resulting in inefficiency and increased cos1s. .. Whafs changing: The legislation is being amended to clarify that municipal councils may delegate a range of administrative responsibilities to committees or staff. They will not be able to delegate governmental responsibilities such as passing by.laws, adopting budgets, cancelling, reducing or defraying taxes, and appointing or removing statutory officers. Inquiries into Municipal Conduct .. .. Issue: Municipal legislation allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the Minister's recommendation, to establish a commission to inquire into the affairs of a mun~pality. There are more than 10 other ways in which allegations of municipal wrong-doing can be investigated. ranging from a police investigation or an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act to an inquiry by Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff. .. What's changing; Unnecessary duplication is being eliminated by removing inquiry provisions from the Municipal Act and from upper tier legislation. The other measures are still available. .. Ucensing of AIrport Taxis .. Issue: Municipal authority to license taxis is limited in the case of taxis that serve federal airports. These airports may soon be operated by other agencies on behalf of the federal govemment. The law will have to be clarified to address these new operating arrangements. ... What's changing: The current limitation on municipal licensing of airport taxis is being extended to include aifllOrts operated by airport authorities on behalf of the federal government. .. October 17, 1996 ... .. .. .. .. .. .. - - BACKGROUNDER . - Municipal liability - Municipalities are very concerned about Ontario's rules governing municipal liability. The cost of municipal liability insurance is rising rapidly. By 1997, premiums are expected to be just about double what they were only three years earlier. ... According to municipalities, recent court decisions awarding substantial damages are increasingly affecting municipal decision-making. Municipalities say such decisions are driving up municipal costs by setting standards for municipal service delivery that are very expensive to meet. They argue that this takes money away from other municipal services their communities want. These budget decisions, they suggest, should be made by democratically elected councils, not by judges. - - Municipalities want predictable legal liability so they can plan. and so they can buy affordable insurance. They want reform in order to ensure that municipal services the community wants remain affordable, and theretO're available to the community. Municipalities have asked the government to reduce or prohibit claims based on: acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform discretionary functions; systems of inspections or maintenance or the performance of inspections or maintenance: failure to enforce any by-law; nuisance liability arising from roads or the operation of a public utility, ditch, or dam: accidents caused by snow or ice, unless the municipality is found to be negligent: liability arising from the obligation to repair roads. - .... .. ~. .. The government is making changes in the areas of nuisance liability and liability for negligence. The goal is to strike 8 balance that achieves an appropriate level of municipal responsibility while allowing municipalities to k.eep costs at a level taxpayers can afford. - Nuisllncs HllbiHty - Issue: Until 1989, municipalities were not generally held responsible for damage that occurred as a result of undertaking public works they were legally permitted to do. unless they wete negligent in carrying out the activity. A 1989 court decision changed that. Since then, municipalities have been paying out large amounts of mOQey for damages as a result of nuisances, most often sewer back-ups and watermain breaks. - - Municipalities have asked for immunity from nuisance liability arising from the operation and maintenance of roads. public utilities, dikes. ditches and dams. Concerns have been raised about nuisance liability arising from sewer back-ups and watermain breaks. expecially since homeowners' insurance usually covers these. - 1 - - - What's changing: legislation is being amended to protect municipalities and their public utility commissions from nuisance costs resulting from the failure of municipal sewer and water systems unless the municipality is somehow negligent. This has been the main area of concern for municipalities. Several other provinces have already moved in this direction. Lillbility fo, negligence r.ue; Municipalities can be found liable for damages caused by a fai/ure to carry out duties required of them by law or by a failure to carry out these duties in a reasonable manner. They can also be found liable for damages caused by the failure to carry out discretionary functions, such as providing advice, in a reasonable manner. Municipalities are particularly concerned about Claims related to legislated duties in three major areas: the Municipal Act requirement that they Keep roads, bridges and sidewalks in repair; the Occupiers Uability Act requirement that they maintain property in a condition that is reasonably safe for occupants; and the Building Code Act requirement that they issue permits and inspect plans and the construction of buildings. MuniCipalities have expressed concern about recent increases in the number of claims for negligent bUilding inspection and in the number of claims related to the repair of roads. Ontario judges currently apply certain criteria when they evaluate what standards a reasonable municipality should be expected to adopt when carrying out discretionary functions and when carrying out legislated duties under the Municipal Act, Occupiers Uability Act and Building Code Act, In the caSe of the repair of roads, for example, municipalities are generally required to maintain a reasonable standard of care, having regard to the character and location of the road. .:t What's changing; Municipalities will continue to be required to keep roads. bridges, and sidewalks in repair. But the law would give them more certainty about the standards of care expected of them in carrying out these activities. In the case of roads and bridges, the Ministry of Transportation is being given regulatory powers to set standards for municipalities which, if met, would protect municipalities from liability claims. Umits to liability that have been applied by the courts are also being codified. For example, it will be clarified that municipalities' statutory duty is to keep roads and bridges in '"reasonable" repair, having regard to a number of factors such as character of the road or bridge and where it is located; and that a municipality is not liable if it did not know of road or bridge disrepair and could not reasonably have known. In the same spirit, a municipality's protection from liability when it takes reasonable steps to prevent disrepair or to remedy it will also be codified. Umits of liability that have been applied by the courts with respect to discretionary municipal functions, such as providing advice, are also being codified. The government will be further reviewing liability issues related to building inspection, occupiers' liability and joint and several liability for a second phase of municipal liability reform planned for next spring. Oc.obsr 17, 1996 2 ... ... ... .. .. ... ... ... "'" "'" ... .. .. "'" ... "'" ... ... .. .. .. BACKGROUNDER - Changes to the Municipal Election Process - - The current municipal election process requires more than 40 prescribed forms and covers 18 months. People who work with it want a process that guarantees electoral integrity, but is flexible enough to work in a changing world and reflect local circumstances. - The government is clarifying and simplifying the Municipal EJections Act and other local election legislation. The aim is to moderni2:e and streamline the law so .it can accommodate new ways of voting, some of which we can anticipate - voting by phone. mail-in. or touch screen voting - and others not yet imagined. - Issue: Many concerns about the election process have been raised over the past 10 years. .. The process is too lengthy. It starts in January of the election year when candidates can register for office and runs to June of the year following elections when candidates file their financial statements. - The process is not responsive to its users. Electors say voting is not 8S easy as it should be. Candidates say a growing number of forms makes the process too complicated. Administrators say it continues to be too open to abuse. - The process is inefficient and encourages waste alld duplication. For example. ballots have to be distributed among 18 different types of envelopes: separate processes are required for registration and nomination of candidates; polls must be held in areas where there are probably no Qualified electors; recounts can happen automatically, at taxpayers' expense: and the provincial legislature has to spend too much time reviewing and passing minor legislative amendments to make the process work. - - The process discourages innovation. It assumes there is only one right way to conduct an election. This ignores the considerable expertise among municipal officials and their ability to create new methods which still achieve the objectives. - - The legislation is overly prescriptive, but still open to abuse. It tries to anticipate every eventuality. This is unrealistic in a changing environ'ment. Despite heavy regulation, people still get around the rules. The use of proxy forms. for example, has led to doubts about the validity of some election results and has brought the process into disrepute. - What's changing: A number of changes are being made to reinforce the accessibility and integrity of the election process. These changes will also help make the process more efficient, while protecting the privacy of the elector. and providing flexibility to the people who run elections while maintaining consistency so electors across the province will have the same basic voting rights. .. - - - Quslificstion liS 8n "IBcto/' The qualification period for electors will be from the Tuesday after Labour Day in an election year until voting day. Sectors must be Canadian citizens, 18 yesrs of age or older, and a resident in the municipality or the owner or tenant of separately-assessed property in the municipality. A resident of a municipality is someone whose permanent home is there. Legislation is being amended to clarify that a person can have only one residence. Students who attend school away from home or others who are owners or tenants would continue to qualify as non-resident electors. QuslifiClltion tiS a candidate For most people, the Qualification to be a candidate will continue to be the same, except that .undischarged bank.rupts. will no longer be prevented from holding office. For local government employees - including school board employees - who wish to seek elected office, a single standard of eligibility is being established, rather than the many standards that now exist. R.ferends All municipalities, elected local boards and the Province will be permitted to place questions on the municipal ballot without the need for Ontario Municipal Board approval. A mechanism will be put in place to allow the municipality to recover any COsts attributable to a referendum. Election lIdm;n;strstion The current Municipal Elections Act is being streamlined and modernized. It will be flexible enough to meet local needs and permit local discretion within a framework that provides for a fair, non-biased election and fair, consistent treatment of voters and candidates. The intention of the voter in mark.ing the ballot will be the primary consideration in vote counting decisions. Voter accessibility and convenience and the integrity and scrutiny of the election process will take priority over administrative convenience and efficiency. Municipalities will be required to have at least one advance poll, but they'll be able to decide whether to hold more, and how many to hold. An exception would be where the municipality provides an alternative and electors can vote on their own behalf without having to go to a voting station. A municipality that allows voting by telephone or mail, for example. would not have to have advance polls. Voting hours on voting day will continue to be from 10 a.m. to B p.m., but municipalities will be able to open the polls earlier if local circumstances warrant it. The need for a specific municipal enumeration will be eliminated, making possible a common enumeration for municipal. provincial and federal elections. 2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. lIIIIi - - - The Assessment Commissioner will no longer send out Voter Identification Notices or do supplementary enumeration of campuses. Canadian Forces Bases and Psychiatric hospitals in September of election years. This duplicates what the clerk does during the revision period. - For privacy reasons voters lists will no longer be posted in conspicuous public places Or be available for sale, but they will be available for inspection through the dark. - The registration form candidates must file after January 1 of an election year and before they raise or spend any money will be combined with the nomination form into one form. - A deposit will be required of candidates. The deposit will be refunded if the candidate is elected or gets a certain percentage of the vote. The amount of the deposit and the percentage will be set by regulation. - The municipal clerk will be authorized to reject a nomination/registration paper if he or she is satisfied that the candidate is not qualified. - Sectors will continue to be able to appoint someone to vote on their behalf unless the council provides for a way of voting without actually going to a polling station. This could take the form of a mail~in ballot. for example. - Recounts by the clerk will be held if there is a tie vote, if the council or local board decides a recount is necessary in the "public interest", or if the Ontario Court <General Division) is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for holding one. Recounts will no longer be held simply because the vote was close. - - The clerk will be permitted to dispose of all ballots and papers 90 days after the posting of the .official results" unless a judge has ordered otherwise or recount and appeal proceedings have not yet been completed. - Current provisions with respect to election campaign financing will be maintained, except as follows. The Commission on Election Finances will no longer have a role in municipal elections. Any person will be permitted bring a court action for violations of campaign finance provisions. Councilor the local board will be permitted to undenake a compliance audit. The time limit for lodging a campaign finance complaint will be 90 days after the filing deadline. - - - Campaign contributions, fund raising and expenses will only be permitted during the campaign period. - - 3 - - .. ... The campaign period will begin on January 1 in an election year after registration/nomination papers have been filed. It will end on December 1 in an election year but may be continued in order for a candidate to erase a deficit. The over-aU length of the election process would be reduced from 18 to 1 3 months. .. Media advertising will no longer be restricted to the 28 days before voting day. ... A candidatB who would otherwise have a surplus will be able to return his or her own contributions. or his or her Spouse's contributions, to the point of reducing the surplus to zero. ... Candidates who both spend and raise less than $10.000 will be required.to file a financial statement. noting any surplus or deficit position and listing all contributions over $100. Candidates who spend or raise $10.000 or more will be required to fire an aUditp-d financial statement in the prescribed form. .. Candidates will be required to withdraw their nomination/registration before filing a second nomination/registration for another position. In such a case. each candidacy will be treated as a separate campaign. However, where there are no wards, the campaign wifl be deemed to be continuous. _ .. .. The revised legislation will clarify that services donated by people acting on a volunteer basis do not count as a contribution. .. Only campaign surpluses in excess of $500 will have to be turned over to the clerk and held in trust for future election purposes. Surpluses of $500 or less will be deemed to be the candidate's own funds. ... Where a local council Or local board decides to underwrite the costs of candidates' election campaigns through a contribution rebate system, the administration of such a system will be the responsibility of the local board or council as the case may be. ... The number of prescribed municipal election forms will be reduced from 40 to five. The required forms will be the combined registration/nomination form. the proxy form, two financial disclosure forms. and the ballot. ... .. October 17, 1996 ... .. .. 4 iii . .. ... - BACKGROUNDER - Community TransponatJon Action Program - Communitv Transportation in Ontario .. Public transit, school buses, health and social service agency vehicles, intercity buses, and transportation services for seniors and people disabilities all operate at the loca' 'evel snd are vital to the economic and social well being of our communities. They provide access to employment, education and training, health and social services, recreation and other community activities. The need for these services is growing at the very time that there is intense competition for resources. New ways of managing and delivering services must be found to keep the province moving. - - The Community Transportation Action Program (CT AP) is a new joint initiative. Five Ontario government ministries are working together to offer transitional help to communities to maximize resources to solve local transportation problems. CTAP encourages service coordination, organizational restructuring, intrOducing low cost alternatives and other efficiency measures, Partner ministries are also committed to eliminating rad tape-barriers to coordination that may arise from within their own programs. - .. The Community Transportation Action Program has been endorsed by the Who D08S What Panel and the panel recommended that the province bring forward legislative changes required to remove the statutory and regulatory impediments preventing the development of coordinated and integrated community transportation services. The main focus of the proposed reforms is to increase the flexibility and autonomy of communities, whife removing red tape and other barriers that impede their ability to manage costs and other local matters efficiently and effectively. .. - Definition of Community Trsnsportation .. Issue: Currently the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act does not recognize community transportation and the range of transportation services at the local/evel that could fall within a more coordinated system. - What's changing: Legislation is being amended to provide a definition of community transportation. The intent of the amendment is to give recognition to a new way of managing local transportation services. and removes potential barriers to the ability of communities to coordinate, restructure, facilitate or provide these services. - Alternate Funding for Community Trsnsportstlan - - Issue: Local communities and the private sector continue to play an active role in the provision of public transportation services. With the Inclusion of a definition of community transportation there is a need to ensure some consistency in the of treatment of funds raised and spent by local governments, the private sector and others 10r community transoortation services. - - - ... .. What's changing: Legislation is being amended to explicitly allow municipalities, the private sector and others to raise and spend funds towards community transportation services. The amendment will assist municipalities and other entities to maintain existing community transportation services. .. filii Community TrsnsponatiorJ DsmorJstnJtions Issue: A key component of CT AP is the demonstration of practical ideas and options for restructuring, coordinating, facilitating or providing community transportation services and the removal of any barriers that stand in the way, filii What's changing: The legislation is being amended to explicitly allow the Minister of Transportation, municipalities or looal boards to enter into agreements to coordinate, facilitate. restructure or provide community transportation, including the provision of demonstrations or experimental projects. filii ... Non-Ambulance Medicsl Trsnsportlltion Issue: The Community Transportation Review found that some trips perforrned by ambulances, particularly in large urban centres could be done safely and less expensively by other means. ... filii What's changing: The AmQufance Act is being amended to provide a clearer definition of necessary ambulance use. This amendment more clearly defines the appropriate use of ambulances as a specialized community transportation resource, while recognizing that alternative providers can play 8 tole in meeting demand for non-ambulance medical transportation. The Ministries of Health and Transportation have agreed that various amendments will be made to regulations to establish standards for vehicle safety and licensing, driver licensing and training as appropriate for non-ambulance medical transportation service providers. In recognition of the role local communities may wish to play in setting standards for non-ambulance medical transportation service providers. the Hiahwav Traffic Act is being amended to give municipalities the powers to enact by-laws with respect to these setvices. filii .. ... .. October 17. 1996 .. ... .. 2 .. IlIii ... ... - BACKGROUNDER - Municipal Debt and Investment Policy ... ... Ontario's municipalities face many restrictions on how they borrow and invest. The province imposes these restrictions to protect municipal and provincial credit ratings, maintain investor confidence and protect taxpayers. At the same time. municipaJities. which are elected governments with taxing authority, have proven to be competent. prudent and sophisticated financial managers. . Over the past year, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Working Group on Municipal Debt Issuance and Investment Policy - which included provincial and municipal representatives. as wen as representatives of the investment community - looked at the balance between protecting provincial interests and giving municipalities the flexibility they need to make the best possible borrowing and investment arrangements. A number of changes were recommended to allow municipalities to take advantage of opponunities in capital and financial markets and to reduce the casts of borrowing and investing while maintaining fiscal integritY and prudence. Another objective is to permit municipalities to keep pace with changes in technology, capital markets and best practices relating to municipal borrowing and investing. - - - - Defining investment ptlWflrs - Issue: Municipalities can invest surplus funds, and it is in the taxpayer's interest for them to gltt the best rate of return on that money. The rules governing which investment instruments municipalities can use for mast of their investments are set out in the Municipal Act. In the case of sinking funds, the rules are contained in the Trustee Act, which governs public trusts and sets out the rules for their administration and the responsibilities of the trustees. - - What's changing; Municipalities will be permitted to invest in a range of instruments which will be defined in a regulation. (See attached list of investments likely to be permitted.) The regulation will not permit municipalities to invest in publicly traded corporate stocks. In order to promote best practices in financial management. and encourage municipalities to monitor their awn investment practices, municipalities will be required to prepare a Statement of Investment POlicies and Goals. and to prepare an annual report to council on their compliance with it. .. - VMiable fllte debentures - ... Issue: Municipalities are not permitted by law to issue variable rate debentures. The goal was to limit risk and make sure municipalities could determine the cost of borrowing up- front. and budget for servicing the debt. However the capital and financial markets are changing. This restriction now means municipalities may be paying more than they should to borrow. - 1 - - ... .. Ufting the restriction would aUow them to take advantage of lower short tonn rates and avoid locking in for a long term if they have to borrow when rates are high. What's changing: Municipalities will be given the authority to issue variable rate . debentures, subject to certain conditions. One condition will be that only municipalities with at least a AA- credit rating will be able to issue variable rate debentures. These municipalities have proven by their past performance they are capable of using more sophisticated financial instruments. Other conditions could include things like limits on the amount of debt issued as variable rate debenture, hedging requirements and regular reporting to council. ... ... .. CoUSbOTtltive IImlngement& on short term borrowing Issue: Municipalities are currently allowed to make short term loans to other municipalities, but not to other broader public sector bodies. such as hospitals. Municipalities are permitted to enter into pooling arrangements for investments, including short term investments, with most of the broader public sector. This represents a significant source of funds for short term lending, such as overnight loans. Allowing broader public sector bodies and municipalities to cover each other's short term borrowing needs would help reduce shOrt-term borrowing costs for these bodies and therefore save taxpayers li1'oney. ... .. .. What's changing: Municipalities and other broader public sector bodies will be permitted to cover each other's short term borrowing requirements. .. Frequency of Interest pllyments Issue: When municipalities issue debentures. they are prevented by law from making interest payments more than twice a year. Since other investments pay interest monthly, municipal debentures are less attractive to investors, particularly retirees, who need a monthly income stream. ... IIIIIi What's changing: Municipalities will now be permitted to make interest payments more frequently than semi-annually. .. October 17. 1996 .. .. ... .. 2 I11III l1li .. ... - Proposed permitted Investments for municipalities ... - Generally, municipalities would be permitted to invest in bonds. debentures (or other debt) of, or guaranteed by, governments and municipalities. The most imponant include, (a) . Government of Canada debt - . provincial debt ... . United Kingdom debt . Canadian municipal debt (also includes school debt) - (b) debt secured by Canadian real estate. ... (c) corporate debt (includes bonds or debentures) seCUi ad by payments of the Canadian government. ... (d) registered loan corporation debentures. (e) Guaranteed Investment Certificates of a registered trust - corporation. (f) debt or securities issued or guaranteed by the International - Bank. (g) bank deposits and similar instruments. - (h) credit union term deposits. - Municipalities would also be able to invest in corporate debt secured by payments under Federal or Provincial statute. - The regulation will not permit municipalities to invest in publicly traded corporate stocks. - - T7n1llboVfl 6tatemflnt dflsclibing the proposed scop. of municipal permitted inwumflnts is not necen8lily comple"'. a. it is intended for th. gtlMral information of municipalities and the pubRc. O.tllil. and particular cin:umsta11C"$ may vaty. Aecorriingly, anyone propozling ", inttlm$t6d in /In tlctUIII imlfl$tmflnt should not l'f1/y on thh 8tlItflmflnt. Such ptlnons a", IIdvisfld to colf$4llt the official nBtutfl$ and rrlgulations. any "".Vllnt municipal byfaw., /Inti obtain legal advice if ntICIIs:raty. - - - - )~~ '\ WillY ~tlends of the Fiiiewell 3200 Hancock Rd., COUNCIL DIRECTION Courticc, Ontario LIE 2MI Phone: (905) 436-2376 Fax: (905) 837-6680 ig.J UU I 0-1 ... OCT 17 II 07 nM '96 ... To Council and Planning Department. - Oct. 15, 1996 SUbject: By-law request AGENDA - ... Since Mr. Wu had stated that the by-laws are being rewritten we would like to request a by-law along the lines of 84-89, but to apply to areas in general. "The fo 11 owi ng gu ide 1 i nes will be used in preparat i on of ne i ghbourhood development plans: i) that lands identified as "Envi ronmentally Sensitive", "Hazard Lands" and "Open Space Areas" will be non-developable; - ... ii) That lands identified as "Special Policy Areas" will not be developped unless detailed hydrological studies prepared to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority indicate such is feasible; and - iii) That lands identified as "Urban Residential Areas" will be developped on the basis of sound engineering and planning practices to conserve, as much as possible, important wildlife habitat." - - - Yours sincerely, - cL~y ~~ - Libby and Stan Racansky 3200 Hancock Rd. Court ice, Onto Lle 21-11 f~;'l~:::~r~Tl(-) ~i-'-! CLERI< .L~~_....__._ .1 ...."ny~ -,.!. ~ t, . . . .... 'h _. . .."! \.~. ....-. . .,,,, 1 i'.; .' .;. I. ~ -r-; X',.1 ) : .......''.'.'... ,.,.?.....~~~ /'-' :clj..~~.;. '," I '. '. . . . ... '--1 : . -~ . - . .# . . CL/,JLL ( ...~ - ... - ;.- ..... .' ~ .. - o dS' {~~,_.~.:.~~~- . ..,-'- _... ~ '. ... - - - - ... ... ... - - .. - ... - - - .. - - - P.02 COUNCIL DIRECTION SRI CHINMOY PEACE FOUNDATION OF CANADA 0-2 October 9, 1996 BY FAX OCT 15 12 19 PH '96 PEACe MWrTATtON AT THE: UNITeD NATIONS PEACE RUN AND MARATHON TEAM lUARNA-KAl..A FOUNTAIN ART PEACt BLOSSOMS Mayor Diane Hamre Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LtC 3A6 AGENDA Dear Mayor Hamre: As a Sri Chinmoy Peace Town, we are delighted to inform you that the Statue of Liberty in New York City has recently joined the Sri Chiwnoy Peace~Blossoms program. On August 27th, 1996. the Statue of Liberty. symbolizing freedom and brotherhood. was dedicated as an international Sri Chinmoy peace monument. Your participation in the Peace-Blossoms program, along with hundreds like you throughout the world, inspired the governing committee of the Statue of Liberty to join with you in offering a global message of peace and oneness. In the very near future. we hope to present a book of peace-letters to Ms. Diane Dayson, Superintendent of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, from fellow members of the Peace-Blossoms family. We would be honoured to include a letter of welcome and congratulations from you and the people of the Municipality of Clarington in this special presentation. If you would be so kind as to address your letter of welcome and congratulations to : Ms. Diane Dayson Superintendent Statue of Liberty/EUis Island National Monuments New York. NY 10004 As time is a factor, please feel free to fax your letterto Ms. Dayson at (212) 363-8347 as well as to the head office of the Sri Chlnmoy Peace-Blossoms program at (718) 291-6978. Since the beginning of this year, some of the more notable Sri Chinmoy Peace-Blossoms dedications have included Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe. the Sydney Opera House in Australia. Prague's Intemational Airport in the Czech Republic and Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, We hope you will join us in welcoming Diane Dayson and the Statue of Liberty to.our globaL '.. ...."-',...... peace family and thank you for being an inspiration to her and all future peace dediC.tiOl'~~~;Tm~.1 OJ ~~~y i-'Z:,."~)~af~J Project Coor-.::.inator ....- ,.- --- - r~--- . . ___;.....-.--..:......: NA Tk1NAl. ...,.AJ)QUARTEt~: 200-67 A Sparks Street. Ottawa, Ont. KIP SA5 ~ (613) 233-747~;;;~~;a-l..----.;, }-.---..- ---':'- ..--; ~_._--_. _.--- ;----.---- \"-;"'I.-E-7:[q~~~ Secretary of State (Veterans) 0-3 ... ... Secretaire d'Etat (Anciens combattants) OCT IS IZ 19 PM '96 ... AG E N ~D":' .r...~ l:' :'." . Ji';j u~mccj]l1WraID OCT 8 1996 - Your Worship: j~u~.uClrALlTY OF CLARINGTON MAYOR'S OFFICE ... Remembrance Day is fast approaching and I am writing to seek your support in honouring veterans during the week leading up to Remembrance Day. ... - Prime Minister Jean Chretien has declared November 3 - 11, 1996, Veterans' Week in honour of all our veterans and peacekeepers. This week is dedicated to honouring their commitment, courage and sacrifice. - To promote awareness of Veterans' Week, I encourage you to declare November 3 - November 11 a "special week" in your community. Some ideas on possible community activities are attached for your consideration. - In emphasizing the sacrifice and courage of our veterans and peacekeepers, we hope to foster an appreciation of the qualities of fairness, caring and commitment which are so important to the peace and freedom we enjoy in this wonderful country. - I very much hope that you will consider marking this week in your community, and I would be pleased to learn the results of any initiative your community may undertake during - Veterans' Week. - ,. . ..- .._.) i - \_-------4: l -~..-,-'_. 'i l. r--"- --1- .-.---- ---_.~\~~.~=~~. _._-~..j; x~ma(~ Yours sincerely, - - Lawrence MacAulay, P.c., M.P. - -- -.--.-'t - --......---...-1 - !1cA_..6~- - - House of Commons Chambre des communes Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa (Ontario) K 1 A OA6 ... .. SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES FOR VETERANS' WEEK .. As a municipality - Declare Veterans' Week (November 3 - November 11) .. - Take advantage of the willingness of veterans in your community to become involved in activities and to share their stories with youth (contact your local veterans organizations may be able to assist) .. - Present local veterans with a certificate of appreciation. .. At your schools - Encourage school boards/teachers to invite local veterans as guest speakers in their classrooms or to develop special Veterans' Week programs of their own (contact your local veterans organizations are a prime source for names of veterans willing to speak) 1IIlIi 1IIlIi - Invite school boards/teachers to take students on a tour of the Veterans Affairs Canada Home Page (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca). .. Community Groups/Activities - Encourage community groups (e.g. Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, service clubs) to invite local veterans as guest speakers or to develop special Veterans' Week programs of their own .. - Invite local veterans organizations to participate at regional fairs or other community activities by setting up displays or information tables or by inviting them to speak at special ceremonies 1IIlIi .. - Organize special Veterans' Week theme meetings in regular community organizations, e.g.. Kiwanis, Toastmasters, Girl Guides, Boy Scouts, 4-H Clubs, church discussion groups etc. A local hero might be discussed; a veteran might talk about his or her wanime experiences, NFB films on the era could be shown, people who lived through the First or Second World War or Korean War could be invited to speak of their experiences. The experience of Canadian peacekeepers might be explored in panel discussions. .. - .. - Hobby clubs, such as miniaturists or stamp collectors, might put on special exhibits featuring wartime models or stamps .. - Service clubs might participate in Remembrance Day school observances by donating Canadian military history books to the school library or giving the school the edu-:ational kit, "Canada's Coming of Age". (see attached pamphlet) .. - Work the Veterans' Week theme into your scheduled events such as fall fairs, theatre and sports events. Recognize veterans who have participated in these events or dedicate the event to veterans that week. .. .. III - ... Local Libraries - Have your local library create a special Veterans' Week display with books and other materials on war and remembrance - - Host a book donation ceremony at your local library with a presentation of books on war and remembrance. ... Please make Veterans' Week a special time for thanking our veterans and listening to their stories. Show them you care about the sacrifices they made in serving their country. - - If you hold a Veterans' Week activity, please let us know about it. Your participation may help generate ideas for other communities that want to organize Veterans' Week activities. For participating the name of your municipality will be included in a draw for ten educational kits on our country's participation in the Second World War, "Canada's Coming of Age". Please mail or fax a short description of your Veterans' Week activities to me at Veterans Affairs Canada in Ottawa. - - Thank you for considering marking Veterans' Week in your community. If Veterans Affairs Canada can be of assistance please contact: - Pat Smith at (613) 992-7470 Mamie Johnstone at (613) 995-7158 Or fax (613) 947-0990 - - - - - - - - - - s' .. - 71ie Cfo/ ~ Ttmmfo COUNCIL DIRECTION The City of Vaughan 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan. Ontario Canada L6A 1T1 Tel [905] 832-2281 D-4 vai@tan - - - - October 17, 1996 - Ms. Patti Barrie, Clerk Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6 - - Dear Ms. Barrie: Re: MONTE CARLO LOTTERY LICENSING - I enclose for your information and any action deemed necessary, Item 3, Report No. 28 of the Committee of the Whole, regarding the above noted matter which was adopted without amendment by the Council of the City of Vaughan at its meeting of October 15, 1996. - I draw to your attention the amendment at the beginning of the item. - .. - - 1. Extract , I DfS~UTION I CLERK -. __. ACK. BY ORIGINAl TO- ,.JO.PIES ~TQ:.."" ", ,---1, I ~.". I 1---..--- - 1 i~==~---"'- -=-=.~ 1'------...-..--.1..... -----4 : . I 1"'-'-.".,.-------1- --- t: . --...+--j fi.l~ ; .F"[.,=-,~~~' Attachment - :gp - - - @ - We rncycle CITY OF VAUGHAN .. Item 3, Report No. 28 of the Committee of the Whole, which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Vaughan on October 15, 1996, as follows: . .. By approving the following resolution contained in the additional report of the City Clerk dated October 15, 1996: WHEREAS in these difficult economic times charitable organizations are relying more than ever on funding raised through lotteries and charitable gaming such as Monte Carlo events; and .. IlIIII WHEREAS it is incumbent upon municipalities to provide a "level playing field" so that charitable organizations have equal opportunity to conduct Monte Carlo events to raise funds for charitable purposes; and .. WHEREAS some municipalities have adopted policies that prevent charitable organizations not based within their jurisdiction from conducting Monte Carlo events within their boundaries; .. THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED THA T the City of Vaughan encourages municipalities not to adopt policies that would prevent charitable organizations based outside their jurisdiction from conducting Monte Carlo events in their municipality; and ... THA T municipalities that have adopted policies which prevent charitable organizations based outside their jurisdiction from conducting Monte Carlo events in their municipalities be requested to revoke any such policy in order to allow charitable organizations equal access to this significant source of funding for the purpose of carrying out charitable activities in Ontario; and ... .. THA T this resolution be forwarded to all GTA lower tier municipalities, the Registrar, Ontario Gaming Control Commission and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. .. k::~:~::~:::::::::::1~'{{::;:::::l'l::::::::::f:::::::::::::::::::::~::~::::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::::!::::::~~::::qm~:::::::::::~:::::::::!:::!:::::::::::}:!ii:!:::::::::~:::::::::!:::::~:::::!::t[;I$tli:!:!t:::l:i:i:;:::i:;:::;:!:!:~:~:::!::::$f:::::~:::::::!\:!:!:!:i~:~:i:::::~::!:::::::::l:~ .. 3 MONTE CARLO LOTTERY LICENSING The Committee of the Whole recommends: .. 1) That the recommendation contained in the following report of the City Clerk dated October 7,1996, be approved; .. 2) That Staff draft a resolution for the Council meeting of October 15, 1996, to be circulated to other municipalities for endorsement to encourage them to eliminate municipal boundaries for Monte Carlo charity casinos to allow all charities a level playing field; and .. 3) That the deputation by Mr. Perin, be received. Recommendation .. That this item be received for information purposes and for direction. IlIIII Backqround Council at its meeting of September 30, 1996 requested a report on how Monte Carlo licences issued in other municipalities discriminate against Vaughan based charities and how our rules might be changed to confer the same advantages on Vaughan charities as enjoyed by non- Vaughan charities in their home municipalities. .../2 .. .. (EXTRACT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 7,1996) .. Item 3, Report No. 28 - Paqe 2 - - Staff of the City of Vaughan presently issue approvals to the Province of Ontario to issue Monte Carlo licences to all properly registered charities, notwithstanding whether they are Vaughan based or not. The City of Vaughan does not at this time restrict the number of events a charity can operate during any given month. Approved locations as per Provincial mandate cannot operate anymore than one (1) Monte Carlo event per month. For the period commencing January 1, 1996 to present the City of Vaughan has issued approvals to eight (8) Vaughan based charities for a total of thirty seven (37) events to be held in eighteen (18) approved sites in the City of Vaughan. A total of 44 events have been approved for charities whose home bases are not located within the City of Vaughan. Of these 44 events no Vaughan based charity has been denied a licence as a result thereof. - - ... Staff has conducted a brief summary surrounding municipalities vis-a-viz their policies on the issuance of Monte Carlo licences. Certain municipalities in York Region restrict the issuance of licences to home based charities only, while other municipalities approve licences if it can be demonstrated that a percentage of the proceeds from the charitable events benefit residents of that municipality and/or York Region. - .. Staff are of the opinion that if Council wishes to adopt a more restrictive policy with respect to Monte Carlo licensing that home based charities be limited to operate no more than 1 event per month at any given approved location within the municipality. This will allow for equal opportunity for all home based charities. Organizations such as the Cancer Society, March of Dimes, etc. that can demonstrate a benefit to York Region residents will be afforded the opportunity of being approved for such licences once all home based charities have been dealt with. - - Staff believes that this policy, if adopted, may have an affect on the proprietors operating the approved Monte Carlo locations in that they may not be booked to hold Monte Carlo events on a monthly basis, as is now the case. In the interest of these business, staff recommend that any policy adopted by Council contain provisions that outside charities be given approval on the basis that 50% of the funds realized by the charity be directed back into the municipality to benefit residents within the City. .. JAVC/Jlh - Councillor Carella, declared an interest with respect to the foregoing matter, as this item involves an organization to whom he devotes volunteer time and did not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter. - Mr. Rino Perin, Office Manager for the Vitanova Foundation appeared before Committee with respect to the foregoing matter. - - - - - - (EXTRACT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1996) ... - - - .. .. - - - - - - - .. - - - - - ... COUNCIL DIRECTION D-5 The Royal Canadian Legion -+- BOWMANVILLE (ONT. NO. 178) BRANCH BOWMANVILLE. ONTARIO L1 C 3K8 TELEPHONE: (90S) 623-9032 IIlIBitmllWIl!1}) October 16, 1996 AGENDA OCT 2 1 1996 Mayor Diane Hamre Clarington Town Hall 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6 :;lUNJCIPAlITY OF CLARINGTON MAYOR'S OFFICE Mayor Hamre On behalf of the Executive and Members of the Royal Canadian Legion, and the Poppy Chairman Phyllis Rose I am writing to request permission to distribute Poppies in the Municipality of Clarington between November 1 and November II, 1996. We would also like permission to fly the Poppy Flag starting November I, 1996. Your permission for the above duties is very important to the success of our Poppy Campaign. Please respond in writing to Box 116, Bowmanville, ON LIC 3K8. Attn: Phyllis Rose, Poppy Chairman. In Comradeship I--.---.----~---- I DIST~TfON. I CLEFI/( L~_ i ACK. BY -- ----:- i ..---" 1__~!~IGINAl. : ._. f t COPIES TO. 1 I=-=~=='--~-~~" - ~+ -=~--==~ ! ~~"__""'_n..~_~.__.___.- ........)_....__ -----..1 i._ ---..q ..-.1 y,. /, ._Ct r?!f4<,"~____ Cecile D. Bowe~~:~retary Br. 178 -. - - . ... [ ':-..-._~_._---_..j i----'.......-.-...~-~-..-. ,.-.,---.--1 /----------..--- _. ;.._____11 I ' C~~~TllG;r.L0.?~ -----..._.._~~_...----:~':: . . <They served till death! Why not we?" - MUN.lCIPALlTY OF CLARINGTON MAYOR'S OFFICE COUNCIL DIRECTION Gordon & Cecilia Mills PO Box 183 Orono, Ontario LOB 1 MO Home Phone 905-983-9773 D-6 .. tnmreTBrrWl1m OCT 1 7 1996 ... AGENDA October 11, 1996 Mayor Hamrie & Members of Council - ... Your Worship and members of council, I wish to report to you what I consider to be a serious traffic hazard. There is at present a stop sign located on a hydro pole and the intersection of Church Street and Cobbledick Road in Orono. The stop sign is located high up on the post and not in a place where the motorist looks for that type of signage. - .. Over the past few months I have narrowly avoided a collision at that spot through cars traveling south on Church Street failing to stop at the intersection as signed. This morning while passing through the intersection a white Ford Tempo came right through the intersection at about 30 m.p.h. with nary a hesitation. I now stop each time I come upon the intersection for fear of being in an accident. - Would please have some one from the traffic department look at the sign, and report back to you with a solution before someone does suffer injury there. - Thank: you very much, - Sincerely;.;? /CW~ yor~ Mills .. - - - I Ci~~:~~~'-'" r AI:K t!y . I ...~. I :"'\''';1'''\,. '\'?" . _, , i'_'..;o,,":;i,eilf(j. . ~~ ~-Ci ,.',~o' Ti, ---.- / l . .oJ V L ~: ~..L<J~~ I I I I"'--~--""''',-- - J I'--=~"'~'..' ..' '_'I~~'==~~ - - - - I.....'........ '",......., .,...."--.~.""i ,..---- m j.G::l I' , . . .. U ~ -,~,.... ,:qr D 'f::; i j ._~: . :.,\-.... ".-............ ....;;.' ~,,-;L. _,_.~:':.:.:;,~:J.~_ ~ - - .. COUNCIL DIRECTION 0-7 .. OCT 23 10 S6 14M '96 .. - SON LAND DEVELOPMENT KG IV {) &j. !V' 0 It) J) /L J) ~ 309 Kendalwood Road Whitby, Ontario ================================================~:~=:::===~~2:f=q=~1=~====== OPRO & 30'( - October 15, 1996 ... ... Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LIC 3A6 - TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: - I am forwarding a copy of a Petition for a Skateboard Park signed by the numerous individuals using the parking lot of our plaza located at 1413 Highway NO.2. - As the owner of this plaza, you can understand that the facility was not developed to provided a recreation area for the area's youth. This is a busy plaza and as you can see by the number of signatures on the petition, this is not a few individuals, but a large group that is causing major disruptions to the traffic and customer flow in the plaza as well as increased property damage and security concerns of both my tenants and myself. I feel that as a taxpayer, it is not my responsibility to provide an area of recreation for the surrounding residential developments. The municipality provides ball parks, soccer fields and playgrounds but not one of these facilities are adequate for skateboarding. Therefore, in order to help in relieving the problem in my plaza, I had the individuals using the area to sign this petition and I agreed to forward it on to the Municipality of Clarington for your comments. - - - I am looking forward to your response regarding the above matter. Thanking you for your attention, - .Q/4-~~ r OS:j7& q I DISTRiBUTION I CU:RI( -.. -- f , j l\ ~~ Y'" BY ~ __ q q ;J'-'(:I~J~,' 10. . . _' "" ~ 1 ,.f, (_ '.'. ..-.-........____.._ t--....-_...^~ ".~,~.~~- .._-._--~._..- ~ t 11D; ~: t __.~ :'. '.- - Sincerely, - OTTO PROVENZANO ,.......---.......--- - -_.~_.- "'-- I - , 1_ .. .,.~ 1 I j-'" . 1----' L__ __, I f::-'. "IJ~ ~j~;=.-~ , . 111 ~.'-..~-;;.S:~.-:";.~: \ . ..-i------. - .~. .'~ .......~. _.....~...n__~ .. .-i....--._~..-----:'. _ 1____'_'__'_, - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - ... ... - - - COUNCIL DIRECTION D-8 TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE Municipality of Clarington I 22 St. Patrick Street, Suite 209 Toronto ON M5T 2X8 Tel: 416-596-0660 Fax: 416-585-2700 Email: tea@web.net Dear Mayor and Members of Council, The Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) has launched a province-wide effort to bring back a workable deposit/return system for soft-drink containers, and we need your Council's help. Since 1991, TEA has been a leader among citizen groups fostering support for the environmentally superior reusable beverage container, over its recyclable counterpart. A . number of municipalities have responded with support for n~fills. Together we are bringing Ontario closer to securing a comeback for a deposit/return system for. soft drink containers, and just in time. With less than 1% of our pop sold in refillable bottles covered by deposit return, only Newfoundland beats out Ontario in the race to have the worst beverage container recovery program in Canada. Municipalities are paying too much to recycle pop bottles In August, articles appeared in both the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail assessing the financial viability of individual materials collected through Metro Toronto's Blue Box program. The costs, compiled by Metro's Works Department, clearly expose the financial burden that pop containers impose on taxpayers. The report revealed that Metro will pay $1.7 million to collect and recycle nearly 60 million 2 litre plastic bottles this year. This is a cost of almost 3 cents a bottle. TEA's newly published, Return to Reuse: Saving the Environment and Tax Dollars nlrough a Refillables System for Soft Drinks, demonstrates just how expensive it is to recycle low density bottles and cans, filled mainly with air, while higher density fibre materials are more efficient and net substantial revenues. If soft drink containers were collected outside the Blue Box program through a deposit return system, municipalities could shift their recycling programs to accommodate more of the profitable fibre materials without adding additional. costs and potentially increasing revenues. \Ve would also protect the environment and divert more waste. Recycling programs are currently only recovering less than 50% of soft drink containers. Refillable bottles collected through a deposit return system can recover almost 100% of containers. This new evidence, coupled with the opportunity provided by the provincial government's (:{)nsideration of scrapping the 30% refill regulations 340 and 357 under the Environmental Protection Act, represents a timely opportunity for renewed discussion and action on the issue. . .. .. The City of Toronto1s City Services Committee recently voted'to investigate waste management programs that favour the reuse of reusable beverage containers and the Ontario Association of Municipalities (AMO) voted unanimously to support a deposit-return system for beverage' containers. .. ... To secure a comeback for refills TEA asks that each Council support the following: 1. Request a financial report on the cost recovery of each material collected through local Blue Box programs and calculate a scenario'ifpop containers were no longer collected through the program. TEA's Return To Reuse details the calculations for how this was achieved through for the City of Toronto. ... .. 2. Write a letter to Norman Sterling, Minister of the Environment and Energy, and to local MPPs recommending the province enact a deposit return system for soft drink and other beverage containers that promotes refillables or is 100% refillable. We urge you to write before October 15, the province's deadline for input on its package on proposed changes to environmental regulations, including the refill laws. .. ... 3. Endorse an amendment to toughen the Association of municipalities ofOntaTIo position on refills, . to say no to all beverage containers collected and processed through the Blue Box program. , . ... While TEA fully supports the continued operation of Ontario's widely sucGessful and valuable Blue Box program, we believe that all materials should be assessed individually to. determine the best method of recovery of our resources. Reuse is environmentally superior to recycling, which. .. results in higher rates of capture and minimizing the destruction of non-renewable resources. For soft drink containers the arguments favour a refillable deposit-return system. ... .. We urge you to join our campaign. Successful deposit return systems exist throughout Canada and Ontario communities are giving the green light for high waste diversion programs. Please feel free to call me at (416) 596-0660 if you have any questions. Our staff people will.contact you .... shortly to solicit your support. . Sincerely, Lois Corbett Executive Director ;:J&v~ (~df Encl. Return To Reuse Report r~ DfST'--~-'TION"" I CLERIC_. I '('fI 'K'Y I ;'.., r... . . . ..........-... i.-~ ,; ;,'; ;:~~~ '~(:/'~ ... .. i.. .,...., ~,,~- ,.. ... ,__ .. J t i....~--~...::~== t,j,,-- ~_.---,..~ . /-.-..:--....-... ...:...- - ,I r-~"'-' "'-'.''''-'-T--- . !~~~'-'~-~-~'~~:".~'~'::'~===l=---=-j , I I i....--.....'.-.-....u.7.7i2' ". .t ; l',;' rO . --- -71..~_w'. ~ I _ .' _ . t . ._~..,.~.......~ .,,;:~ ~;,_.,,:....~:;: :.............'l'.,~~.,..... t. .. ~ ._._~ -_......._..~_.....-.....'. ... ... ... .., - - - - Return to Reuse - - Saving the Environment and Tax Dollars through a Refillables System for Soft Drinks - - - .. - - Toronto Environmental Alliance September 1996 - - - - - - .. .. .. .. Return to Reuse .. Saving the Environment and Tax Dollars through a Refillables System for Soft Drinks - .. Prepared by Franz Hartmann and Greg Simpson - .. This report has been produced by the Waste Reduction Caucus and the staff of the Toronto Environmental Alliance. With special thanks to Lois Corbett, Gord Perks, Shelley Petrie and John Wellner. - .. Toronto Environmental Alliance 122 St. Patrick St., Su.209, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2X8 (416) 596-0660 .. - September 1996 .. - ., l1li .. .. - - - - - - - - .. .. - - - RETURN TO REUSE: SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT AND TAX DOLLARS THROUGH A REFILLABLES SYSTEM FOR SOFT DRINKS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES Ontario municipalities are again questioning both the costs and the environmental benefits of the Blue Box recycling system. In this report, the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) establishes a case for municipalities to; support a return to the refillable glass soft drink container collected through a deposit return system, to continue to collect other more appropriate materials in the Blue Box and to move towards a more environmentally responsible waste diversion system. There is currently no funding coming from the provincial government for the Blue Box program and there are millions of dollars in unpaid funding commitments from the industry association Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Incorporated (OMMRI - reincarnated as Corporations Supporting Recycling or CSR). Material markets remain volatile and unpredictable and revenues are not enough to replace the loss of previous funding. Recovery rates for categories of materials remain below 50%, and the remainder of materials must be collected through conventional waste and litter collection programs and buried in municipal landfills. Against this unstable backdrop, the provincial government is proposing to make changes to its 3Rs regulations to allow municipalities the flexibility to pick and choose which materials they would like to collect in their mandatory recycling system. The Toronto Environmental Alliance supports these changes by the government to the regulations if they can ensure that municipalities can choose to divert waste from disposal through other programs such as deposit-return systems or enforceable disposal bans. The province is also asking for input on possible legislative alternatives to Regulations 340 and 357, which require soft drink companies to sell 30% of their product in refillable bottles with deposits. These containers, which unfortunately form no more than 2% of the current market, rarely end up in a Blue Box, garbage can, or street, and require no funding from municipal taxpayers. The province has never seriously enforced the regulation since its introduction and the current government is now looking for possible alternatives that will serve the original intention of the legislation: to promote reusable containers in Ontario. Figures recently released by the City of Toronto and Metro Toronto indicate taxpayers are paying millions of dollars to recycle the less than 50% of beverage containers collected by the Blue Box _ system. New methods of analysis used to calculate these figures attempt to incorporate the influence of the containers' volumes in the proportion of costs allotted to the container category. The result of these studies indicate that low density bottles and cans are extremely expensive to collect while _ higher density paper materials are much more efficient to collect and create substantial revenues for municipalities. - - - - The main exception to this pattern is aluminum, the material that pop companies claim prop up the entire Blue Box program with the revenues earned. These analyses, more accurately reflecting reality by using weight and volumes of the materials instead of just the weights, disprove this myth by showing that the revenues earned by aluminum just cover the costs of collecting that material in the system, and not much more. If the costs of recycling and landfilling the two pop container materials, PET plastic and aluminum are added together, the figures show that taxpayers in Metro Toronto are subsidizing Coke and Pepsi a minimum of one million dollars a year. The Toronto Environmental Alliance, through its previous publications, "Moving Up the Ladder" and "A Curbside Tale" has consistently criticized the subsidization of industry's waste through the Blue Box program and recommended instead that a refillable deposit return system be implemented for all beverage containers in Ontario, completely managed and funded by industry. Municipalities could continue to collect non-reusable containers, paper and other materials in a more efficient Blue Box system that should be properly funded by the relevant industries. TEA has examined the new figures from the City of Toronto and Metro Toronto and they appear to support our previous conclusions. Focusing on pop containers to begin with, TEA suggests that the removal of pop containers from the Blue Box with a deposit return system, and the replacement of the space in the system with increased collection of paper materials, would not only save millions of dollars, but would earn millions in new revenues. TEA is recommending the following actions to the councils of the City of Toronto and Metro Toronto, as well as other municipal councils in Ontario: 1. Support the province's proposed changes to the 3Rs regulations that would allow municipal governments, with adequate public consultation, to choose which materials to include in their recycling programs. 2. Recommend directly to the province and the Association of Municipalities in Ontario (AMO) that a comprehensive deposit return system favouring refillable glass beverage containers be instituted in Ontario within a maximum implementation period of two years, beginning with soft drink containers. 3. Individually, or collectively through AMO, start legal proceedings to recover the millions of dollars owed for past Blue Box funding agreements with the industry association OMMRI that should legally be paid by its original members or, its recent successor, Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR). 4. Recommend directly to the province and the AMO that negotiations begin immediately on a new product stewardship system for the remaining Blue Box materials that would require industry to pay the full costs of its wastes in municipal recycling, waste collection and litter collection programs. Industries that could handle their wastes through a deposit return system with a high recovery rate would already be assuming all the costs of their wastes and should be specifically excluded from these discussions. 2 ... .. .. ." .. .. .. .. ." .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. III .. - - 5. If the province shows reluctance to solve this problem, municipal governments should consider using the power available to them currently to ban pop and other beverage containers from both their recycling and their waste collection systems. The precedent for this action by municipal governments exists with the bans of such materials as grass clippings and construction wastes from curbside collection programs. - - If these recommendations were successfully carried out by municipalities and enacted by the province, there would be much more recycling in a properly funded province-wide Blue Box program, much more reuse of refillable beverage containers in a deposit return system fully funded by industry, and much more reduction of wastes. Because industries would be responsible for the costs of recycling and reducing all these wastes, they would now have the strongest incentive to reduce the amount of wastes created in the first place - saving money. - - .. - .. - .. - .. .. .. ... - 3 - - 1.1 INTRODUCTION People are once again asking whether it makes sense to keep the Blue Box system. New figures released by Metro and the City of Toronto have some reporters and politicians wondering whether the Blue Box program is costing taxpayers too much money. The simple answer is no. As it stands, the Blue Box system, is environmentally superior to disposal, has lower environmental and financial costs than disposal, and frees up precious landfill space for waste that needs to be dumped. Ontario residents know this and that is why they love their Blue Box. This does not mean there is not room for improvement in the system. There are other ways of diverting waste from landfill besides recycling. The real story behind the recently released Metro and City of Toronto figures is about the cost of recycling container materials as opposed to paper materials in the Blue Box system. With the exception of aluminum, none of the revenues for the materials cover the real costs of collection in the Blue Box. Even including the revenues from aluminum and the avoided costs of $78 per tonne (Metro's figure - we prefer the City's figure of $11 O/tonne) for diversion from landfill, container materials in the Blue Box are costing Metro Toronto taxpayers $4,170,194.52 annually (see Table SA). Paper materials are earning $4,511,013.97 for Metro taxpayers annually, creating a net "profit" or savings of $340,819.45. The reason why there is such a disparity is that paper materials are much more denser than container materials and significant tonnages can be collected more efficiently by the recycling trucks. A clear example of this problem would be a comparison between the revenue earned by a City of Toronto recycling truck filled with plastic PET bottles compared with a truck full of newspaper. The trucks would earn $69.22 in City of Toronto revenues (Metro passes on 69% of revenues) for PET bottles (0.2167 tonnes x $319.45) and $414.00 in revenues (6 tonnes x $69.00) ifit was full of newspapers. At the time of publication, there have been discussions by recycling coordinators across the province that the market price for PET plastic is in a downward spiral and could go as low as $0 in October 1996. This would certainly make any arguments from soft drink companies that municipalities and residents could crush their bottles to make the system more efficient and increase revenues somewhat irrelevant. Theoretically, there are approximately 4 million dollars worth of savings for Metro taxpayers that could achieved if all container materials could be removed from the Blue Box and be diverted through a deposit return system. This is certainly not realistic however, for some container materials such as steel cans would be difficult to handle through a deposit return system alone, and many recycling program costs are fixed costs that remain even if municipalities cut the collection volumes substantially. Instead, we have chosen to focus our study on a container sector that was easily served by a deposit return refillable system in Ontario's past, the soft drink industry. Our thesis is that the soft drink industry would rather handle its materials through a taxpayer-subsidized recycling and 4 .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. llIII .. .. .. - ... - - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - waste disposal system instead of having to be responsible for the full costs of an environmentally superior deposit return refillable bottle system. What the figures tell us is that recycling soft drink containers costs taxpayers millions of dollars in real costs and replacing them in the system with additional paper materials could give Metro and the City millions of dollars in revenues. Presently, at least 50% of soft drink containers are not recycled and end up in the landfilL meaning that they must be collected by conventional waste and litter collection programs that municipal taxpayers must also pay for. A deposit return system could double this capture rate. Also, recycling soft drink containers takes up precious space in the Blue Box that should be used for materials that a refillable deposit return system is not appropriate, like paper products. Getting rid of soft drink containers and replacing that freed volume with paper materials dramatically increases the revenues made from the Blue Box and could divert thousands oftonnes of paper from precious landfill. Simply put, the figures show that removing pop containers from the Blue Box saves taxpayers money. How do we get soft drink containers out of the Blue Box? The Province must make companies such as Coke and Pepsi sell soft drinks in refillable containers that they must handle through a deposit return system. Right now, taxpayers are subsidizing these large profitable corporations to the tune of millions of dollars. With a refillables system, taxpayers stop paying the waste management costs of large companies and force them to accept responsibility for their waste, just like beer companies have been doing for years. And, as numerous studies have shown, a refillables system for soft drinks is better for the , environment. This report will justify these claims by first examining the arguments made by soft drink industry for a Blue Box system that includes recyclable soft drink containers. It will show that the industry claims that the revenues from their recyclable pop containers pay for the Blue Box are false. Instead, the Metro Toronto and City of Toronto Blue Box figures show that having a refill abies soft drink system is a vital step towards making an environmentally beneficial and financially efficient Blue Box program. 1.2 BASIC FACTS ABOUT SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE BLUE BOX SYSTEM AND LANDFILL The vast majority of soft drink containers that end up in the Blue Box are PET bottles (mostly the 2L containers but increasing amounts of smaller containers - goodbye aluminum!) and aluminum cans (See below for specific numbers). Moreover, over 90% of PET and aluminum containers are soft drink containers. Occasionally, people put refillable, returnable glass bottles in the Blue Box. The percentage of Blue Box clear glass made up of refillables is not known but is probably extremely small since they constitute less than 2% of the market overall and it is unlikely that people would not want 5 to reclaim their $.40 deposit on their bottles. If pop bottles or beer bottles ever end up in the Blue Box, they are usually pulled out by recycling crews and they return them for deposits themselves. This means any analysis of the Blue Box and soft drink containers must focus on PET and aluminum containers. However, it is important to analyse soft drink containers with respect to waste disposal No more than half of all soft drink containers end up in Blue Boxes. Estimates as to the' capture rate' vary. The figure used here is a highly optimistic 50%, which means the other 50% of soft drink containers end up in landfills. According to Metro Toronto figures, 1,078 tonnes (54 708 M3) of PET containers and 1,308 tonnes (34 378 M3) of aluminum are collected each year. This suggests that at the same time around 2,400.tonnes or around 90,000 M3 of pop containers go to landfill sites. At a cost of $11 O/tonne to pick up and disposel, this means it costs just under $120,000 to dispose of pop containers if you calculate the cost by weight. But as the analysis of the Blue Box system shows, the volume of the containers is a crucial factor in the calculation of these costs. Volume is what fills a garbage truck and a landfill site, and even though there is more compaction of materials during waste collection than Blue Box collection, accounting for the influence of pop container volumes in the system would at least double or triple the costs of collection and disposal. All three levels of government must also pay millions of dollars collectively to clean up litter in parks, streets and highways throughout the province. This work is very labour intensive and the material collected generally goes directly to disposal. Waste audits of litter collected in other jurisdictions without deposit return legislation has shown that beverage containers consumed "on the run" make up a large proportion of the problem. 2.0 WHO PAYS FOR RECYCLING SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS? Depending on who you believe, the recycling of soft drink containers has been paid for in the past by one or more of three sources: the soft drink companies; municipal and provincial governments; or, revenues gained from the sale of recycled aluminum and plastic bottles. There is little disagreement over who paid for developing the Blue Box infrastructure in Ontario. Municipal governments, the province, and the industry association called Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Incorporated (OMMRI) paid equally. According to an industry source, soft drink companies ~This figure is used by the City of Toronto. Metro uses $78/tonne. It is extremely important to remember that this cost represents a small part of the true, overall costs of disposal. These figures rarely include the long term maintenance costs for closed landfill sites. Also, there are huge costs involved in making aluminum cans and PET bottles. The pollution created in these chemical and energy-intensive processes are hardly ever factored into the prices for disposing these containers. In other words, the $11 O/tonne figure leaves out most environmental costs that must eventually be paid through future pollution abatement. This suggests the true cost of throwing away pop containers is significantly higher. 6 ... III III ... .. ... ... III ... IIlII ... III IlIIi .. IlIIi iii iii .. IIIiI ... - contributed about $20 million between 1987 and 1990 to the OMMRI share.2 What is in dispute is where the money to pay for the operating costs to continue the Blue Box came from. Initially, there was no industry commitment for funding operating costs and the provincial government funded programs on a five year sliding share that started at 50% and then reduced eventually to zero funding within the last few years for all municipalities. - - 2.1 What the Soft Drink Industry Says: - According to the Canadian Soft Drink Association (CSDA) and Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Incorporated (OMMRI), now reincarnated as Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR), taxpayers are financially better off when soft drink containers are recycled. These industry-sponsored groups have repeatedly claimed the entire Blue Box system is economically viable because of soft drink containers. Put simply, they argue recycled pop containers provide revenues that not only offset collection costs for pop containers but collection costs for other materials as well. For example, in 1994 letter to the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA), a CSDA vice president wrote: - - ... Aluminum soft drink containers have a high dollar value in the recycling market. Removal of these materials from the Blue Box into a parallel recycling system (such as deposit return) would not only be inconvenient and costly for customers, but would deprive Municipalities of a significant portion of their Blue Box revenues. In fact it would fundamentally undermine the economic viability and cost effectiveness of the Blue Box infrastructure.3 - - This argument has been used for many years to undermine any discussion of alternative methods of diverting soft drink containers from landfill . Back in August 1992 an OMMRI report stated the following: ... Current estimates suggest that deposits [ie. a deposit system] will create at least an 18 per cent decline, or $2.7 million loss, in Blue Box revenues which municipalities use to offset recycling collection costs.4 - - ... .2Doug Macdonald. The Politics of Pollution. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, 1991, p. 211. - 1Letter to the Toronto Environmental Alliance. From Stuart Hartley, Canadian Soft Drink. Association Vice President - Ontario Region. December 12, 1994. ... 10ntario Multi-Material Recycling Incorporated. OMMRI Corporations in Support of Recycling: Overview. August 1992, p. 11. _ 7 - - More recently in a letter to the City of Toronto, the CSDA claimed that revenues from the sale of recycled soft drink containers are a major contributor towards the cost of municipal recycling programs. S The CSDA also noted that the soft drink industry were responsible for "'top-up' funding ($56.50 per tonne) to municipalities to cover the difference between revenues received from the sale of containers and the cost of their collection. 116 This was part of one of many attempts to stop some municipalities from talking about a deposit return system as an alternative method of handling soft drink containers when they realized that both the province and industry were leaving them to pay the full operating costs for the Blue Box program. The exact amount of this top-up funding to date is not known. As of May 1993, it was $700 000.7 In a August 1995, the CSDA claimed the top-up grant was "currently phased to zero. 118 In total, according to their own figures, the Ontario soft drink companies have contributed $33 million to the Ontario Blue Box system since 1986.9 Unfortunately this is a very small proportion of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent collectively by provincial and municipal governments for the recycling, waste disposal, and litter collection of their containers since 1986. Numerous attempts have been made to get industry to assume the full cost of their containers in Blue Box without success. There has never been any discussion of assuming the costs of materials in landfill and litter collection programs as part of "product stewardship" negotiations. With the millions of dollars still owed to municipalities from previous minimal funding agreements it is difficult to believe that even a comprehensive funding agreement would be honoured with constant enforcement by the province. 2.2 What the City of Toronto Figures Reveal Since July 1995 the City of Toronto Department of Public Works has produced various spreadsheets showing the costs and revenues associated with collecting various Blue Box materials on a per year basis. The actual costs or revenues vary because the market prices for various goods are volatile. This report relies on a spreadsheet based on March 1996 market prices because these prices are in the middle, attempting to represent reasonable market conditions; that is, higher prices than later spreadsheets and lower than earlier surveys. sCanadian Soft Drink Association. Letter to the Clerk, City of Toronto. August 10, 1995. 'Canadian Soft Drink Association. The Refillable Quota Regulations. August 1995, p. 8. 7 Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. Who Pays for Blue: Financing Residential Waste Diversion in Ontario. September 1993, p. 4. 'CSDA The Refillables Quota Regulations. p. 8. 9'b'd 1 1 , p. 8. 8 .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... - Figure 1 compares the revenue the City gains in a number of scenarios based on the City of Toronto March 1996 figures. It summarizes data from Tables 1 to 4 found in the Appendix. Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 assume that total collection costs remain the same. Some city officials have claimed these costs could actually go down but since no data exists tq sl1bstantiate this, for the purposes of this study we assume costs remain the same. - - FIGURE 1: City of Toronto Collection Costs - Various Scenarios Scenario Description Revenue ... 1 March 1996 Figures $496,231.91 2 March 1996 Figures Revised $584,274.06 - 3 No Pop Containers with 37,888 m3 freed volume $84,763.76 4 No Pop Containers with 50% Freed Volume filled with Blue Box fibre $1,179,436.40 .. 5 No Pop Containers with 100% Freed Volume filled with Blue Box Fibre $2,274,668.34 - See Tables 1 to 4 in Appendix for data. .. The first scenario shows the City's own results, with "revenue" of just under $500,000, when avoided costs of $11 O/tonne for waste collection and landfill space are accounted for. The second scenario revises these figures. It subtracts from total revenues the costs the City must pay for all the pop containers that aren't recycled and end up in landfill based on a calculation by weight that largely underestimates their impact in the system. As well, it takes into account lower average collection costs, as supplied by the City.lO The overall effect of these revisions is that revenues are increased slightly. - - - The third scenario tests whether soft drink companies have been correct in saying that without pop containers the Blue Box program would fall apart. When pop containers are taken out of the Blue Box, the City of Toronto spreadsheet suggests the system still makes $85,000. While there is a loss of revenue, the system is still financially viable. In this scenario no new materials have replaced the huge volume freed up by not collecting pop containers. Of course, not filling that new capacity and collecting "air" is not a particularly efficient way to run a program. This scenario is only presented to challenge the myth purveyed by pop companies that their materials are the cornerstone of the Blue Box program. - - - _ ,oTelephone Conversation with George Wheeler, Department of Public Works and the Environment. August 30, 1996. _ 9 - .. In the next scenario 50% of the freed up volume is replaced with Blue Box paper fibre. Obviously, this requires changes in collection and processing systems for many municipalities depending on this systems employed. The estimate of revenue was based on a reasonable expectation that 50% of the new fibres would be not be old newspaper as opposed to the current 80120 % split. A much larger proportion of newspaper is already being collected by the system compared with other fibres. With the current Metro contract paying the City 69% of $1 OO/tonne for newspaper and $O/tonne for other fibres we estimated an average revenue of $34.50/tonne for the new materials. This translates into a 38% increase in Blue Box fibre collection. With the revenue for the new fibre, revenues have shot up to almost $1.2 million. In the last scenario 100% of the freed up volume is replaced with Blue Box Fibre. This translates into a 76% increase in Blue Box Fibre collection, still quite feasible considering the low recovery rates for fibre materials in most municipalities. Revenue jump to almost $2.3 million. The reason for these dramatic increases in revenue in Scenarios 4 and 5 is because the Blue Box system is much more efficient. Pop containers are mostly air which takes up a lot of space in collection trucks. Replacing these containers with heavier, denser paper means labour power, equipment and fuel are being used to collect resource materials that can be processed into products and resold, instead of collecting air. And, it means diverting highly recyclable paper products from landfill. Based on the preliminary figures released by the city, the message is clear: getting rid of pop containers through a refillables system and replacing the freed up volume in the Blue Box system with paper increases revenues by two to four times the present levels. Put differently, if the City keeps recycling pop containers it wastes precious money that could be used to fund other waste diversion programs. We have focused on the removal of soft drink containers as a first step. It is our contention that all beverage containers and even some other bottles and jars could be handled through a deposit return system, freeing up even more capacity in the system. No municipality in Ontario will get anywhere near the stated goal of 50% waste diversion by the year 2000 without including wet waste collection or user pay in their programs, Since, unfortunately, few municipalities want to confront the issue of user pay, resources must be freed up to implement wet waste collection. The complete removal of beverage containers from the blue box with a deposit return system would be one way to do this. 2.3 What Metropolitan Toronto Figures Say Metro Toronto is responsible for the Blue Box system after recyclables are collected by various municipalities. Recycled materials are transferred, processed and sold by Metro. That means Metro has a much better sense of the overall costs of the Blue Box system. Metro Toronto, however, has only released one spreadsheet which mayor may not represent a true snapshot of the system. It could be argued that Metro's current role as a "middleman" in the system and its lower share of revenues 10 ... ... ... ... ... ... IIIIlI ... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... III III ... ... - (31 % vs. 69% for the local cities) means that it is slightly less concerned about the costs of the systems when compared with the local municipalities. The level of debate certainly seems to be much more intense at the local level in Metro Toronto. ... Figure 2 compares the revenue Metro potentially gains in a number of scenarios based on the July 1996 spreadsheet. It summarizes data from Tables 5 to 8 found in the Appendix. Some caution should be used when interpreting these figures. Given the complex nature of the Blue Box system the impact of changes in the composition of materials is much more difficult to track. There would probably be changes to the total costs of transferring and processing materials but without any data nothing can be determined. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, Scenarios 3,4, and 5 in Figure 2 assume that total costs to the Blue Box system remain the same even though the composition of materials has changed. - - - FIGURE 2: Metro Toronto Blue Box Costs - Various Scenarios - Scenario Description (Cost )/Revenue 5 July 1996 Metro Spreadsheet July 1996 Metro Spreadsheet - Revised No Pop Containers with 89,083 m3 freed volume No Pop Containers with 50% Freed Volume filled with Paper Fibre No Pop Containers with 100% Freed Volume filled with Paper Fibre ($5.535,122.00) $340,819.45 ($1,472,601.06) - 1 2 3 4 - $807,589.06 $3,088,173.55 - See Tables 5 to 8 in Appendix for data. - The first scenario represents the cost of running the Blue Box according to Metro's spreadsheet. However this figure is questionable because it does not include revenue gained by diverting recycled products from landfill. Without these avoided costs, it appears that the Blue Box is costing Metro over $5.5 million. - - The second scenario provides a truer picture of Blue Box costs by including the dollars saved when these materials are diverted from landfill (using an underestimated figure of$78/tonne in avoid costs). Here we see that the system actually makes $350,000. - - The third scenario shows what happens when soft drink containers are taken out of the system with a deposit return system. On first glance, it seems to substantiate the claims of the soft drink industry. It looks like the system costs taxpayers almost $1.5 million when soft drink containers aren't included. However, this is a misleading interpretation. Without soft drink containers over 89,000 m3 of space is now freed up in the Blue Box system. In this scenario no extra materials are collected to fill up this huge space. Not surprisingly, lots of potential revenue is lost when you continue to collect 89,000 - - 11 - - m3 of air. Realistically, some costs could go down if the system was "downsized" or new revenues and additional waste diversion could be achieved if the system was rearranged to fill the capacity with new materials. With all the waste diversion that still needs to be done, we obviously recommend the latter approach. Scenario 4 shows what happens to revenues when 50% of the freed up space is filled with paper fibres. This represents a 36% increase in paper fibre collection. Again, like the City of Toronto example, revenues are calculated at a realistic $SO.OO/tonne for the new fibre, reflecting the greater proportion of less valuable "non-newspaper fibres" in the added materials. Here, revenues increase to over $800,000, twice as much as the system makes now. Scenario 5 shows what happens when 100% of the freed up space is filled with paper fibres; that is, a 73 % increase in paper fibre collection. Revenues skyrocket to over $3 million, almost 10 times greater than present revenues. As with the City of Toronto figures, the reason for these profitable increases in revenue are due to a much more efficient Blue Box system. Labour, equipment, fuel costs and other associated costs are used more efficiently to recycle dense material rather than pop containers which are mostly air. Moreover, there is a huge savings to taxpayers and the environment because pop containers are now refillable and don't end up in dumps and because so much more heavy paper fibre is diverted from dumps. Just as with the City of Toronto figures, the Metro figures suggest that getting rid of pop containers through a refillables system and replacing the freed up volume in the Blue Box system with paper, dramatically increases revenue. Contrary to the claims of the soft drink industry, every week Metro continues to recycle pop containers costs taxpayers another week of lost revenues. In a time of such massive budget cuts for all government programs, this is unacceptable. 3.0 POSSffiLE CRITICISMS OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The results of the City of Toronto and Metro Toronto figures provide support for a return to a refillables system. This section reviews and attempt to address some possible criticisms. 3.1 Accuracy of Data It is important to remember that the data and spreadsheets supplied by Metro and the City of Toronto are not perfect. They, at best, only approximate the true costs of the Blue Box. However, they are much more accurate than the majority of studies previously available. In the past, Blue Box costs were broken down solely on weight, making heavy material such as paper and glass expensive and light materials such as aluminum and PET cheap. The data and spreadsheets used here take into account both weight and volume equally in determining material costs, thus providing a more 12 .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... - accurate picture of the true costs. One could argue that for some materials, volume considerations should outweigh the influence of weight since the system's operating capacities like truck capacities and MRF sorting capacities are limited much more by weight than volumes. TEA is quite confident that more detailed analysis of these factors will only reaffirm and emphasize our conclus~ns. - 3.2 Achievability of Increased Paper Collection Rates ... These results depend on paper collection rates to be increased by at least 36% and as high as 73% above present levels. Anyone familiar with the low capture rates of paper fibres would not dispute that the paper is there in the system waiting to be collected. Whether these rates are achievable _ cannot be answered with any degree of certainty since they are dependent on public participation, collection schedules and systems. However, if the success of the Blue Box tells us anything. it is that people like to recycle because it is good for the environment. Expanding education efforts on the Blue _ and Grey Boxes and letting people know that recycling more paper leads to a more efficient use of their tax dollars are just two ways in which higher collection rates can be achieved. ... Metro Toronto and the City of Toronto are fortunate to receive a generous rate of$lOO/tonne for old newspaper and $O/tonne for other fibres. In order for the revenues projected by our study to be available in the future for Metro Toronto and for other less fortunate municipalities, we realize, and recommend, that municipalities must ask the province to create a comprehensive product stewardship system for all paper fibres that would cover the costs of handling these products in both the recycling and waste systems. c. - - 3.3 The So-Called Environmental Benefits of Refill abies - - A refillable pop container system has been criticized as environmentally damaging, mostly by the soft drink industry. The industry, like proponents of a refillables system, point to their own set of studies to substantiate their position. They claim there is no consensus amongst available studies about whether recycling soft drink containers are better or worse than having a refillables system. ,. '-,.>I;~ - However, a previous Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) study that examined many of the existing studies shows there is strong evidence that a refillables system causes much less environmental damage than recycling pop containers.ll Environmental groups like TEA have no vested interest in preferring one system or another; but simply want one that is best for the environment. - - On the other hand, the soft drink industry wants a publicly-funded recycling system instead of a refillables system, because they would have to pay the entire cost of a refillable system. Obviously, maintaining this subsidy reduces their overall costs of doing business and increases their profit - - J1Toronto Environmental Alliance. Moving Up the Ladder: The Place for Reuse and Refill in Canadian Waste Management Strategies. August 1994. - 13 - - margins for their products. This means that pop companies have a vested interest in funding and finding studies that show a refillables system is worse for the environment and should be regarded skeptically. " 3.4 People Don't Want a Refillables System Another unsubstantiated claim is that people prefer their pop in recyclable containers and that they do not like refillable containers. The soft drink industry uses this claim to justify their behaviour in offering almost no pop in refillable containers. In many comer stores and supermarkets and comer stores throughout the province they are unavailable. If they are made available, they are displayed and priced unattractively even without the added deposit. Also, pop companies have not offered a single- serving refillable glass container for pop as an option for consumers. In contrast, Brewers Retail offers a wide selection of its products in refillable glass bottles. And, over 90% of beer sales in Ontario are in refillable bottles. If, as the soft drink industry claims, people hate refill abies so much, why are they shunning recyclable cans and buying such huge quantities of beer in refillables? They also claim that they have no ability to influence consumer choice. Pop companies spend millions of dollars a year for marketing and advertising based on the assumption that they have the ability to influence consumer choice. A deposit return system that would promote refillable containers would either have to be 100% refillable or would have to closely regulate the pop companies ability to promote and price recyclables in favour of recyclables. Pop companies would have to agree to one of these options to allow refillable bottles a fair chance in the marketplace. It is also important to differentiate between the wishes of pop consumers and those of taxpayers. Even if the soft drink industry is correct about pop consumers wanting the recyclables, why should all taxpayers pay for this preference? Just like people who drink beer, consumers of soft drinks should pay for waste management costs of the products they drink, not taxpayers. 3.5 Moving to a Refillables System will Cost Jobs No reliable data has been found to substantiate this claim. Instead, common sense suggests the exact opposite. Reuse systems are more usually more difficult to automate and centralize because of problems with breakage and transportation costs. Municipal workers do not have to lose jobs because the volume freed up by removing recyclable pop containers could be filled by collecting paper and other recyclable products. As well, a refillables system requires many workers to sort, clean and bottle refillable containers. And, it may require a much more decentralized distribution system than presently exists. This could translate into new jobs in the soft drink industry. All of this suggests further study is required to assess the true economic impacts of a refillables system. This study must look at all the sectors linked to the soft drink industry as well as avoided 14 .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .. .. .. - costs ofUI and welfare to the taxpayer when jobs are created. Simply saying refillables will cost jobs _ is not enough. - 4.0 CONCLUSIONS - Instead of destroying it, moving towards refillable pop containers would make the Blue Box system much more efficient and effective. By removing pop containers and preferably other containers through a deposit return system, space is freed up to collect revenue-generating paper products and thousands of tonnes of paper and the containers will continue to be diverted from landfill. Indeed, capture rates for other deposit return systems with reasonably high deposit incentives suggest that the diversion rate for container materials could be easily doubled from the presently low capture rates. No amount of "container crushing" or public education will increase capture rates as quickly and effectively as a deposit return system. - - - A deposit return system for beverage containers is "instant product stewardship" without the constant bickering over the appropriate funding participation of industry and their insistence on control of the Blue Box system in any stewardship arrangement Municipalities should save their energy for negotiating with sectors whose materials a deposit return system might not be feasible, such as paper products and textiles, Achieving this environmentally and financially viable goal requires a commitment on the part of municipal and provincial legislators to force soft drink companies to finally pay their own way. - - - APPENDICES: - APPENDIX A - City of Toronto Spreadsheet using March 1996 Market Figures APPENDIX B - July 1996 Metro Toronto Spreadsheet - APPENDIX C - Table 1: City of Toronto Revised Figures Table 2: City of Toronto Revised Figures: Scenario A: No Pop Containers Table 3: City of Toronto Revised Figures: Scenario B: No Pop Containers, 50% Freed Volume Replaced by Blue Box Fibre - - 15 - - .. Table 4: City of Toronto Revised Figures: Scenario C: No Pop Containers, 100% Freed Volume Replaced by Blue Box Fibre .. APPENDIX D .. Table SA: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Summary Table 5B: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Revenues Table 6A: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Summary Scenario A: No Pop Containers Table 6B: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Revenues Scenario A: No Pop Containers Table 7 A: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Summary Scenario B: No Pop Containers with 50% freed Volume filled with Paper fibre Table 7B: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Revenues Scenario A: No Pop Containers with 50% freed Volume filled with Paper fibre Table 8A: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Summary Scenario C: No Pop Containers with 100% freed Volume filled with Paper fibre Table 8B: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures: Revenues Scenario A: No Pop Containers with 100% freed Volume filled with Paper fibre .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .., .. .. .. 16 .. .. III I I I I I Departmem of Public Works and the Environment Material Management and Sanitation Section Material Comparative CoUectlon Cost Based on Relative Density and Market Price Curbside Residential. Apartmem. Instltutlonal and Commercial I I I I I I I Container I I I I r f I A , I 13 Not IConal A~... :~W;~~;::i:~~:x~:::.::::::::;::::;;..'" 1722.572.39 '21.214.50 '24.821,49 "411.570.98 '245 885.04 '1.788211.81 '207210.43 1498.231.91 12 Grou Collection CostIY_. .-."" 17~.a88.10 1807.497.04 1503.923.94 1590.939.38 1175.535.38 11.035.102.49 1819112.42 11.798804.1' 1358179.87 18.833.760.1 11 01_ ICo'" R~...... 11.40;~;' '1.815.411 ...ill:.!.Q! 1".091 168.32 1304.771 IllLlll ~ 152.51 10 ! Collec1ion fCo.., R~e/Tonne by ma1.-i. 513.31 m::ii 1 iii:1C: iTIi:09. ($41.68 $414.77 *2870: !.Z.Ll '57.4' ~.... 8 9 CoIleaion C_ MMtot Price IT...... rr~by"",,""", bv_.. $319.45 --m:ii $2i:iO --m:ii t3:4i nm .mm "9.00 . 11.832.78 11.805.27 '145.00 'ii4i:OO $45.13 i4iffi t950~~ no 190.28 4 7 Vol..... "9. ColI-.,., ~ ",.,~3 lTo_ ~.=. 20.741 ~ !2.Z! . 1170.45 22.385 0.2118 !.Q.!! _ '170.45 13.957 ~ ..2:!! _ '170.45 18.387 ....Q,ll!! ..2:!! . '170.46 4.882 0.2118 ~ '170.45 28.889 JYl!.!.b!!.. '170.45 ~ ...Q.lli1..uz.: .!1Z!M1. .!!.HQI ..Q.ll11 0.53 I '170.45 i ...J.H ...Q.lli1 QJiil '170.45 III 0.211J1 2 ~ J W.;9M Oonsity onnesIMJ) <"'"",,,"'.V.;.:;.;"',"';""";', -.09 0.0197 --w --0:02 3.475 0.249 4.075 ~ 3.889 0.8 2 122 0.074 ---W. Q..lli. ~ !L! .2!!8 lM ;1.8.91 1 Proponions By Wetoh{ 0.01 om 0.09 0:;0 0.10 o:os ill1 0.51 0.10 1 Con....... M.teri....!L- PET HOPE 0.... Gla:s c.;;;;;;dGi... _.. GI... 5.001 Aklmilun !!!!!LBox Rbt. ~ Toto! Column 17J . column'8 - Column t/9J . column'8 · Column '2J column'H- Column 12J - and 2. - column'6 1. Proportions by weight for conuinlll' nYteri.J w_ provided by Metro. ThIs uble includes only mMkeUble nYten.J4. Metro repon:s a 7" non.",.rlceubIe residue which has b_ factored back into columns 2. PtIIT:IH1uge composition provided by Metro and applied to the CIty's tot1ll weight of coUfICt<</ commln'g/ed material for 1994. 3. AssumtlS 20" compaction during coUtlCtion, as applied to field weighed nYterieIs. 4. VoIulTHl for each material was calculated by dividing Weight by Density. (fonnuhl - columnl2 I Column 13J 5. AlI8Uge density \Vas calculated by crtviding totJli coUectw/ WfIIght by tot1llllO/ume. (fonnuhl - coIumnl2 . TotJli I Column #4, ToUIJ 6. Density Ratio war calculated by dMding aVlII'age density by dllllSity of e.ch nYterMl. (fOrmula _ columnl51 Column '3J 7. AlI8Uge CoUtlCtio;, cost b based on the Metro weighted avw.ge for. 7995 for a8 ar.. municipeJitles, as provided by Metro. 8. CoII<<:tion con/tonne was calculated by multiplying the dllllSity rerlo for each nYtedaI by a_ge collection cost. 9. M.rleet Price by Material we" provided by Metro (March 7996J and fectoled against the CIty's 69" sha",. 10. CoUection cost/tonne wes calculated by subtrer:tJng coIIet:tIon C1Jst for each nYterilll from merltet price. 11. Diversion (Cost) Revenue/Tonne includas net of avoided gelbege coUectJon ($60/tDnneJ end Iandf1I ($501t0nneJ 12. Gross coUectlon cost was calculated by multiplying collectJon cost for each nYterl.J by weight for each material. 13. Net (Costl RevenuelYear was calculated by multiplying the Diversion (costllRevenue by weight for each material. City of Toronto collects 6096 coloured IInd 4096 cle., glass with a 44" breakage rate during handOng (apx.J (formula (formula (formula (formula The SOURCE: Metro c:\ 123r3\ 123d.ta\oct16. wk3 Metropolllan Toronto Blue Box Sv.tems Annual CO$t Dlstrlbullon Sued on R.,.tllle Meterlal Volume. 29.Jul96 A8CCOST.WlU VOlUlolE ron. 2~~s .~~. ~-r~~~:-' Avg. c:.8d~~f~~-~:"~1l-i'.~-~:~~n~~-. ~,:~ cosr- ~~~8d __ .{!2~~sIM~t _. _,i~.!L .~~y'!onne _ CoslJtdJ _ .__~ Malerlal _~,,!I.!!.'ial__ 1,078 0.0197 54,708 $116.'4 $24.24 $1,230.52 $1,326,192 944 0.0200 47,220 $116.14 $24.24 $1,212.06 $l,'44,66t 1.925 0.2490 7,730 $116.14 $2424 $97.35 $187,388 5,502 0.2490 22,098 $116.14 $24.24 $97.35 $535,692 8,641 0.2490 34,704 $116.14 $24.24 $97.35 $841,279 5,922 0.8000 7,403 $116.14 $24.24 $30.30 $179,446 5,1170.0740 69,143 $116.14 $24.24 $327.56 $1,676,114 1,306 0.0390 34,378 $1 f6.14 $24.24 $637.93 $833,365 4B,866 0.4000 122,166 $116.14 $24.24 $60.60 $2,961,458 6.561 O~O 21..402 $116.14 ~.2" $60.60 $51.8.81.1 .J!7,86~ 0.208L_ 420,952 $116.1~. _$24.24__ ___ $10,204,405 P.roeo'ag. .!Jl ~elghl. '.23% 1.07% 219% 6.26% 9.64% 6 74.A, 5.82% 1.49% 55.62% 9.74% .!QQ..QQ~J.. ~olle~tlo~ ""10/1.1 PEr HOPE Curb Sorted Glass Clear Glass CoIoured Glass 8token Gloss Sleel Cans Aluminum ONP Fibre oce Fibre TO~~!.Q~ ~~iI__ .00 -15--- ------;-6---.--' Cos!/Tollne GlOSS Co,. ~y ~.!!':i!L _ by $a'''I~L $369.85 190,551 $364.30 $164,468 $29.26 $56,322 $29.26 $55.122 $29.26 $86,566 $9.11 $34.113 $98.<46 $240.828 $191.74 $119,740 $18.22 $425.510 $18.22 S74.544 ,_.__ _!14"7,I~3 --~ "-- -- ----. -"-- - -.-.... --.--..- -.-.-.. 10 11 12 13 14 Tonoes Oen.ity Volume Avg Trans!" Avg. Transl.r I!!:~/e(led ~nesIM3J _.t~11 ... Co.s~on!!!.. __ COS~3_ 515 0.0197 26,153 $34"'7 $7.29 451 0.0200 22,573 $34.47 $7.29 1,925 0.2490 7,730 $34.47 $7.29 1,684 0.2490 7,565 $34.47 $7.29 2.958 0.2490 11,681 $34.47 $7.29 3,746 0.8000 4,682 $34.47 $7.29 2,446 0.0740 33,053 $34.47 $7.29 624 0.0380 16,434 $34.47 $7.29 23,360 0.4000 58,401 $34.47 $7.29 4.092 Q.4QQQ ro.231 ~.4Z S1~ '" .4?,(}~ _Odill._ 1!~lL04 ....$34.47 _~7.29_. 2.00 Trensler .. - --- 9 Porcenl.~ -.... .. . ~Y.~~!Il~. PET 1.23% HOPE 1.07% Curb Sorted Glass 4.58% Clear Glass 448% Coloured Glass 7.04% Broken Glass 8.92% Slael Cans 5.82% ""umlnum 1 .49% ONP Fibre 55.62% ace Fibre 9.M% _.__.T.21aI9L~~'g1_!QQ.OO% Malorial I I I I I I .---....-- ------ 23 24 CoslITonno Gro,s COlt J .~ Malerlal . --2t.. Mllerfal_.. $423.02 $<458,768 $417.46 $394,245 N/A $0 $33.53 $99,167 $33.53 $155,737 $10.44 $130,079 $112.83 $577,289 $219.72 $287,028 N/A $0 NlA- So -- fgJ !QQ,;l ! ;! I I V~~-A~~~~-~:~=~{ 54,708 $73.67 $8.35 47,220 $73,67 $8.35 N/A NJA N/A 11,877 $73.67 $6.35 18,653 $73.67 $8.35 15,580 $73.67 $8.35 69,143 $73.67 $8.35 34,378 $73.67 $6.J5 N/A N1A N/A NtA NtA._ WA._ ~M59 __. $7367 _... _ $8.35 ___ I I I I 3.00 ~onlalner Mllerlal Pr~. (Mt!lerIlIiIJ!ecov.~ Faclll!yl. 1 17 I 18 , 18 Peroeoll~ fonnos Oellsily . ..~l~~.. __~~oco~d Tonnn'M31 3.76% 1,078 0.0197 3.31 % 944 0.0200 0.00% N/A N/A 10.37% 2,957 0.2490 16.29% 4,645 0.2490 43.72% 12,464 0.9000 17.95% 5,1170.0740 4.58% 1.306 0.0380 N/A N/A N/A WA WA. WA- JQQ,~Q~ ?~"~'1.. _O.I~. I , I I I.lltellol PEr HOPE Curb Sorted GIi1sS Claar Glass Coloured Glass Broken Glass Steel Cans Aluminum ONP Fibre oee Fibre J~I~1 o'_Avg I I I . . I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I ~... I ob F\e'vtnu. I --.-- -- ...---- --- ~ 26 V Tonne. JUfl.86 Glotl evenu.fronn t,4lrtctl<<l A.....nuelTonn. R8Ytnue CoIIec:Ctd 950 86.60 $272,385 $252.73 833 $221.06 $189,112 $200.25 1,925 $45.00 $66,616 $45.00 2.810 $43.35 $121,831 $22.14 4,414 $41.90 $184,930 $21.40 11 ,844 $5.00 $59,220 $10.00 4,512 $130.07 $586,878 $114.70 " ~52 $1,499.15 $1,727,021 $1,322.01 <48,966 s,oo~oo $4,886,640 $100.00 D.5Jll $.12.00 S 102.7;30 tt2.OO .-.!S'la ___ 85,96I __._~.70 $8,217.360 $93.52 MI1.tlal PH HOPE CUrb Sor1ed 016&8 Clear Glass Coloured GI8SS Broken Olu& 81M I Cans ~kJmlnum ONP Fibre oce Ftlre Ntl Diy.rllc," Savl~s (Cosl)._ Totti ~Tonne _.. ($1,701,126 ($1,578,411 ($1,514,262 ($1,603.43 ($157,094 ($81.62 ($568,150 ($103.25 ($898,652 ($103.991 ($284,417 ($48.03l ($1,907,355 ($372.78), $486,86S $372.71 $1.499,672 $30.69j' (~9DJl2.6 (551.3.1 $5.535, 122 $63.00 [--.-.---. . .--.---- -- TOMes Gron Costs by Mal.rial _..~C!".ct!!. . _~ollection T,.nsl., Prooe.ss T0I81 Revenue ~,078 $1.326.192 $190,551 $456,768 $1,973,511 $272,385 944 $1,1"4,661 $184.468 $394,2"5 $1,703,374 $189.112 1.925 $187,388 $56,322 $0 $243,710 $86,616 5,502 $535,692 $55.122 $99,167 $689,981 $121,831 8,641 $841,279 $86,566 $155.737 $1,083.582 $184,930 5,922 $179.446 $34,113 $130.079 $343,637 $59.220 5,117 $1.676,114 $240.828 $5n,289 $2,494,231 $586,676 1,306 $833,365 $119,740 $287,028 $1,240,133 $1,727,021 48,866 $2,961,458 $425,510 $0 $3,386.968 $4,886,640 a,56t $5J8,8U SJj.~ SO $5.93.356 $.102.1aQ . ~~8.!!1 ~.!~J204,405. ~1,447.763 $2.100.313 $13.752.481 $8,217,360 T~!~!_ 100 SU.!T'!!!!!Y. __ . .- Marerial PET HOPE Curb SOlted Glass IClsar Glass Coloured Glass Broken Glass Sleel Cans Aluminum .... ONP Fibre" ,OCC Fibre I i I I I I I peroentege byWelghland Ton,.... eo..d.ctbaMdon Janll"'V IoMay t~lonnH k>marbl nd 7% reeldLN.' Con1rn1..lo,...,. MAF oonellllll" 01 &0% g1.... ,,"loin. 1"11 10" ot broken ~all OCCUlt dutll'lQ ooflK1kl,... ()en.lly ~r CM)' of T Ofonlcta tepOrt. Volume C4lcullled by dlvldlnlJ w..~ by Denelly. Ava. or .,gtlted Collection coeC Plr lonne per review wtlh A1ea MUl1I~allll... Avg. Cdledlon Co~3 (Cutllo met.r) Cllcul,'ed by dlvkllnll TOlel eo.. (AVV. Collection Co.vronrle x Tolel Toon" <AlIlecte<l) by T 016' Volume (M3). Collection eo.vr onne b~ Materill Cllculaled by <Mdti1J GlOSS COS\ by M,'erill by T olllle, Collected. Oro.. Cdl~ ~ by "'a1.rial cllculalld mulllplytng VoIulM eM3) lor mlleri.1 by Avg. CoII&Clion lMIt1M3 PlHoenlloe by W.lghlaAd T 00'* Tran.r."edbtised on lOnnes collected J.nuary 10 May 1996 by Etobiooke, Sc"borough and 'folic. 100 Iranll.rrtd IhfoolJh 01100, Scalborough, and Ouihtlin Ir~nsler Malloos respeclively. Cerally ~r City 01 Toronto', rtpo,f. V~rne u.1ou"led by <Widing Weight by Oenllty. ""'''.oe Tran,"r Coli ellc:u..led by dIv1dinIJ lhe 10111 cosl. attributed 10 aroe 801( actlvilies .1 the le.speQive lran_., '1IIIIon. by Ihelotal tonne. of materlallranm.rred Ihrougt'l the 111I1ollS. ......g. Tlln.~r Cot/.1td3 (Cubic met.r) c"cUlled by dlvlding Tolll C061 (Avg. Trlnsler CoslITonne J( Tot,1 Tonnel T,.na.ferred) by Total VolLme (M3). Tllnller CosVTonn. by M.lerla' ell~I..1ed by dvklng Gross Cosl by Malen,' by Tonnes Transferred. Gro.. T,.II&4., Cosl by MIl.rill calc:uCll~ multiplying Volume 1M3) for mllerlal by Avg. Transfer CosVM3. pe{OInt~ by Welgtlt Ind Ton,," Colleded baMdon Januuylo May I 896\1ono1s ~ maTkeland 7% r~ue II CommlSSlolle11 MAF conl/Illng 01 50% gI6S1. Auume thlt 50% of btokAlll glass occurs duri"9 procellln", Oer*ly pel CIly 01 Toronlo', report. Volume celoulated by dJllidinO W"gtll by Oenslty. AvO Prooeu COoSIITonne baaed on <*"'d1ng thet.otallixlc! cosl$ 01 $632.697 and operalional com 01 $55.35 lim..tonn" 01 MAF m"Ie~1 lenllo malice! by tIDllllon",. or mllerial pl'OClsHd allhe MRf". A...g. PlooeU CO$\/M3 (Cubic mller) calcUlled by divldlno Tolll Cosl (Ayg. Processed Co$VTonne J( ToIal Tono" Processe[ by Totll Volume (M3). Proceu COS1IT onn, by "'IIIIlal. cabll.lied by cIvIdIng Gross Cosl by Met,ri.1 by TOlllles Proce8sed. 010.. f'1'OON6 COl' by ~al,ll11 ca~lIed multiplying Volume (M3) for rnalerlal by Avg. P1GCISS Co11ll.13. T onnea Marke1ed based. lIIl Janui'v 10 May 1 Bile lonn.., annualized. ....tMI prlcel U of Joo. 19, I eM. GIOIa Rtvtnue c8Jculated by mulllpl)(llf Tonne. M.rkl\ed by RevenuefTome. I I I I I I I I I I I & 2. ::I. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. O. I. 2. 3. 4 15. 16. J & 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. I 9& ,'401.. I ;/, 00 I I ( f I I I t I I I I I I I , . I I I Table 1 Cijy ofToronto Revised Figures VOIrly COltl blled on Mlrch 111118 Mlrket Prlco' Weight Density Volume Avg. Den. Density Avg. Collection Collection Cost Mar1<et Price Collection CosU(Rev) Diversion CosU(Rev) Gross Collect. Cost Net CosU(Revenue) (Ionnes) (Um3) (m3) (Vm3) Rati" Cost(tonne) (tonne material) (by material) (tonne of material) (tonne) (per year) (per year) ------------------------------------------. .---...---------- --------- ------. .-------- ~-------------- ----------- PET 409 0.0197 20741 0.2118 10.75 $15325 $1,647.82 $319.45 $1,328.37 $1,218.37 $673,956.82 $996.623.54 HOPE 447 0.02 22365 10.59 $1,623.10 $79.86 $1,54324 $ 1,433.24 $725,525.23 $640.657.81 Clear Glass 3475 0.249 13957 0.85 $130.37 $28.90 $101.47 ($8.53) $453,033.64 ($29,643.86) Colour Glass 4075 0.249 16367 0.85 $130.37 $28.91 $101.46 ($8.54) $531,255.28 ($34,802.97) Broken Glass 3889 0.8 4862 0.26 $40.58 $3.45 $37.13 ($72.87) $157,805.79 ($283,401.26) Sleel Cans 2122 0.074 286G9 2.86 $438.68 $73.14 $365.54 $255.54 $930,869.18 $542,246.10 Aluminum Cans 652 0.038 17147 5.57 $854.26 $1,217.16 ($362.90) ($472.90) $556,979.22 ($616.658.21) Blue Box Fibre 19904 0.4 49760 0.53 $81.15 $55.20 $25.95 \$84.05) $1,615,308.06 ($1,672,832.74) O.C.C. 3946 0.4 98&5 0.53 $81.15 $32.78 $48.37 ($61.63) $320,237.42 ($243,172.46) - TOTAL 38919 183733 $5,964,970.63 ($700,984.06) Notes' Pop Container Landfill Cost $116,710.00 1. The Average Collection Cost in the City figures is $170.45. However, Metro and City staff agree this figure --- should be $153.25 Therefore, Total Collection Costs have been revised to $5,964,336.75. Total CosU(Revenue) ($584,274.06) 2. The Blue Box Fibre contains 80% high grade fibre and 20% low grade fibre. The City receives no revenue for low grade fibre and $69.00/lonne for high grade fibre. The market price for fibre equals tolal Tevenue from high grade fibre divided by total fibre collected 3. The descrepency between Gross Collection costs in this lable and the City figure is due to rounding 4. The soft drink industry claims 50% of pop containers are diverted from landfill with the Blue Box. Therefore, the Pop Container Landfill Cosl is calculated by multiplying totallonnes of pop containers collected by BB by $ 110/lonne. 5. All other data and calculations come from City of Toronto. See all ached appendix. I I I Table 2: City of Toronto Revised Figures Scenerio A: No Pop Containers But 37,888 m3 Ireed up volume in trucks Weight Density Volume Avg. Den. Density Avg. Collection Collection Cost Market Price Collection CosV(Rev) Diversion CosV(Rev) Gross Collect. Cost Net CosV(Revenue) (tonnes) (Vm3) (m3) (Vm3) Ratio Cost (Ionne) (Ionne male rial) (by male rial) (Ionne malerial) (tonne) (per year) (per year) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- PET 0 0.0197 0 0.2596 13.18 $157.54 $0.00 $319.45 $0.00 ($110.00) $0.00 ($89,980.00) HDPE 447 0.02 22265 12.98 $2,044.69 $79.86 $1,964.83 $1,854.83 $913,975.37 $829,107.95 Clear Glass 3475 0.249 13957 1.04 $164.23 $28.90 $135.33 $25.33 $570,705.98 $88,028.48 Colour Glass 4075 0.249 16367 1.04 $164.23 $28.91 $135.32 $25.32 $669,245.14 $103,186.89 Broken Glass 3889 0.8 4862 0.32 $51.12 $3.45 $47.67 ($62.33) $198,794.75 ($242.412.30) Steel Cans 2122 0.074 28669 3.51 $552.62 $73.14 $479.48 $369.48 $1,172,655.98 $784,032.90 Aluminum 0 0.038 0 6.83 $0.00 $1,217.16 $0.00 ($110.00) $0.00 ($143.440.00) Blue Box Fibre 19904 0.4 49760 0.65 $102.23 $55.20 $47.03 ($62.97) $2,034,873.12 ($1,253,267.68) O.C.C. 3946 0.4 9865 0.65 $102.23 $32.78 $69.45 ($40.55) $403,416.87 ($159,993.01) --- ---- TOTAL 37858 145845 $5,963,667.22 ($84,736.76) Notes: 1. This is based on dala supplied by City 01 Toronto lor March 1996 market values. See attached appendix. 2. Net CosVRevenue lor PET and Aluminum contain revenue gained by removing 2,122 tonnes 01 pop containers Irom landfill through a refillables system at $110.00 per tonne. This figure is based on solt drink industry eslimates. 3. Blue Box Fibre contains 80% high grade libre and 20% low grade libre. The City receives no revenue lor low grade I,bre and $69.00/tonne lor high grade fibre. The market price lor fibre equals lolal revenue divided by tonnes libre collecled. 4. The Average Collection cost is calculated ';3 lollows: Gross collection cosl 01 system based on City of Toronto figures ($5,964,336.75) divided by tolaltonnes collected. The City 01 Toronto Gross Collection Cost assume a $153.25 per tonne cost, based on Melro ligures. See Table 5. The descrepency between Gross Collection costs in this table and the Cily ligure is due 10 rounding. I I I I I , , I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I Table 3: City of Toronto Revised Figures Diversion CosU(Rev) (tonne) Ireed volume replaced by BB Fibre ie. 38% increase in Blue Box Fibre Market Price Collection CosU(Rev) (by material (tonne material Collection Cost (tonne material Density Avg. COllection Ratio Cost (tonne) Avg. Den. (Um3) Volume (m3) Sceneno B: No Pop Containers With 50% Density (Um3) Weight (tonnes) Net CosU(Revenue) (per year ($89,980.00) $724,052.12 $22,429.35 $26,261.30 ($265,262.53) $649,243.34 ($143,440.00) ($1,896,376.69) ($206,363.29) Gross Collect. Cost (per year $0.00 $808,919.54 $505.106.85 $592,319.55 $175,944.52 $1,037,866.42 $0.00 $2,486,568.00 $357,046.59 ($110.00) $1,619.80 $6.45 $6.44 ($68.21 $305.96 ($110.00) ($69.01) ($52.30) $0.00 $1,729.80 $116.45 $116.44 $41.79 $415.96 $0.00 $40.99 $57.70 $319.45 $79.86 $28.90 $28.91 $3.45 $73.14 $1,217.16 $49.49 $32.78 $0.00 ,809.66 $1 $145.35 $145.35 $45.24 $489.10 $0.00 $90.48 $90.48 $131.27 14.00 3.79 1 1 0.34 3.73 7.26 0.69 0.69 0.2757 o 22365 13957 16367 4862 28669 o 68704 9865 0.0197 0.02 0.249 0.249 0.8 0.074 0.038 0.4 0.4 o 447 3475 4075 3889 2122 o 27481 3946 PET HOPE Clear Glass Colour Glass Broken Glass Steel Cans Aluminum Cans Blue Box Fibre O.C.C. ($1.179.43640) lor fibre equals total fibre revenue divided by tonnes fibr $5,963,77147 high grade fibre. The market price 64789 Notes: 1. This is based on data supplied by City 01 Toronto 10, 996 market values. See attached appendix. 2. Nel CosURevenue lor PET and Aluminum contain revenue gained by removing 2,122 tonnes of pop containers Irom landfill through a refillables system at $110.00 per tonne. This fogure is based on soft drink industry estimates. 3. The market price lor fibre assumes the first 19,904 tonnes of fibre conlains 80% high grade fibre and 20% low grade fibre and Ihe remaining tonnage contains 50% high grade fibre. The City receives no revenue lor low grade fibre and $69.DOllonne fa 4.The Average Collection cost is calculated a,. lollows: Gross Collection Cost of Syslem based on Cily of Toronto figures ($5,964,336.75) divided by tolal tonnes collected. The City 01 Toronto Gross COllection Cost assumes a $153.25 per tonne cost, based on Metro figures. See Table 5. The descrepency between Gross Collection Costs in this table and Ihe City ligure Is due to rounding. 6. All other data and calculations come Irom City of Toronto. See attached appendi.. March 45435 TOTAL Table 4: City of Toronto Revised Figures Diversion CosV(Rev) (tonne) Market Price Collection CosV(Rev) (by material (Ionne material 00% freed volume replaced by Blue Box Fibre ie. 76% increase in BB Fibre Collection Cosl (tonne material Avg. Collection Cost (tonne) Densily Ratio Avg. Den. (Vm3) Volume (m3) With Density (Vm3) Scene ria C: No Pop Containers Weight (tonnes) Net CosV(Revenue) (per year ($89,98000) $640,612.28 ($29,672.29) ($34,83631) ($283,411.16) $542,18769 ($143.440.00) ($2,632,93599) ($243,192.55) Gross Collect. Cost (per year $0.00 $725,479.70 $453,005.21 $531,221.94 $157,795.89 $930,810.77 $0.00 $2,845,032.76 $320,217.33 ($110.00) $1,433.14 ($8.54) ($8.55) ($72.88) $255.51 ($110.00) ($75.10) ($61.63) $0.00 $1,543.14 $101.46 $101.45 $37.12 $365.51 $0.00 $34.90 $48.37 $319.45 $79.86 $28.90 $28.91 $3.45 $73.14 $1,217.16 $46.25 $32.78 $0.00 $1,623.00 $130.36 $130.36 $40.57 $438.65 $0.00 5 5 $81 $81 $112.50 4.65 14.43 1.16 1.16 0.36 3.90 7.59 0.72 0.72 0.2885 o 22365 13957 16367 4862 28669 o 87648 9865 0.0197 0.02 0.249 0.249 0.8 0.074 0.038 0.4 0.4 o 447 3475 4075 3889 2122 o 35059 3946 Glass Glass Broken Glass Steel Cans Aluminum Cans Blue Box Fibre O.C.C. PET HOPE Clear Colou I I I ($2,274,66834) for fibre equals tala I fibre revenue divided by tonnes fibre colle. I I $5,963,56359 I I fibre. The market price I I high grade 83733 Noles: 1. This is based on data supplied by City 01 Tc.ronto for March 1996 market values. See attached appendix. 2. Net CosVRevenue for PET and Aluminum contain revenue gained by removing 2,122 tonnes of pop conlainers from landfill through a refillables system at $110/tonne. This figure is based on soft drink industry estimates. 3. The market price for fibre assumes the first 19,904 tonnes of fibre contain 80% high grade fibre and 20% low grade fibre and the remaining tonnage contains 50% high grade fibre. The City receives no revenue for low grade fibre and $69.oollonne fa 4.The Average Collection cost is calculated cc follows: Gross Collection Cost 01 System based on City of Toronto figures ($5,964,336.75) divided by tolaltonnes collected. The City of Toronto Gross Collection Cost assumes a $153.25 per tonne cost, based on Metro figures. See Table 5 The descrepency between Gross Collection Costs in Ihis table and Ihe City figure is due to rounding. 6 All other dala and calculations come from C,ty of Toronto See allached appendix. I I I I I I I I 53013 I TOTAL I I I I I . I I , r I I f I I I I I I I Table 5A: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures SUMMARY Materials Collected Gross Costs by Material Net Diversion (Savings) Cost (tonnes) COllection Transfer Process Total Revenue Total per Tonne -------------------------------------------------------...------- -- -------. ---------------------- PET 1078 $1,326,133.83 $190,552.46 $456,764.96 $1,973,451.25 $356,354.00 $1,617,097.25 $1,500.09 HOPE 944 $1,144,664.93 $164,468.35 $394,246.57 $1,703,379.84 $262,789.64 $1,440,590.20 $1,526.05 Curb Glass 1925 $187,383.73 $56.321.28 $0.00 $243,705.02 $236,775.00 $6,930.02 $3.60 Clear Glass 5502 $535,679.91 $55,119.08 $99,162.78 $689,961.78 $550,969.50 $138,992.28 $25.26 Colour Glass 8641 $841,263.27 $86,565.74 $155,736.58 $1,083,565.59 $858,944.60 $224,620.99 $25.99 Broken Glass 5922 $179,456.89 $34,113.36 $130,079.66 $343,649.91 $521,136.00 ($177,486.09) ($29.97) Steel Cans 5117 $1,676,102.65 $240,826.31 $577 ,284.85 $2,494,213.80 $986,001.84 $1,508,211.96 $294.75 Aluminum 1306 $833,360.67 $119,739.19 $287,026.86 $1,240,126.73 $1,828,888.80 ($588,762.07) ($450.81) ONP Fibre 48866 $2,961,438.70 $425,513.49 $0.00 $3,386,952.19 $7,720,828.00 ($4,333,875.81) ($88.69) OCC Fibre 8561 $518,808.11 $74,543.73 $0.00 $593,351.84 $770,490.00 ($177,138.16) ($20.69) ------------.------.-. TOTAL 87862 $10,204,292.68 $1,447,763.00 $2,100,302.25 $13,752,357.93 $14,093,177.38 ($340,819.45) Notes: 1. All data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet. See attached appendix. 2. Revenues Include avoided collection and landfill costs of $78.00 per tonne. See Table 58. I " I I I Table 5B: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures REVENUES Marketed June 96 Revenue Market Landfill Avoided Gross Revenue Revenue/tonne (tonnes) per tonne Revenue Cost Credit collected ---------------------------------------------------------------------------. ------------------ ----------------------- PET 950 $286.60 $272,270.00 $84,084.00 $356,354.00 $375.11 HDPE 833 $227.08 $189,157.64 $73,632.00 $262,789.64 $315.47 Curb Glass 1925 $45.00 $86,625.00 $150,150.00 $236,775.00 $123.00 Clear Glass 2810 $43.35 $121.813.50 $429,156.00 $550,969.50 $196.07 Colour Glass 4414 $41.90 $184,946.60 $673,998.00 $858,944.60 $194.60 Broken Glass 11844 $5.00 $59,220.00 $461.916.00 $521,136.00 $44.00 Steel Cans 4512 $130.07 $586,875.84 $399,126.00 $986,001.84 $218.53 Aluminum 1152 $1,499.15 $1,727,020.80 $101,868.00 $1,828,888.80 $1,587.58 ONP Fibre 48866 $80.00 $3,909,280.00 $3,811,548.00 $7,720,828.00 $158.00 oce Fibre 8561 $12.00 $102,732.00 $667,758.00 $770,490.00 $90.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a_____________ -------------------------- TOTAL 85867 $7,239,941.38 $6,853,236.00 $14,093,177.38 Notes: 1. All data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet. See attached appendix. 2. Landfill avoided Cost Credit is calculated by multiplying tolal tonnes collected by $78.00/lonne. 3. ONP fibre contains 80% high grade fibre and 20% low grade fibre. Metro receives no revenue for low grade fibre and $1 00. DO/tonne for high grade fibre. Revenue per tonne for ONP fibre is calculated by dividing tolal high grade fibre revenue by total tonnes of ONP fibre. I . I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 6A Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures SUMMARY Scenerio A: No Pop Containers and 89,083 m3 freed volume Materials COllected Gross Costs by Material Net Diversion (Savings) Cost (tonnes) COllection . Transfer Process Total Revenue Total per Tonne ------------.-------------------------------------------------------. ------ .--- PET 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $168,168.00 ($168,168.00) ERR HOPE 944 $1,451,941.60 $209,333.79 $75,886.84 $1,737,162.23 $262,789.64 $1,474,372.59 $1,561.84 Curb Glass 1925 $237,685.48 $71,685.21 $0.00 $309,370.69 $236,775.00 $72,595.69 $37.71 Clear Glass 5502 $679,479.15 $70,155.06 $237.709.10 $987.343.30 $550,969.50 $436,373.80 $79.31 Colour Glass 8641 $1,067,094.06 $110,180.07 $373,405.06 $1,550,679.18 $858,944.60 $691,734.58 $80.05 Broken Glass 5922 $227,630.74 $43,419.17 $1,001,963.53 $1,273,013.44 $521,136.00 $751.877.44 $126.96 Steel Cans 5117 $2,126,039.77 $306,521.50 $411,348.48 $2.843,909.75 $986,001.84 $1,857,907.91 $363.09 Aluminum 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $203,736.00 ($203,736.00) ERR ONP Fibre 48866 $3,756,414.60 $541,589.63 $0.00 $4,298,004.23 $7.720,828.00 ($3,422,823.77) ($70.05) OCC Fibre 8561 $658,078.23 $94,878.57 $<;1.00 $752,956.80 $770.490.00 ($17.533.20) ($2.05) --.----.--.....------. TOTAL 85478 $10,204,363.64 $1,447.763.00 $2,100,313.00 $13,752,439.64 $12,279,838.58 $1,472,601.06 Notes: 1. All data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet. See attached appendix. 2. Revenues Include avoided collection and landfill costs of $78.00 per tonne. See Table 68. 3. This assumes Total Collection Costs, Total Transfer Costs and Total MRF Costs do not change. Gross costs for each material are based on Metropolitan Toronto calculations. I I I I I Table 6B: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures REVENUES Scenerio A: No Pop Containers Marketed June 96 Revenue Market Landfill Avoided Gross Revenue Revenue/tonne (tonnes) per tonne Revenue Cost Credit collected ----------------------------------------------------------------------------. ----------------- -----------------. PET 0 $286.60 $0.00 $168.168.00 $168,168.00 ERR HOPE 833 $227.08 $189,157.64 $73,632.00 $262,789.64 $315.47 Curb Glass 1925 $45.00 $86,625.00 $150,150.00 $236,775.00 $123.00 Clear Glass 2810 $43.35 $121,813.50 $429,156.00 $550.969.50 $196.07 Colour Glass 4414 $41.90 $184,946.60 $673,998.00 $858,944.60 $194.60 Broken Glass 11844 $5.00 $59,220.00 $461,916.00 $521,136.00 $44.00 Steel Cans 4512 $130.07 $586,875.84 $399,126.00 $986,001.84 $218.53 Aluminum 0 $1,499.15 $0.00 $203,736.00 $203,736.00 ERR ONP Fibre 48866 $80.00 $3,909,280.00 $3,811,548.00 $7,720,828.00 $158.00 OCC Fibre 8561 $12.00 $102,732.00 $667,758.00 $770,490.00 $90.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------, ..----------------- ._-- TOTAL 83765 $5,240,650.58 $7,039,188.00 $12,279,838.58 Notes: 1. All data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet. See attached appendix. 2. landfill avoided Cost Credit is calculated by multiplying total tonnes collected by $78.00/tonne. 3. ONP fibre contains 80% high grade fibre and 20% low grade fibre. Metro receives no revenue for low grade fibre and $100.00/tonne for high grade fibre. Revenue per tonne for ONP fibre is calculated by dividing total high grade fibre revenue by total tonnes of ONP fibre. 4. The landfill Avoided Cost for PET and Aluminum records revenue gained by removing 4,768 tonnes of pop containers from the Blue Box through a refillables system at $78.00/tonne. This figure is based on soft drink industry estimates. I I I I I I I , I I I I I I f I I I f I I , I I I I I I I I I I I Table 7A: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures SUMMARY Scenerio B: No Pop Containers with 50% freed volume replaced by GNP Fibre (ie. 36% increase in GNP Fibre Pickup) Malerials Collected Gross Costs by Material Net Diversion (Savings) Cost (tonnes) Collection Transfer Process Total Revenue Total per Tonne .---------------------------------------.-------------------------------- ----- --- --- PET 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $168,168.00 ($168,16800) ERR HOPE 944 $1,280,154.75 $209,333.79 $75,886.84 $1,565,375.39 $262,789.64 $1,302,585.75 $1,379.86 Curb Glass 1925 $209,563.66 $71,685.21 $0.00 $281,248.87 $236,775.00 $44,473.87 $23.10 Clear Glass 5502 $599,086.40 $70,155.06 $237,709.10 $906,950.55 $550,969.50 $355.981.05 $64.70 Colour Glass 8641 $940,840.55 $110,180.07 $373,405.06 $1,424,425.67 $858,944.60 $565,481.07 $65.44 Broken Glass 5922 $200,698.55 $43,419.17 $1,001,963.53 $1,246,081.25 $521,136.00 $724,945.25 $122.42 Steel Cans 5117 $1,874,496.83 $306,521.50 $411,348.48 $2,592,366.80 $986,001.84 $1,606,364.96 $313.93 Aluminum 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $203,736.00 ($203,736.00) ERR ONP Fibre 66684 $4,519,553.56 $541,589.63 $0.00 $5,061,143.19 $10,001.266.32 ($4,940,123.13) ($74.08) OCC Fibre 8561 $580,217.54 $94,878.57 $0.00 $675,096.11 $770,490.00 ($95.393.89) ($11.14) ~-------- TOTAL 103296 $10,204,611.84 $1,447,763.00 $2,100,313.00 $13,752,687.84 $14,560,276.90 ($807,589.06) Notes: 1. All data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet. See attached appendix. 2. Revenues include avoided collection and landfill costs of $78.00 per tonne. See Table 7B. 3. This assumes Total Collection Costs, Total Transfer Costs and Total MRF Costs do not change. Gross costs for each material are based on Metropolitan Toronto calculations. ,. J I I I I I Table 7B: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures REVENUES Scenerio B: No Pop Containers with 50% volume replaced by ONP Fibre (ie. 36% increase) Marketed June 96 Revenue Market Landfill Avoided Gross Revenue Revenue/tonne (tonnes) per tonne Revenue Cost Credit collected --------------------------------------------------------------------------------. -----------------. -----------------. PET 0 $286.60 $0.00 $168,168.00 $168,168.00 ERR HOPE 833 $227.08 $189,157.64 $73,632.00 $262,78964 $315.47 Curb Glass 1925 $45.00 $86,625.00 $150,150.00 $236,775.00 $123.00 Clear Glass 2810 $43.35 $121,813.50 $429,156.00 $550,969.50 $196.07 Colour Glass 4414 $41.90 $184,946.60 $673,998.00 $858,944.60 $194.60 Broken Glass 11844 $5.00 $59,220.00 $461,916.00 $521,136.00 $44.00 Steel Cans 4512 $130.07 $586,875.84 $399,126.00 $986,001.84 $218.53 Aluminum 0 $1,499.15 $0.00 $203,736.00 $203,736.00 ERR ONP Fibre 66684 $71.98 $4,799,914.32 $5,201,352.00 $10,001,266.32 $149.98 OCC Fibre 8561 $12.00 $102.732.00 $667,758.00 $770,490.00 $90.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------.. ..----------------- --------------- .--- TOTAL 101583 $6,131,284.90 $8,428,992.00 $14,560,276.90 Notes: 1. All data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet. See attached appendix. 2. Landfill avoided Cost Credit is calculated by multiplying total tonnes collected by $78.00/tonne. 3. The June 1996 Revenue per tonne for ONP fibre assumes first 48,866 tonnes contains 80% high grade fibre and 20% low grade fibre and remaining tonnage contains 50% high grade fibre. Metro receives no revenue for low grade fibre and $100.00/tonne for high grade fibre. Therefore, the Revenue per tonne for ONP is calculated by dividing total high grade fibre revenue by total tonnes of ONP fibre. 4. The Landfill avoided Cost for PET and Aluminum records revenue gained by removing 4768 tonnes of pop containers from the Blue l30x through a refillables system at $78.00/tonne. This figure is based on soft drink industry estimates. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f r r I I I I I I I , , I Table 8A: Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures SUMMARY Scenerio C: No Pop Containers with 100% freed volume replaced by ONP Fibre (ie 73% increase in ONP Pickup) Materials Collected Gross Costs by Material Net Diversion (Savings) Cost (tonnes) Collection Transfer Process Total Revenue Total per Tonne ------------------------------------- ------ ------- --- --- PET 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $168,168.00 ($168,168.00) ERR HOPE 944 $1,144,736.74 $209,333.79 $75,886.84 $1,429,957.37 $262,789.64 $1,167.167.73 $1,236.41 Curb Glass 1925 $187,395.49 $71,685.21 $0.00 $259,080.70 $236,775.00 $22,305.70 $11.59 Clear Glass 5502 $535,713.52 $70,155.06 $237.709.10 $843,577.68 $550,969.50 $292,608.18 $53.18 Colour Glass 8641 $841,316.05 $110,180.07 $373,405.06 $1.324,901.18 $858,944.60 $465,956.58 $53.92 Broken Glass 5922 $179,468.15 $43,419.17 $1,001,963.53 $1,224.850.85 $521,136.00 $703,714.85 $118.83 Sleel Cans 5117 $1,676,207.80 $306,521.50 $411,348.48 $2,394,077.78 $986,001.84 $1,408,075.94 $275.18 Aluminum 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $203,736.00 ($203.736.00) ERR ONP Fibre 84501 $5,121,302.97 $541,589.63 $0.00 $5,662,892.60 $12,282,220.35 ($6,619,327.75) ($78.33) OCC Fibre 8561 $518,840.66 $94,878.57 $0.00 $613,71923 $770,490.00 ($156,770.77) ($18.31 ~-----------._-- TOTAL 121113 $10,204,981.38 $1.447,763.00 $2,100,313.00 $13,753,057.38 $16,841,23093 ($3,088,173.55) Notes: 1. All data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet. See attached appendix. 2. Revenues Include avoided collection and landfill costs of $78.00 per tonne. See Table 88. 3. This assumes Total Collection Costs, Total Transfer Costs and Total MRF Costs do not change. Gross Costs for each material are based on Metropolitan Toronto calculations. REVENUES Revenue/tonne collected Gross Revenue Landfill Avoided Cost Credi Market Revenue Table 8B: Scenerio C: No Pop Containers with 100% volume .~ (ie. 73% increase) arketed June 96 Revenue tonnes) per tonne Metropolitan Toronto Revised Figures replaced by ONP Fib,~ ERR $315.47 $123.00 $196.07 $194.60 $44.00 $218.53 ERR $145.35 $90.00 $168,168.00 $262,789.64 $236,775.00 $550,969.50 $858,944.60 $521,136.00 $986,001.84 $203,736.00 $12,282,220.35 $770,490.00 $429, $461 $399, $0.00 $189.157.64 $86,625.00 $121,813.50 $184,946.60 $59,220.00 $586,875.84 $0.00 $5,691,142.35 $102,732.00 $286.60 $227.08 $45.00 $43.35 $41.90 $5.00 $130.07 $1,499.15 $67.35 $12.00 o 833 1925 2810 4414 11844 4512 o 84501 8561 PET HDPE Curb Glass Clear Glass Colour Glass Broken Glass Steel Cans Aluminum ONP Fibre OCC Fibre $16,841,230.93 $9,818,718.00 $7,022,512.93 119400 TOTAL Notes: 1. AI 2. Landfill avoided Cost Credit is calculated by multiplying totaltonnes collected by $78.00/tonne. 3. The June 1996 Revenue Per Tonne for ONP fibre assumes the first 48866 tonnes contains 80% high grade fibre and 20% low grade and remaining tonnage contains 50% high grade fibre. Metro receives no revenue for low grade fibre and $100.00/tonne for fibre. Therefore, the Revenue per tonne for ONP fibre revenue See attached appendix. data and calculations based on Metropolitan Toronto spreadsheet fibre I I I I I I high grade by totaltonnes of ONP fibre. 4. The Landfill Avoided Cost for PET and Aluminum records revenues gained by removing 4,768 tonnes of pop containers from the Blue Box through a refillables system at $78.00/tonne. This figure is based on soft drink industry estimates. ~ I I , I is calculated by dividing total high grade I I I I I I I I - [I] Memorandum c: . l , tl , TORONTO - To: Commissioner of Cil y Works Services Acting Ciry Solicitor Board of Management Chrisline Archibald. AdminJslralOr, Cily Services Committee (2-7030) City Clerk '5. Corporate Services Department - From: Dalc; September 20, 1996 - Subject: City'!! Blue Box Collection - At its meeting held on Wednesday, September 18, 1996, the City Services Committee had before it !he report (July 3D, 1996) from the Commissioner of City Works Services (July 30, 1996) of which Recommendation I respecting the continuance of soft drink: containers as part of the City's blue box collection was before Ole Committee for consideration. - The Commill~ also had the following before it; - Commissioner of City Works Services (September 6. 1996) . City of Toronto and Metro Taromo Blue Box Program COIlUlUssioner of Metro Works (September 17, 1996) - Blue Box cost allocation by volume Richard N. Lachapelle, Director - Sales and Marketing, Consumers Packaging Jne. (September 17, 1996) Greg Simpson, Toronto Environmental Alliance Waste Caucus (September 18, 1996) various submissions from Jail Whitelaw, Canadian Soft Drink Association Submission from Mark Mckenney, Beverage Recovery in Ontario Various submissions from J an H. Westcott, Brewers of Ontario - - .. The Committee made the following recommendations for consideration at Council at its m~ting on October 7. 1996: 1. That the collection of polyethylene lerephthelatc (PET) soft drink containers conlinue to be part of the City's blue box collecLion; - 2. Thal Metro Toronto be requested 10 assess the financial and environmental impactCi of the following methods of managing steel, glass and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) soft drink containers, taking account of area municipality and Metro impacts for the following alternative management systems, and including the impacts of materials land1iUed for each alternative: - - - exisllng blue box system: increased compaction in collecLion, with associaled increased glass breakage; depots for container collection; deposiL/retum for beverage conlainers; and full product stewardship. - 3. That should City Council decide Lo take legal action against Ontario Multi Material and Recycling Inc. (OMMRI), or its members, directors, or successor corporations, to recover funds owing to the City's Blue Box Program, the ACling City Solicitor and the Commissioner of City Works Services be requesledlo consult With the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators about the possibility of receiving supporL lor this legal action from oilier affected municipalities. - - - ZOOd b.81 Z6~ 9lrl3l ~IO ~3S HOl dO All~ . ~ : 0 0 103M) 96 ,g Z - d 3 S - 5. -2- ... 4. That City Cowlcil endorse AMO's position on a dcposil/retum system for beverage CODtainers. and that all Ontario municipalities be requested to indicate lheir support for AMO's position. III The Committee also took tbe following action: ... 1. Requested thc CilY Solicitor to report directly to City Council for its meeting on October 7, 1996 on Lhe possibility of taking legal action against Ontario Multi Material and Recycling Inc. (OMMRl), or its members, directors, or successor corporations. to recover funds owing to lhe City's Blue Box Program. (See Recommendation 3. above) .. 2. Requested the Corrunissioner of City Works Services to report directly to City C0UDC11 for its meeting on October 7. 1996, 011 the effect a ret\lm Lo reuse initiative will have on other areas of tlle environment. .. 3. Requested the City Solicitor to consult with the Toronto Environmental AJliance regarding its legal action against Coca-Cola and report back to the October 9, 1996 meeting of the City Services Committee on possible City support of that action. .. III 4. Requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of City Works Services, to report to the City SelVice~ Committee on the powers available to the City of Toronto to ban soft drink and oilIer beverage containers from the recycling and walltc collection system in the event that the province does not enact deposit/retum legiSlation. ... Requested the City Solicitor, in cOllsultation with the Board of Management, to repon to the City Services Conunittee on the powers available to tl1e City to implement a levy on beverage containers sold within tbe City of Toronto in the event that the province does not enact deposit/return legislation. .. ... 6. Requested the Commissioner of City Works Services to report to the City Services Committee for its meeting on January ] 5. 1997. on: a) a strategy to implement a retum to reuse program for other containers that can be refilled. ... b) initiatives that can be taken to reduce overpackaging .. c) a comparalive analysis of the various studies prepared by the industry and environmental organizations relating to the financial and environmental benefits of the above. ... C9Ac:ili,~ ... ... CC: Toronto Environmenr.al Alliance Interested Persons ~oo 'd III .. .. 6.81 ~6~ 91tl31 Ala ~3S HOl dO All~ 8g: 00 1011,\) 96 ,gZ -d3S .. .\f'r.. '21' - - - - .. - .. - - .. - - .. - - - - - ... 11110 ^e~[1 L< 11011 '1 J. Ii G- ;VI A UJol41 )") b " / .F '\ WHEREAS'the Province of Ontario has ceased its funding for recycling and has established a diversion rate of 50% by the year 2000; and WHEREAS the provincial regulations require municipalities to reduce the amount of materials going to land fill and to recycle; and WHEREAS the -prices for recycJables have faUen in recent months; and WHEREAS as a result of this, municipalities are required to subsidize. in ever increasing amounts, the operation of the blue box and lei (Industrial, Commerciaf and Institutional) programs in Ontario: and WHEREAS municipalities are experiencing ever reduced amounts of transfer payments from the province; and WHEREAS the faUing prices for product are tending to place the continued operation of a blue box and ICI program at risk in many municipalities; and WHEREAS two years ago, good progress has been made on reaching an 8grMfTIent (CIPSI) with the packaging industry to provide a IUbsidy through. a fund -that would insure that municipalities would be able to receive I revenue return on sales that would enable an efficient recycling operation to run at no cost to the taxpayers; and WHEREAS it was understood that the CIPSI agl'88ment was meant to help'mu'nicipalities to replace the elimination of provincial funding for recycling to the municipaUties;-and WHEREAS such an agreement would encourage the packaging and ftbre industries to reduce the amount and variety of materials going into the market and have manufacturers responsible for the recycling of the packaging they generate; WHEREAS CIPSr, AMO and the Ministry of Environment and Energy failed to finalize a funding agreement for the collection, processing and marketing of recyclables in Ontario; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that AMO petition the Ministry of Environment and Energy to re-open the talks with the packaging industry and open talks with the fibre industry forthwith in order to reach agreements (or pass legisfation) that would require the producers of packaging and various fibres (newsprint, fine paper, boxboard and OCe) to provide funding assistance to the collectors and recyclers when the revenues received for these products fall below a price that will enable an efficient recycling operation to run with\)ut municipal subsidies: (Contd_ next page) RQoluJions 96 ~__t , ENV 96.073 (contd.) FURntER BE IT RESOLVED that the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through that fmd, insure that ... produces that can ~~ be recyded, induding the wide range 01 pIatiet have a statile martcet and. research program be atabfiahed to develop new products and better ways for aM material to be reuI8d and "pI ac:essed into new.'9ftM*~ _ ~.., 0'. FURl'HER-SE-rr-RESOLVED that efforts be made to ensunt that adequD reqdlag P"OC*ling plants be established to insure that t... iI the QII*Ity for.~ooetlinQ d _ ~lIibIe recydllhIA prMtlHll coming from mu~ ~:DourItICl ~~~ /- Further be it reSOlVed-that AIfl) ~in d~i~Wi~~tIle. '- ""\ -- MOE!: that would lead to the r.-introduc~1oD - ot - a .. , deposit/return systaa tor soft drink and other:- b8veraqa~ / con~in.rs in Ontario. !ll\!l~ndlit1C lit I . P6~~~ d 'lfYlDu. t;\~ u(\C{,f) . / t l- I I . ,... I'" ,. ... ... I- I f~ ~ ... - C . .- ~ ... ... - .. ... .. ... .. , . r .. ... J J J I J I I I I I I I I J J J J '. Po_iticians Seel( fe-use of plastic pop bottles P . d guments that refillable glass rOVlnce urge bottles offer questionable bene- 1 . 1 t fits because of high energy and to egIs a e water use to wash and transport mandatory refills th~~\hlnk Intuitively it makes more sense to reuse something BvPAuLMoLoNEv than to recycle.it. I don't care CITY HALL BUREAU how many studies are plunked . . I t in front of me. 1 think it's a no- The pr~)V]n~ta gov~rnmen bralner." should bnng m depOSIt-return Premier Mike Harris' govern- systems for soft ~rink and other ment should pass deposit-return be~e~~ge contamers, Toronto regulations for liquor bottles, pohticlan~ say. . which account for as much as Returnmg bottle~ for reuse IS 70 per cent of the glass in the better for the enVIronment and blue box Metro Councillor Judy would eliminate the high cost of Sgro told the committee. recycling two-litre plastic pop Sgro (North York Humber) containers, Councillor Rob said much of the glass is col- Maxwell said yesterday. ored bottles, for which demand Maxwell and other members is low and added that 27 per of the city services committee cent ~f the glass collected in recommended city council back Metro is used as fill because of the change and enlist other mu. poor quality and contamination: nicipalities to pressure Queen's "If the industry isn't willing to Park. do It, and 1 don't think they are, While there are conflicting it's going to take the province to studies, enVironmentalist Gor. come down. with some legis la- don Perks told the committee tlve changes," Sgro said. he's convinced bottles that can Maxwell raised the Issue at be refilled at least 10 times are city hall after a report said Met- the most environmentally ro taxpayers, excluding North friendly packaging. York, are paying'$1.7 million a Maxwell ag1JCd, pooh- year to recycle pl~c pop bot- poohing soft drink industry ar- tlf'~ (North Ynrk e;m!; its nwn Jan Whitelaw. Whitelaw brought plastic bot- tles used for cooking oil, salad dressing, mouthwash and other products to illustrate her point that plastic soft drink bottles represent only two-thirds of the total. . She said the soft drink indus- try wants to work out an ar- rangement with Metro to pay for the cost of recycling Its bot- tles. . "We continue our pledge that municipal taxpayers will not subsidize soft drink container recovery," she said in' an inter- view. 'We're committed to pay- ing 9ur way." Perks, who appeared on be- half of the Toronto Environ- mental Alliance, said he was de. lighted that municipal politicians are urging an exten- sive deposit-return system. "This is the kind of stu.1f we were trying 10 years ago to get the municipalities to do," he said. "Now, because they're on the hook for subsidizing a very expensive system, they're start- ing to look at progressive op- tions." A staff report said all provinc- es except Newfoundland en. courage reusable beverage con- tainers, with Prince Edward Island going the furthest in ban- ning non-refillables. In Ontario, soft drink compa- nies are supposed to sell 30 per cent of their product in refill- able containers. It's actually about 2 per cent, which bottlers attribute to low consumer de- mand. ROB MAXWELL: Ton councillor wants t( rccyeling costs to c blue box program). The committee stopped short of calling for the plastic bottles to be banned from the blue box - to the relief of the Canadian Soft Drink Association. "We're happy that our con- tainers will remain in the box," said association spokesperson J J --- /oIO/V r >'/1 ;-e I s: ~/' .,' /." .. t'~? r~ r I.') . \.... , I ,'/ ~~' I '\.... ,.-; !.. t I, ; /- ( / '1./ Metro taxpayers are losing almost three cents every time a 2-litre plastic pop bottle lands In the bottom of a Blue Box recycling container. A drop in the bucket? Hardly. Nearly 60 million of the 2-1i- tre bottles will be recycled In Metro this year. That means taxpayers will be pouring out more than $1.7 million to take those bottles from local households and ship them off for recycling, ac- cording to a revealing study of the local Blue Box program by the Metro works department. Metro's Blue Box program is a money loser. The popular waste diversion progrnm will cost taxpayers more than $5.5 million in 1996, says the cost-estimate study obtained yesterday by The Star. Mf'tro taxpayers will subsi- dize the program at an aver- age cost of $63 per tonne for the nearly 88,000 tonnes of plastic bottles, glass, steel cans, aluminum, old newspa- bers and comtgated card- Metro's Blue Boxes cost taxpayers millions Continued from Al t . look at everything," , 'fhe study has reignited de- . te over the benefits of recy- ng and the shape of its future i Metro. ; ,The focus of the debate Is on t e beverage industry - the soft , "nk sector and its plastic pop tJottles and the vast array of ~ass liquor and wine bottles. 'I' Should those industries be Iping support the Blue Box , . stem or - like the beer in- stry - should they be coming , ' with return-far-deposit and fillable bottle systems? tThe soft drink industry was I rgely responsible for helping t recycling programs started i Ontario. It and other indus- tries kicked in $20 million, one- t~ird of the Blue Box starting (]Osts. ,~ However, funds for efforts to mnke the I31ue Box programs .nore efficient are still coming In from an industry group ,known as Corporations Sup- : ~0I1ing Hecycling (CSR). 1 "We are ripping off the tax- pnyers to subsidize industry, es- .-' I "I .4 I 11., " Just 2 per tent of soft drinks arc sold in glass rrofillnbles even though provincial law ~'IYs the industry must produce 30 per cent of its products in bottles that can be returned to stores for a refundable deposit. The law has not bf'cn en forced for yr.nrs. BY BRIAN McANDREW ENVIRONMENT REPORTIlR Metro program to cost taxpayers $5.5 million dent of Metro, was not Includ. ed in the estimates.' , "I ~ knew It _cost- Ing us something, bl4 J n~ Imew the .~" said Couildllor JUdy Sgro (North, York Humber), a member of Metro's budget advisory team trying to find $100 milllon in tax savings. Sgro asked the WOrks de- parbn~t for the. ftg\n'es. , ''Recyc:lbiIlS . inc:Jthethood Issue but It's time .to' take the mask off," she said "We have (JIr PI.1t ... ......'s, A4 But there are no active three, way negotiations for direct sup- port of Blue Box programs. "It's time to get Coke off wel- fare," environmental nctivist Gord Perks said bluntly. Perks is working on n cnm, paign for the Toronto Environ- mental Allinnce coalition to pro- mote the use of rcfillnble bottles. pecially the beverage industry," charged Sgro, who wants the three original partners - the province, municipalities and in- dustry - to once again work out a way to share the burden of costs. "We are working with Metro on its efficiency and the wny it collects recyclable products," responded CSR acting president Joe Hruska. I Blue Box L 1 1 1__ , 1 is in the red J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 'I I .. - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TORONTO ENVI RON MENTAL ALLIANCE 122 St. Patrick St., Suite 209, Toronto M5T 2X8 416-596-0660 PressRe/ease For Immediate Release September 16, 1996 Environmentalists Launch Legal Action Against Coca-Cola Group Seeks to Enforce Refillable Bottle Law (Toronto) Today, a representative of the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) laid a private charge against Coca Cola Beverage Ltd. Lawyer..Clayton Ruby, who is representing the group, held a press conference on the steps of the main entrance of Osgoode Hall at Queen St. and University Avenue at 1.:00 PM. The charge relates to Coke's violations of Ontario Environmental' Protection Act regulations which require that 30 percent of soft drinks;sold:in Ontario be in refillable containers. The most recently published numbers state.that Coke'is achieving less than 2 percent. "Coke has been breaking this law since the day it was written; and the government has made no effort to enforce it in years," said Gord Perks, the.TEA representative who laid the charge. "If no one else will defend the environmerlti -we-:. will. " The legal actions come after Metro Toronto released a study which shows that non- refillable pop containers are costing Metro tax-payers well over $1,000,000 annually in collection and processing costs.for Blue Box recycling. Taxpayers are also footing the bill for the garbage and litter collection costs for the majority of pop containers that are not captured by the Blue Box program. Refillable bottles, which are returned to the- store are better for the environment and do not cost tax-payers any money. "Softdrink companies promised that Blue Box recycling would be a winner~for'municipalities and the environment. Now we know that the real winners are Coke and Pepsi," said Perks. The charge which was approved by a Toronto Justice of the Peace today, will be dealt with by Crown Attorneys in one of the three ways. They can take over the prosecution, quash the prosecution, or allow Mr. Perks to proceed. The maximum fine is $10,000 per day. 30 For further information contact: Gord Perks (416)596-0660 work (416)535-6322 home TORONTO ENVI RON M ENTAL ALLIANCE 122 St. Patrick St., #209, Toronto, ON M5T 2X8 418-596-0660 ... - MediaRelease For RelNae - Press Conference - Toronto City Hall 10:00 a.m.- 2nd Floor, CouncillorsJ East Lounge Septembat.17, 1996 IJIIIIiI IJIIIIiI Environmentalists Say Boot Pop Out. of the- Blue-BOx. IJIIIIiI (City Hall-Toronto) Today, in an unexpected turn of events, a Toronto envirOl.,~tal group asked all Ontario municipalities to kick pop containers out of their Blue Box programs. In a report released today by the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA), Retum to Reuse - Savino the Environment and Tax Dollars Throu~ System for Soft Drinks. it was revealed that the collection of soft drink containent in the Blue Box is costing Metro Toronto taxpayers over $1.1 million amuaUy, wtriIItdiverting under half of all pop containers from landfill. The group caJIed on municipatiti_ to ask the province for deposit return legislation that would force a retum to refillable gtass bottles for beverages. - - .... "Coke and Pepsi have allowed taxpayers to pay for the majority of their recycUng bill while pretending that single use plastic and aluminum containers ar&th&beltchoice- for the environmenr says Greg Simpson, one of the authors of th&report." -Recycling is better than landfilling waste, but reusable glass bottles are even betterforthe environment. Taxpayers don't have to pay for them to be handled and aJmost; 100" are returned for reuse when a deposit is placed on them. D .. .. ... Deposit return legislation received endorsements from Rob Maxwell, City of Toronto councillor, and David Shiner, City of North York councillor. Maxwell has alr88dy made a resolution to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) during its annual conference last month asking the province for deposit return legislation 101:.811 bevenIge containers. Maxwell and other members of Toronto's City Services Committee.will be debating this Wednesday whether the City should continue to collect bottles and cans in its Blue Box. David Shiner has supported deposit return legislation for many yeanr and ctaims that municipalities across the province are subsidizing pop companies and other beverage suppliers millions of dollars each year through the Blue Box. or the. II Red Box" as he refers to it. - - ... - The report goes on to suggest that the Blue Box program should concentrate on collecting materials for which reuse is not a realistic alternative, such as old newspapers, magazines, and cardboard. "If Metro Toronto were able to replace the volume occupied by pop containers in the recycling system with more newspaper and paper materials they could realize a net profit of over $3 million" says Simpson. .. .. -30- For further information contact: I11III Greg Simpson (416)596-0660 work (A 1 ~'A~~_ ":l~QQ hl"'l"""'" I11III LAV - .. - - - - Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling: Are Tb.ey Compatible? - ... - - - James E. McCarthy Specialist Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division - - - January 27, 1993 - - I eRS - - - - . . - - - - - - - ... ... - ... - - - - - - ... ~ ---~... SUMMARY In recent years, both curbside collection and deposit/refund (or "bottle billj programs have been used to collect materials for recycling. In 1991, both served about 30% of the U.S. population. Along with many other measures, both methods may have a role to play in a comprehensive recycling program. Neither method excludes the use of the other. Nevertheless, many wish to compare the merits of the two systems as alternatives. This report compares the merits of curbside and deposit programs in three respects: amount of material collected; quality of material collected; and financial aspects. Tbe report concludes tliat: · Comparisons between the two systems are difficult to make. Key data (such as the. cost of collecting materials) are often not publicly aVallable and can be greatly affected by methodological assumptions. . The two methods are not designed to serve exactly the same purposa. In addition to promoting recycling, deposit-refund systems reduce litter generation and make possible the use of refillable beverage containers. Curbside programs, on the other hand, can target a wider range of materials than a deposit system, and thus have the potential to achieve a greater diversion of waste for recycling. . Curbside programs are more common in deposit States than in non- deposit States: 43% of the population has access to curbside recycling in deposit States, versus 22% of the population in non-deposit States. Thus, enactment of a bottle bill does not appear to prevent operation of curbside programs. . Deposit systems collect more oftheir target materials than do curbside programs. Return rates in deposit systems range from 72% to 98%. The best curbside programs collect less than 70% of the targeted material - in many cases, substantially less. . Because the bottles and cans are sorted and bandIed individually when returned to retailers, the materials collected by deposit systems are generally of a higher quality than curbside materials, particularly if the latter are commingled during collection. . Deposit-refund systems cost more to operate on a per-ton-collected basis. These additional costs are internalized in product prices. Curbside systems, while costing less, depend on tax revenues, mA1dng the ability to maintain or expand levels of curbside service dependent on local government budgets. . Deposit systems "skim" potential sources of revenue from curbside programs, but they also reduce operating costs of curbside collection and processing. . Studies suggest that local governments would achieve a greater diversion of solid waste from disposal at a lower cost per ton if both a bottle bill and a curbside collection program were in place. .-IIi ... TABLE OF CONTENTS IN'l'RODUCTION ........................................... 1 .-IIi I. DEPOSIT-REFUND LAWS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .3 ... A. Common Features of Beverage Container Refund Laws ......... 3 ~ .. . . ".0 B. Unique Features of Individual State Laws ................... 5 1. Coverage of Additional Beverages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 2. Escheat Provisions ................................. 5 3. California System .................................. 6 4. Other ............................................ 7 ... .-IIi C. Effect on the Use of Refillable Bottles ...................... 8 .. D. Implementation ....... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 ... n. CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAMS ...................... 12 A. Geographic Distribution ................................. 12 .. B. 'I'ypes of Programs ..................................... 12 1. Size ............................................. 14 ... 2. Materials Collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. Methods of Collection and Sorting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .. C. Implementation . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. Non-Interference with Market Choices ...................... 19 ... m. COMPARISON OF THE TWO METHODS OF COLLECTING AND SORTING RECYCLABLES ........... 20 ... A. Amount of Material Collected ........................... 20 ... B. Quality of Material Collected ............................ 26 C. Costs and Methods of Financing ......................... 27 1. Costs ........................................... 28 2. Financing ....................................... 30 3. Do Bottla Bills wSkimw Resources from Curbside Recycling? ............................. 30 .. IIIIi CONCLUSION ............................................ 33 JIIIIi .. .. -, INTRODUCTION - As Federal policy-makers and the Congress search Cor ways to stimula~ the recycling of municipal solid waste, attention has focused on a wide variety of methods adopted by State and local governments. Such methods include: .- . curbside collection programs; .. . requirements for commercial and institutional waste generators; . government procurement of recycled products; .. . .. . . .. recycled content requirements for specific products and packaging; tax incentives for recycling investments; and deposit-refund systems. - All oC these methods and others may have a role to play in a comprehensive recycling program: none oCthe methods excludes use of the others. In practice, many States rely on a mix of policy measures, including all or most of those listed above. .. Of the measures listed above, however, only two - curbside collection and deposit-refund - focus on collecting materials Crom individual consumers or households. Thus, while debate rages over many oC these policy measures, a specific subset of the issues involves comparing the merits of curbside and deposit-refund systems. J - - Comparisons of the two systems are difficult to make. Key data (such as the cost of collecting materials and the amount of material collected) are often controlled by entities that have a vested interest in the debate's outcome. As a result, the choice of data is itself a matter requiring judgment, and is likely to be the subject of criticism. - .. In addition, the two methods are not. designed to serve exactly the same purposes. Deposit-refund systems reduce litter generation and make possible the use of refillable beverage containers; curbside collection does neither. Curbside programs, on the other hand, can target a wider range oC recyclable materials than deposit-refund mechanisms. Measured by weight, two-thirds to three-quarters of the materials recycled by curbside programs are likely to be - - 1 Other systems, such as drop-off points for recyclable materials, could be included in this comparison. In Europe, drop-off collection is the principal method of collecting non-refillable glass bottles and jars; in some countries, glass recycling rates as high as 70% are obtained by placing thousands of drop- off containers in public places. In this country, however, drop-off programs have been limited in scope and have generally not recovered more than a few percent of target materials. AB a result, they are not included in this report. - - - - CRS-2 IIIlL paper.2 For a variety of practical reasons, paper products have never been subject to deposits; with a few key exceptions, it is difficult to see bow ~ could be subjected to such a system. . .. .. Thus, any comparison needs to focus on tbe comparable elements and confine its conclusions to those elements. This report .focuses on bow well the systems perform in collecting beverage containers. It compares the two systems in three respects: 1) the amount of material collected; 2) the quality of the material collec~; and 3) financial aspects, including net costs of operation and methods of fmancing. .. .. Section I describes the features of the various State deposit-refund laws. Section II describes the evolution and nature of curbside collection programs. And Section ill compares the two methods against the three criteria. The third section also addresses the effects of the two mecbanisms on each' other: specifically, do deposit-refund systems, by .skimming" the most valuable material~,. harm or prevent the operation of curbside collection? ..: ... ..' :.l ..; .. .. .. .. .. .. .. III 2 To give two examples from well-developed multi-material curbside programs, the City of Seattle reported in September 1991 that 76'IJ of the material collected in its curbside program, by weight, is newspaper and mixed waste paper. The State of Rhode Island reported for the year 1990 that 67<<,(, of the material processed and sold by its curbside programs was newspaper.' ... .. .. CRS-3 - - I. DEPOSIT-REFUND LAWS - Since 1971, 10 States with a combined population of 74 million have enacted some form of beverage container refund law. popularly referred to as "bottle bills" or "deposit laws,. the laws require beverage retailers to pay consumers a specified refund value for returning empty containers, and require wholesale distributors of the beverages to pay refunds to retailers. . - - In general, the laws do not require the recycling or reuse of the empty containers. Once collected, however, the containers have value 88. scrap material. Thulll, except in rare instances, the returned containers have been recycled or reused. . - Both of the popular names for these laws ("bottle bills" and "deposit lawsj are somewhat misleading: the laws generally affect glass, metal, and plastic containers for the specified beverages, not just bottles; and most of the laws do not actually require payment of a deposit, although retailers and distributOrs have collected deposits in any case. Nonetheless, "bottle bill. and .deposit.1aw" are commonly used in the literature and, consequently, the terms are also used in this report. - - - In addition to the beverage container laws, three of the same States and seven others have deposit-like requirements for auto batteries. These laws require that consumers buying replacement auto batteries return a used battery or pay a deposit of $5.00-$10.00. The consumer can receive a refund of the deposit by returning a spent battery within a specified period of time - generally 30 days. The battery laws require wholesalers to accept returned batteries from retailers, and require recycling. Since there is no comparison to be made between these laws and curbside collection programs, the battery laws are not further discussed in this report. - - - A. Common Features of Beverage Container Refund Laws - Table 1 presents a summary of key features of the 10 States' beverage container refund laws. Most of the laws: - . apply to carbonated soft drinks and beer; . establish a $0.05 refund value; - . apply to glass, metal, and plastic containers; - . require retailers to accept for refunds containers of the same brand and type that they ofTer for sale; and - . pay retailers a "handling fee" to cover the cost of handling returned containers. - - i" .. CRS-4 .. TABLE 1 .. Beverae-e Container Refund Laws in the United States Date Refund Beverages .. State Implemented Amount Included California 9/87 5 cents for containers Beer, soft drinks, ... with a capacity> 24 wine coolers, carbonated oz.; 2.5 cents for waters all others 1 Connecticut 1/80 5 cents Beer, soft drinks, carbonated waters .. Delaware 6/82 5 cents Beer, 80ft drinks, carbonated waters (except naturally .. sparkling mineraJ water) Iowa 7n9 5 cents Beer, 80ft drinks, .. wine, liquor, mineral and soda water ... Maine In8 15 cents for wine and AU beverages except spirits; 5 cents for milk and dairy-derived all others products ... Massachusetts 1/83 5 cents Beer, soft drinks, soda and mineral water .. Michigan 12n8 10 cents Beer, soft drinks, carbonated water, wine ... coolers, and mixed spirit drinks .. New York 7/83 5 cents Beer, soft drinks, - mineral and soda water, wine coolers .. Oregon lOn2 5 cents, except Beer, 80ft drinks, 2 cents for certified mineral and soda waters ... refilJable containers Vermont 7n3 15 cents for liquor; Beer, soft driOks, .. 5 cents for all others mineral and soda waters, wine coolers, liquor .. ... .- CRS-5 - Under the systems established to comply with the laws, deposits are initiated by the wholesale distributor of the beverage, not by the bottler or brewer. On the return side, used bottles and cans are returned to distributors, not to the bottlers or brewers.3 Thus, in the case of imported beverages or beverages shipped long distances, containers need not be returned to the country or State of origin, but only to the local distributor, who then generally sells the material for recycling. - - - B. Unique Features of Individual State Laws - While the laws are similar in most States, there are some unique features in several of the laws. The differences include: - 1. Coverage of Additional Beverages. Initially, the refund laws applied only to carbonated soft drinks and beer. Beginning with Iowa's law in 1979, however, several States have expanded this coverage to include wine, liquor, wine coolers, and other beverages. The most comprehensive of these expansions has been in the State of Maine; as of January 1, 1991, all beverages except dairy. products are covered by refund requirements. The list includes beer, wine, spirits, soft drinks, water, iced tea, fruit juice, and fruit drinks. - - - 2. Eschea.t Provisions. In most bottle bill State~" beverage distributors have three sources of income that help offset the costs. of handling returned containers: 1) the scrap value of the containers; 2) i~terest on the money held as deposits; and 3) deposits that remain unclaimed when containers are not returned. - - Some view the third source of income as an unearned windfall. This poses a particular problem in States which do not allow territorial monopolies for beverage distributors, since different distributors may sell and redeem the containers. In such cases, the seller reaps a windfall in the amount of the unclaimed deposit, while the redeemer loses money. - Whether there are territorial monopolies or not, allowing distributors to keep unclaimed deposits may also provide them a disincentive to accept returned containers: if fewer containers are returned, the distributor earns more money. .c - - - 3 In the soft drink industry, the bottler is often also the wholesale distributor, so that this distinction is not important; in the beer industry, however, the distributor is generally distinct from the brewer. - .c Distributors are legally obligated to accept returns, but clearly have some discretion in deciding how quickly or how often they pick them up, how quickly they reimburse retailers, etc., all of which, in turn, may affect a retailer's degree of cooperation with customers returning containers. This problem has been particularly severe in States such as New York, which do not allow exclusive territories for beverage distributors. In such cases, returns are not necessarily - - .. CRS-6 ... Thus, whether distributors should be allowed to keep unclaimed deposits has become a political issue in several States. Three of them <Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan) have responded by passing what are called wescheat laws. W Escheat laws require beverage distributors to return all or a portion of unclaimed deposits to the State. Distributors are also required to provide data concerning sales and return rates under these laws. Th~ data serve as the basis for calculating the amount of money to be returned, and provide the best data available conceFning return rates. .. ... .. 3. California System. Nearly 15 years after Oregon initiated U.s. experience with the bottle bilI, industry and environmentalists in California agreed on a new approach. Under the California system, which was implemented in 1987, refunds are lower than in other States, retailer. and distributors of beverages are generally exempt from handling returns; and returns are channeled through recycling centers or curbside collection programs. .. . .. "'''';" ~ . Coming after years of intense debate, the California approach was. an,eftbrt- to reach a compromise acceptable to all interests, ineludinggrocers, who opposed handling returned containers in their stores, and- environmentaIi~~: who insisted on the need for an economic incentive to stimulate recycling. It is a more complicated system than the traditional refund Jaw; requirs. a large bureaucracy to administer, and it has not yet gained acceptance outside of California. But with some changes implemented. in 1990, and with the-. continued growth of curbside collection programs for recyclables, the California: system now appears to have overcome some of its early problems. .. .. .. Under the California law, manufacturers of most beverage containerapay a fee of $0.02 per container to a State recycling fund. When the containers are returned, the fund pays 2.5 cents per: container to the recycling cente'ol'" program which handled the return. This ree may be passed on to the individual, or group returning the container. ... .. Containers holding more than 24 ounces are subject to fees of $0-.04, and have refund values of $0.05. .. Small retailers (defined as having revenues of Ie sa than $2,000,000 per year) are exempt from handling returned containers. Large retailers may be exempt if they can demonstrate that there is a recycling center located within a one-halt mile radius of their store. This area is referred to as a -convenience zone: Tbe State Department of Conservation has mapped over 2,000 such convenience zones in the State. Approximately 500 of these zones already had recycling' facilities. In the others, retailers have generally contracted with recycling firms to establish redemption centers or install reverse vending machines in store parking Jots. .. .. .. .. handled by the distributor who first sold the beverages. Thus, imbalances can occur, with some distributors keeping large amoun~ of unclaimed deposits, while others payout more than they initially collected. .. III - CRS-7 - In order to ensure that the container industry pays the full cost of recycling, the law requires the State to calculate a "processing fee" for each type of container annually. The processing fee is the difference between the average cost to recyclers of handling returned containers and their scrap value. The container manufacturer must either guarantee a scrap price equal to the cost of processing or pay the State fund a processing fee equal to the difference between the two. This provision has created artificially high prices for some recyclahJes in California, and provided incentives for out-of-State recyclers to import used beverage containers. Redemption of out-of-State containers is illegal, howe....er. - - - - The law also has provided subsidy payments to low-volume recyclers to help keep them in business. These payments are called "convenience incentive payments" (CIPs); their purpose is to insure the long-term operation of convenient recycling locations. The State recycling fund paid $13 million in CIPs in 1990, mostly to recycling centers located at supermarkets. The CIJ::>> in 1989 was as high as 5.6 cents per container at reverse vending machines. In 1990, however, because of increased volume handled at the centers, CIPs were reduced to 1.3 cents per container:at staffed centen:and 3.6 cents at rnerse vending machines.6 The CIPs will be replaced'in 1993 by a handling fee of 1.7 cents per. container. Only certain recycling centers will be eligible for the new fees, which will be capped at $2,300 per month per center.6 - - - Much of the California system appears complicated, but in two respects it is more efficient than the traditional refund law used in other State&.. YJrSt, because it eliminates the requirement that containers be returned" to distributors, it requires less sorting of returned containers. Second, for thel8JD8 reason, the law facilitates redemption of containers by curbside recycling programs. - - - Not needing to separate containers by brand, the operators of curbside recycling programs could become major beneficiaries of the law. In 1992, however, only 6% of the redemption fees disbursed went to the operators of such programs.' - 4. Other. While the refund laws in the nine States other than California are quite similar to each other, there are some differences: : - - 6 California Department of Conservation, "Convenience Zone Effectiveness Study," a Report to the California Legislature, June 1991, Summary Report, p. 15. - 6 "Container and Packaging Recycling Update," December 1992, p.5. - , Personal communication, California Department .of Conservation, December 1992. Data reported are actual data for the period January 1,1992- September 30, 1992, plus estimated payments for tbe period October 1 - December 31, 1992. - ... .. CRS-8 .. · Seven of the States require .distributors to pay retailers a fee to cover the additional costs imposed by handling returned containers. Tbese handling fees vary from ane State to another, from a low of $0.01 in Iowa to a high of $0.03 per container in Vermont and Maine. Oregon and Michigan have no handling fee. .. .. · Some of the States allow -redemption centers, - or -redemption services- to handle returned containers, in addition to retailers. Such facilities and- services assist retailers by providing alternative collection places, reverse vending machines, or specialized services such as frequent pick-up of returned containers, sorting of containers, and related administrative aspects. .. I ..~ ! ~ · One State (Delaware) exempts aluminum cans. .. '. The State of Michigan has a higher refund value for beer and soft drink containers than the others, $0.10. .. C. Effect on the Use of Rerillable Bottles .. Since most studies have demonstrated that refillable bottles have the least environmental impact of the various container delivery systems,' reviving demand for refillable bottles was a major goal of bottle bill legislation. .. The use of refillable bottles in the United States began declining in the 1940s (Table 2). By the early 1970s, when the first bottle bills were passed, refillable bottles accounted for only 39% of soft drink volume and 23% of beer. .. Early proponents and impartial analyses. of bottle bills thought that mandating refund values for non-refillable containers would revive demand for refillables. For example, the U.S. Resource Conservation Committee, an interagency group established in 1976 to report to the President and the Congress concerning economic instruments that could be used to reduce solid waste, assumed that implementation of a national deposit law would increase the market share of refillable bottles from 27% to a range of 40% to 60%.' The .. .. ... .. a The U.S. Resource Conservation Committee, for example, estimated in 1979 that a 20% increase in market share for refillables would reduce energy demand by 60 trillion BTU, reduce industrial solid waste generation by 180 million cubic feet, reduce air and water pollution, conserve bauxite and iron ore, and save consumers $1.1 billion. See U.s. Resource Conservation Committee, .Choices for Conservation,. Final Report to the President and Congress, Washington, July 1979, p. 89. .. .. IIIIl Q U.S. Resource Conservation Committee, "Choices for Conservation,. p.88. III CRS-9 .. - TABLE 2 - Market Share of Refillable Bottles in the United States. 1947-1990 (% of all drinks delivered in refillable bottles) Soft drinks 1947 100% 1959 96%. 1967 65%.. 1978 38% 1990 7% ;- - Beer 86% . 53% 35% 11% 5% - Sources: U.S. General Accounting Office, Beer Institute, Beverage Market - - GAO, in 1977, assumed an even greater increase, from 27% to a range of 48% to 80%.10 . - While the reasoning behind these assumptions was not always explicitly stated, the assumptions seemed plausible on two grounds. First, refillable containers, if filled locally, provided beverages at significantly lower cost to consumers. If the container was to be returned in any case (eliminating the convenience of disposable containers), the lower cost of refill abIes should increase the quantity demanded. - - - Second, the experience of the first States to enact bottle bills suggested that demand for refillable containers would increase. As shown in Table 3, each of the first four States implementing deposit laws experienced a sudden increase in demand for refillable bottles. Tbe increase was particularly noticeable in the soft drink market, where gains of 40% or more were recorded in three of the four States. Gains occurred in each of the States' beer markets, as well. - - In the long run, however, the share of refillable containers in the beer and soft drink markets has declined in most States, including most deposit States, to the point where it is insignificant on the national level: only 7% of soft drinks and 5% of beer was delivered in refillable containers in 1990. Refillables do seem to hold a somewhat higher market share in bottle bill States than they - - - 10 U.S. General Accounting Office, RStates' Experience with Beverage Container Deposit Laws Shows Positive Benefits,R Washington, December 11, 1980, p. 36. - - .. CRS-10 .. TABLE 3 Use of Refillable Bottles Before and Soon After Mandato" Refund Laws in Four States (as % of total market) .. ... Maine Michilmn OrelZOn Vermont. Before After Before After Before After" Before After IIIlIi Soft drinks 0 64 22 66 53 91 73 85 .. Beer 4 8 16 32 36 95 7 23 .. Source:.:....U.S. General Accounting Office, "States' Experipnce with Beverage Container Deposit Laws Shows Positive Benefits,. December 11, 1980, Table 12. "Before" and "after" were not defined by GAO, but they appear to represent data . for the year immediately prior to implementation of the law and the year immediately after. .. .. do elsewhere. In the beer market, for example, all of the States with bottlabilIa except California II exceed the national average for use. of refillablea:. the unweighted average of the nine States' was 15% in 1990, three times the national rate. .. .. In the absence of a legal requirement to use refillables, however, the po,ver of the nine States has not been sufficient to keep a national trend: toward disposable containers from spilling into their markets. .. .. D. Implementation Except in California, which was discussed in more detail in an earlier section of this report, implementation of refund laws appears to have occurred quickly and with few difficulties.12 The laws have generally been implemented .. .. II California was excluded from this comparison because its system does not return containers to retailers and distributors. Thus, there is less incentive in the system to use refillable bottles: in California, only 4% of beer is ,old in refillables. till 12 California had low container return rates in the early years of its program and also required a large administrative effort by the State Department of Conservation to implement the program. Mter four years of operation, and more than a doubling of refund values, the program reached return rates .. .. .. - CRS-ll - on a State-wide basis within one year to 18 months of enactment. In one case (Massachusetts) implementation occurred within 10 weeks after a State-wide referendum approved the law. Return rates for deposit "containers have exceeded 80% in most programs from the very 'beginning. - - While implementation bas proceeded smoothly inmost States, there have been some difficulties in New York. New York has the lowest return rate of the 10 deposit States, and has experienced a number of difficulties in obtaining compliance by retailers and distributors of beverages. A 1990 study by a State government commission found that lack of enforcement, combined with tiruan("jA1 and other disincentives f9rretailers and distributors, were discouraging returns for refunds.13- As a result, State-wide return rates had declined from 80.1 ~ to 71.8% during the most recent five years. The problems with the program are particularly acute in New York City, where retailers have sought to avoid paying refunds to non-customers, particularly "the large number of people that augment or make a living collecting containers from the trash and streets."14 - - - - OCthose affected by the laws'.pro~sions, retailers appear to have had the most'difficulties. Many cite a lack of space to store empty containers, additionAl sanitation problems related to storage, and increased costs. New systems. haYe developed to ease such burdens, including reverse vending machines, specially designed (bag-in-box) containers tbat ease sorting and storage problems,.and legally required handling fees to ease the burden of additional costs. N~vertheless, many retailers speak of an added burden. - - State governments, on the other band, have experienced. few implementation burdens. Except in California, there is no State bureaucracy required to administer the laws' provisions. Even enforcement appears to have required few State resources.16 - - - comparable to those in other refund States. 13 New York State, Report of the Moreland Act Commission on the. Returnable Container Act, New York, NY, March 15, 1990, pp. 2-6. 14 KPMG Peat Marwick, "Report on the Management Study to Improve the Efficiency of the New York State Returnable Container Act,- New York, NY, March 13, 1990, p. 19. - - 16 There is little publicly reported data on administrative costa. Conversations with various State agencies indicated that the systems function on their own, with little State oversight, because, once a deposit system is established, most parties see it in their interest to make the system work in order to keep their customers satisfied. A 1980 study that examined the experience of the fir&t bottle bill States found that Oregon and Vermont State agencies added no additional staff, and Maine added one additional inspector to implement their laws. See RA California Bottle Bill: the Economic, Resource, and Environmental Implications of Deposit Legislation," California Public Interest Research Group, University of California, Berkeley, January 1980. - - - - ... CRS-12 .. u. CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAMS While there have been several expansions of existing bottle bills to cover additional products, no new State has enacted a beverage container refund law in the United States since 1986. Since then, however, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of curbside collection programs for recyclable material. From a few hundred programs in 1986 (most of which collected only newspaper), curbside collection had grown by 1991 to include at least 3,912 programs serving more than 71,000,000 people. III Virtually all of the programs are multi-material programs, most of which collect bottles and cans in addition to newspaper. .. IIIlIi .&..' ..: A. Geographic Distribution '1. Although curbside collection is becoming common in most sections of the country, thirteen States accounted for more than 80% of both total programs and p'opulation served in 1991 (Table 4). Tbese States were California, Connecticut, Florida, nIinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. In these States, 46$ of the population was served by curbside collection in 1991. In the other 37 States, only 9$ of the population was served. .. till - Rural States, particularly those in the South, Midwest, and West, have few curbside programs. In general, these States have not experienced shortages of waste disposal capacity or pressure to recycle for other reasons; in many cases they are also located far from potential markets for recovered material, making the economics of recycling less attractive. - .. In the urban States of the Northeast and Pacific Coast, however, curbside programs are now so common that areas without them are becoming the exception rather than the rule. Landfill shortages, opposition to new incinerators and disposal sites, and heavy publicity from environmental groups and industry have combined to create a mandate for curbside recycling that continues to spread, particularly in urban and suburban areas. - .. B. Types of Programs - Curbside programs are as diverse as the jurisdictions they serve: they vary widely in size, types of materials handled, and methods of collection and sorting. - till .. 16 Jim Glenn, "The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle magazine, April 1992, p. 50. No one actually knows how many programs there were in the mid- 1980s, because no one counted them, but when Bio-Cycle began its annual survey in 1988, it found 1,042 programs. .. .. CRS-13 .- - - TABLE 4 - CURBSIDE "RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES. 1991 State Number Pot>ulation Served - of Prosn-ams California 369 11,000,000 New York 200 10,800,000 - New Jersey 525 7,200,000 Pennsylvania 603 7,000,000 - Florida 200 6,500,000 Connecticut 150 3,200,000 . Minnesota 488 2,800,000 - Dlinois 200 2,500,000 Michigan 100 2,500,000 - Massachusetts 82 2,200,000 Oregon 115 2,100,000 Maryland na 1,635,000 - Ohio 130 1,300,000 All others. 752 10,265,000 - TOTAL 3,912 71,000,000 - - · 37 States and the District of Columbia - Source: Jim Glenn, -The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle Magazine, April 1992. - - - - - CRS-14 ... 1. Size. Size is one obvious variable. In 1990, for example, Nebraska had one program serving 300 people, and Montana had four programs serving a total of 3,000. At the other end of the spectrum, New York City's curbside program serves 1,800,000 households, with about 4,000,000 people. .. .. Size of collection programs is, of course, dictated by the size ofthepolitica1 jurisdiction that operates or mandates collection. Increasing}y, howht:r, small jurisdictions are banding together for recycling and other solid waste management purposes. This enables them to take advantage of economies of scale, gives them greater negotiating power, and helps attract private companies as processors and users of recovered material. .. .. 2. Materials Collected. Most curbside programs collect newspaper, bottles, and cans, but this configuration is far from universal. Tbe simplest programs collect only one material, often newsprint. At the opposite btA ellle ire comprehensive, multi-material programs such as those in Bellingham, Washington; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Anaheim and Brea, California; W"lIdwood, New Jersey; and New London, Connecticut. These programs conect mixed paper, scrap metal, mixed plastics, used oil, aluminum foil, batteries, milk cartons, juice boxes, and mixed plastics in addition to the usual newspaper, glass, and cans. 17 till .. .. Within programs, there are often different levels of service. Washington, D.C., for example, which is,ide.ntified as having a multi-material progr&msening all of the city's 630,000 residents, provides service in :a variety of W8)'& A.. of mid-1992, the city itself collected newspaper from residences with three or fewer units. The city also collected glass, steel, aluminum, and plastic containers from residents of three of the city's eight wards. The other five wards were served only by drop-off sites for their glass, plastic, and aluminum _ eleven sites that operated for four hours once a week. The city does not serve apartment buildings with four or more units, but it requires the owners of such buiJdinp to collect newspaper, glass, metal, and plastic. The latter requirement has not been enforced, however. The result is a program that captured 54,000 tons of newspaper in 1991, but less than 6,000 tons of the other three materials combined. 18 .. .. .. .. .. In general, curbside programs are expanding to cover more material.; in part because of voter or interest group pressure to expand, and in part beeaUle of support for such expansion from many sectors of industry. A case in point is plastic (PET) soft drink bottles. When curbside programs began, few of them collected plastic: its high volume-to-weight ratio, and its relatively low -.. - .. 17 Tom Watson, "They Want It All," Resource Recycling, October 1991, pp. 22-31. The list indicates the range of items covered; not all of the cities listed collect all of the items. .. 18 Personal communication, D.C. Office of Recycling, November 27, 1992. .. .. CRS-15 - - contribution to the municipal solid waste stream argued against inclusion. Ii But the makers of PET resins and containers, organized through the National Association for Plastic Container Recovery, have worked hard to promote its inclusion in curbside programs~ providing technical and financial assistance and publicizing the idea that plastics are recyclable. As a result, the number of curbside programs including PET bas quadrupled in two years, from 575 in 1990 to 2,073 in 1992.20 , - - - A similar history is exhibited by steel packaging. Except for steel beverage cans, which are not common, few steel cans were included in early curbside- collection programs. Now, food cans, aerosol cans, and even paint cans are increasingly included in curbside programs, in part because the industry'. Steel Can Recycling Institute bas aggressively promoted their recyclability. - 3. Methods of Collection and Sorting. Methods of collecting and sorting curbside recyclables have also changed as the number of such programs increases. While hard data concerning the types of collection program are not available, at least three. types of collection method are now widely used, sometimes in combination with each other. - - Tbe first, and oldest, is best applied to bulky homogeneous materialauch as newspaper or cardboard. Residents are generally asked simply to sepanrt:e-. these materials and bundle them in bags or with twine for separate collection. The separate collection program often uses existing equipment (either flatbed trucks, or compactor trucks of the type used for garbage collection);. it may also use compartmentalized trucks that pick up other materials for recycling. - - - The second, and probably most common, type of collection is through the use of recycling bins. Tbese plastic containers are often referred to as ~Iue boxes," because the first widespread use of them (in Ontario, Canada) used the color blue. In most blue box programs, each household is provided a free bin in which to set out all materials designated for recycling. Tbe materials- an usually collected in compartmentalized trucks, allowing some degree of sorting at the curbside. Tbe amount of sorting varies from program to program. - - - Ig According to U.S. EPA, plastic soft drink bottles comprised only O.2$.oC municipal solid waste, by weight, in 1990. Glass packaging, by comparison, was 6.1 % of the waste stream, thirty times as much. See U.s. EPA, "Characterization oCMunicipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1992 Update: p. 2-36. By volume, the contrast is not so great: glass packaging weighs twelve times as much as plastic of the same volume according to the American Plastics Council, so the PET would occupy a significant amount of space on collection trucks even though its weight is small. Most. solid waste data and most contracts for waste management specify weight rather than volume, however. Thus, the low weight of plastic makes it appear uneconomical to collect for recycling. 20 "PET Projects," quarterly newsletter of the National Association for Plastic Container Recovery, Fall/Winter 1992, p. 1. - - - - - CRS-16 ... Sorting at curbside can produce cleaner material, but it is time.consuming, leaving the truck and its driver idle while materials are separated. till In an effort to eliminate curbside sorting and to minimize expenditures for new trucks and bins, a third method of collection, ~lue bag" recycling, bas. recently begun to spread. In blue bag programs, residents are asked to commingle recyclable materials in blue plastic bags, which are collected in garbage trucks. Often the bags are collected with regular garbage, elimi".ting entirely the additional cost of collecting separate material. The blue bap. are separated from.the rest of the trucks' contents at a transfer station and &resent on for sorting and processing at. a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). .. ... .. Whether a blue bag or blue box program is used, the collected material usually must be sorted and processed before it can be sold. This can be done by hand, using conveyor belts and low-skill labor, or at increasingly mt'{'l]ani~~ MRFs. There are now at least 191 MRFs operating in the United States,21 the most sophisticated of which use air classifiers to separate lightweight plasties from heavier materials, magnetic separation to pull out ferrous metals, and eddy currents to separate aluminum cans. Even the most sophisticated Cacilities stilI have plenty of hand sorting, however, largely for glass, which usually must be separated into three color streams by hand. . till .. . . .. .. c. Implementation By many measures, curbside recycling is a success. The programs are popular with the public, and, as a result, have been embraced by private waste haulers and local elected officials. In contrast to other solid waste management programs, implementation and expansion encounter little public opposition. Participation rates are high. The programs often divert large quantities of material from disposal, particularly in areas that are largely residential. .. .. .. In combination with other programs - such as commercial sector recycling, major appliance ("white goods") programs, buy-back oCmetals and other valuable materials, yard waste composting, and drop-off sites for . non-residential recyclables - curbside collection is an integral part of most comprehensive recycling efforts. .. 'J Good data are difficult to establish, particularly on a nation-wide or State. wide basis, but participation rates in excess of 80% are typical of many curbside recycling programs, and diversion of up to 25% of the residential waste stream is reported. As shown in Table 5, however, this does not mean that 25% of all municipal waste is captured by the curbside program. Rather, the upper limit in four programs for which data or estimates were available was 6.3%. .. .. till .. 21 Jim Glenn, "The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle Magazine, April 1992, p. 54. .. .. CRS-17 - - - - - - .. - .. . CRS estimates; assumes all newspaper, glass, and plastic, and half of aluminum recycled were collected through curbside programs. :1':" .. 1989 - Sources: Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Cincinnati Public Works Department. Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corp. - - - This point bears repeating, since curbside programs are often reported to capture much more than 6% of the waste stream. For example, a study for the National Soft Drink Association found that two well organized curbside programs (in !slip, New York, and Anne Arundel County, Maryland) collected 21.5% and 17.7% of the available waste, respectively.22 To derive these percentages, amounts recycled from nearly 19,000 households were divided by total waste generation in the same households. Apartment buildings, commercial waste, white goods, and other large volume materials usually included in the municipal waste stream were excluded from the denominator. Measured the same way, Seattle would have a similar curbside recycling rate: its program captures 17.1% of the waste generated by the households that are served by the city's waste collection services. When waste from other sources .. - - - 22 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. for the National Soft Drink Association, "Impact of Container Deposits on Curbside Recycling: Two Case Studies," July 1991, p. m-4. - - CRS-18 .. IS i,ncludecf, however, curbside's contribution to the total recycling rate declines ' -to 6.3%. ... This is not to imply that curbside programs are unsuccessful. They are .' very successful at reaching their target audience: single- family and other low- . density housing. In most jUrisdictions, however, such housing generates Jess than half the waste destined for disposal. Curbside recycling is not designed to include waste from other sources. .. .. Curbside collection programs have experienced a number of growing pains, most of which they share with recycling programs generally. These include failure to meet legislated deadlines, shortages of funds for program expansion, and difficulty in marketing collected material. The latter problem haa received much attention: in many areas of the country, markets tor newspaper; gfau, and some plastics have been difficult to find and pri... have dropped, to a ~int where cities may pay recyclers to take material rather than being paid. Tbese difficulties are caused by several factors, many of which are~' to be temporary. For example, demand for old newspaper (ONP) is limited in the short run by the capacity of paper mills to deink and reeycle-tb...~ Other industries that use ONP (such as insulation manufacturers) also have limited capacity. Building new newsprint mills to reeyeJe the additional1i1ateria1 takes as long as five years from eon.eption to finished plant. MocIi/Yingezlallng plants takes less time, but may still require one and one-halt to two )'earl. Thus, in the short term, increased collection has led to depressed pricesibr ONP. Consumption of old newspeper has grown, hut not autliciently to keep. prices high enough to cover costs. '. .. . ..1 .j ..n ., ,", till .. .. This problem is expected to be alleviated with time. The nation's newsprint manufacturers have announced plans for a near tripling of capacity to use old newspaper by 1994.2.1 As a result, many feel that demand for ONP, which currently accounts for more than half the weight of material collected in many curbside programs, is likely to improve. .. .. The recession has also affected recycling markets, by reducing demand tor end products made from recycled material, and by limiting the'wilJingnea and the funds available for companies to invest in new capaci~. This haa atreCted markets for recovered materials, no matter how they are. collected. ReceaiODl mean excess capacity and falling prices for many industrial coD1llJOdities; Polyethylene producers, for example, have significant excess capacity, at the present time. This causes lower prices for virgin polyethylene, making- the' economics of using recycled material less attractive. The end result hu been gluts of polyethylene milk jugs collected for recycling in some areas. .... . lllIII . , - , .. ... 23 Personal communication, American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 1992. In 1991, 15 mills had the capacity to produce 3.4 million tons of recycled newsprint annually. By 1994, 35 miI1s will have the capacity to produce 9.1 miI1ion tons, if all announced capacity expansions take place. .. .. .. - . . - - - ... - - - - ... - - - - - - - - - Despite these growing pains, curbside collection programs continue to expand at a rapid rate. Only in rare instances has collection of a material been abandoned because of difficulty in finding markets. D. Non-Interference with Market Choices A final aspect of curbside programs that bears mention in any description of their basic characteristics is their non-interference Vvith market cb\Jices. Unlike deposit programs, curbside programs are not closed-loop systems: manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are not required to take back collected materials. Whether this is viewed as an asset or a liability depends on, one's perspective. Because the manufacturer and the distribution chain are not responsible for recovery or recycling, curbside programs have no direct effect on product price or consumption, and do not restrict consumer choice. Thia..ia an important argument in favor of curbside recycling, according to many of:the affected industries. . At the same time, manufacturers are free to introduce new packages without eoncern for their impact on waste management. Not having to; recycle the material, some use packages that interfere with the quality of, what..js collected. In recent years, waste management officials have complained about such packages as glass beer bottles with ceramic tops (ceramics are incompatible with the recycling of glass containers) and soft drink and water bottles thatuse PVC plastic. PVC is incompatible with the more common PET in recycling processes, and is difficult to identify and separate. ;0.: CRS-20 .. ill. COMPARISON OF THE '!WO METHODS OF COLLECTING AND SORTING RECYCLABLES .. Bottle bills and curbside collection programs are not mutually exclusive. In fact, curbside programs serve a larger share of the population in the 10 bottle bill States than elsewhere: in 1991, 43% of the population was served by curbside recycling in the ten, while only 22% of the population in the other 40 States had access to curbside recycling. Oregon, the first bottle bill State, was also the first State to mandate that waste haulers provide regular collection of recyclables. .California, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts have also been leaders in developing curbside recycling while having refund laws in place. .. .. ... Nevertheless, there is a great deal of interest in which of the two systems is more,efTective. This is a difficult question to address, since, as noted earlier, the two systems are not designed to serve the same purposes. Deposit-refund systems reduce litter generation and make possible the use of ref1llable bottles, whereas curbside collection does not. Curbside programs, on the other hand, can target a wider range of materials than deposit-refund mechaniS111l. It would be difficult, for example, to apply a deposit approach to newspapers, which make up the majority of material collected, by weight, in most curbside programs. .. .. .. Thus, this section examines data comparing refund laws and curbside collection as methods of collecting and sorting beverage con.tain4,.. only. In particular, the section examines three variables: amount of material. collected; quality of material collected; and financial data, including costs and methods of financing. .. .. A. Amount of Material Collected .. According to a 1990 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAD), return rates for containers vary from 72% to 98% in seven deposit States for which estimates were available.24 The report apparently gathered but did not present return rates for individual States, however, and it excluded California. .. ... Table 6 presents more detailed information from other sources that appears to generally confirm GAD's conclusions. The table shows that return rates in eight of the 10 bottle bill States range from 72% to 97%. .. While data are limited, curbside collection programs generally appear to collect smaller percentages of the same materials. Several examples from among the country's most comprehensive recycling programs illustrate this point. .. till ~ U.S. General Accounting Office, "Trade-Offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation," Report No. GAO/RCED-91-25, November 1990, p. 34. The States for which data were available were Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. .. lIIlI ... CRS-21 .. TABLE 6 - Container Return Rates in Refund States - State Year Return Rate Detailed Information California 1991 79% Aluminum 82% - Glass 81% I Plastic 62% - Iowa 1990* Aluminum 95% Glass 85% - Maine 1991* Beer/soft drinks 92% Liquor 80% Wine 80% - Fruit juice 75% - Massachusetts 1990 85% Michigan 1988. 92% - New York 1990. 72% Beer 80% Soft dr. 63% - Oregon 1990. 93% .. VerIDont 1988- 85% - · year reported .. Sources: California Department of Conservation, Massachusetts Department of Revenue, National Container Recycling Coalition. .. - - - - - CRS-22 .. .. The State of New Jersey is generally considered to have one of the most comprehensive curbside collection programs in the country. In 1987, New Jeney mandated that all of its counties develop curbside programs for at least-three materials by 1988. All of the counties implemented separate collection of newspaper, glass, and aluminum containers, and about half included plastic soft drink, milk, and water bottles in their program. .. - Public participation in New Jersey's separate collection pro~ is mandatory. Tne State has had the most severe shortage of landfill capacity in the country: counties without disposal facilities exported nearly four million tons of solid waste to other States for disposal in 1990. The cost of such export is high: tipping fees (disposal fees) for municipal solid waste at New Jersey transfer stations are sometimes in excess of $100 per ton. And there have' been numerous controversies over siting of new landfills and incinerators, with ci~ groups often successfully opposing new facilities while suggesting more intensive recycling efforts. As a result, news coverage of solid waste and reeycling issues in the State has been extensive. All of these factors would suggest that New Jersey should have as high a rate of recycling as one might obtain in curbside recycling programs. Data for the New Jersey program are shown in Table 7: ~;otlgfua containers, 69% of aluminum cans, and 7% of plastic containers were being recycled in the State as of 1990. The glass and aluminum percentages"are comparable to the low end of the range of return rates reported for deposit containers in bottle bill States. The plastic rate is substantially below that achieved by deposit programs. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. There are some complications which suggest caution in making a straight comparison between the recovery percentages for redeemed containers and the recycling percentages achieved in New Jersey. First, the deposit programs generally apply to a smaller universe of containers than do the' curbside programs. Curbside programs in New Jersey target all glass containers, all aluminum containers, and in cases where plastic is included-both PET BOA drink containers and HDPE milk jugs. Since the- refund law percentages apply to a smaller universe, they would need to be adjusted downward' to maJte-. a valid comparison. On the other hand, the curbside collection'percentagerwould also need to be adjusted downward, since some of the amount recycled in New Jeney is collected by means other than curbside collection. .. .. - ," ;- A second example is Rhode Island. The nation's smallest State, is often identified as having a model curbside collection program. AB of 1990, the program was serving 244,100 households, about 70% of the State total. Expansion to cover all other households in the State is expected to occur in 1993. The State's Materials Recovery Facility was considered the most modern facility in the country when it was completed in 1989. :.. till .. .. .. CRS-23 - - TABLE 7 Re~c1in2' Rates in New Jersev. i990 - ... Material Total Waste Amount Reevcled (000 tons) (000 tons) % Recvcled Glass containers 383 260 68% - Aluminum cans 45 31 69% Plastic containers 150 10 7% - - Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy - - Rhode Island's program marketed 8,037 tons of glass, 963 tons of PET plastic, and 821 tons of aluminum in 1990.25 Tbe State estimates that the quantities of these items in ~he municipal waste:: stream totaled 22,540 tons, 2,300 tons, and 3,220 ton.s respectively.26 The State's only landfill receives substantial quantities of mixed municipal/commercial waste, which also contains glass, plastic, and aluminum containers, but which was. not included in the estimated waste totals.27 Thus, from available data one cannot calculate the actual recycling rate. Using the municipal waste data only, one can conclude that the program recycled at most 37% of glass, 40% of PET, and 25% of aluminum cans. ... - - A third program considered among the best in the United States is that of Seattle, Washington. Seattle recycled 40% of its municipal solid waste in 1991 through a wide variety of recycling programs. It is the largest city in the country to require volume-based pricing for solid waste collection services. ... - 25 Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation (RISWMC), MRF Performance 1990, memorandum, February 11, 1991. - 26 RISWMC, "Rhode Island Solid Waste Composition Study,- Final Report, October 17, 1990, p. 4-3. - 27 Tbe State has no data on the quantity of mixed waste, but it is large enough to be the only set of wastes besides municipal waste included as a separate category in the State's waste composition sampling program. The sampling program showed that glass bottles, aluminum cans, and PET plastic are present in mixed waste in approximately the same percentages as in municipal waste. - - - CRS-24 .. Under this system, households pay a fee that increases as they dispose of more or larger containers of waste. Curbside recycling service, on the other hand, is free. Thus, there is a strong incentive to recycle in Seattle. till .. The Seattle Solid Waste Utility estimates that curbside recycling programs captured 26% of aluminum cans, 49% of glass beverage containers, and an undocumented (but small) percentage of PET plastic containers in 1991.21 Example number four is the State of Florida. Florida has one of the most comprehensive waste management laws in the nation. Th& Florida Solid Waste Management Act, enacted in 1988, requires that each county recycle at least 30% of its municipal solid waste by the end of 1994, and requires tha~ 50% of newspaper, aluminum cans, glass, and plastic bottles be separated from the waste stream and offered for recycling. Florida's requirements are notabl~ in that, as originalJy enacted, they imposed penalties on users of newspaper and glass, metal and plastic containers if they failed to achieve the 50% recycling target-by October 1992. The penalties (called -advance disposal fees. or ADFs) are one cent per container beginning in 1993; increasing to two cents per container if the goal has not been achieved by October 1995.21 The ADF, if imposed, will be redeemable at designated redemption centers, with, thll State reimbursing the redemption centers for the money they payout. .. .. .. IIlIIt .~ .. As shown in Table 8, 39% of aluminum cans, 13% of glass, and 7.., of plastic bottles were recycled in the State in the most recently reported year. ~ .. Finally, a study undertaken by the Aluminum Association in 1991 presented data for five curbside programs. While the data only covered aluminum recycling, they showed that three curbside programs in non-deposit States <Rhode Island, Maryland, and Minnesota) captured 24.9%, 44.9%, and 59.8% respectively of the aluminum cans in the waste stream.al .. .. Thus, beverage container deposit programs appear to colJect a higher percentage oftbeir targeted materials. This conclusion is reinforced by national .. .. 2a Personal communications, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, December 4 and 8, 1992. Recycling rates for aluminum cans and glass beverage bottles are higher (63% and 56% respectively) if you include other methods of recovery, such as drop-off sites and buy-back programs. Tbe plastic recovery rate was 5.3%, but this includes all plastics, not just PET bottles. :g These deadlines have since been modified, but industry and local governments remain under strong pressure to meet the targeted recycling rates. .. .. .. ao FY 1990-1991 Recycling Data, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, March 27,1992. .. 31 Aluminum Association, "Aluminum Recycling: Vital to You; Vital to Us," Washington, 1991. .. till CRS-25 - .. TABLE 8 - ReC'Vclin~ Rates in Florida. 1990-1991 Total Waste Amount Recvcled - Material (000 tons) (000 tons) % Recvcled Glass 817 110 13% - Aluminum cans 176 69 39% .. Plastic bottles 296 20 7% - Source: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation - - estimates, which show that deposit programs account for a disproportionately high percentage of U.s. recycling activity for the subject materials. - For example, a 1990 study of glass recycling done for the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency found that glass from nine deposit States (excluding California) accounted for nearly two-thirds of the glass recycled nationwide, even though the States comprised only 18% of the nation's population.32 Adding California to the total, the 10 States accounted for over 80% of all glass recycling in 1989. This percentage has probably decreased since then, because there has been a more than doubling of the number of curbside collection programs during the period. Nevertheless, rough calculations would indicate that at least two-thirds of the glass recycled still comes Crom the 10 bottle bill States. . - - - - Refunds also play a significant role in the recycling of, plastic soft drink bottles, which are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). According to the largest user of such material, deposit States accounted for about 75% ofthe PET collected in 1991.33 .. Deposit/refund systems play a less significant role in aluminum can recycling. According to the Aluminum Association, the United States recycled 63% of its aluminum cans in 1991. There is substantial recycling activity in - - 32 Ibid. 33 Personal communication, Wellman Inc., December 1992. - - CRS-26 .. both deposit and non-deposit States. Nevertheless, all of the deposit States report return rates for aluminum cans higher than the national averagr!. .. .. B. Quality of Material Collected Refund systems for beverage containers also seem to have an adiaDtage over curbside collection programs in the quality of the material colJ~<<L~The quality of materials emerging from the two systems of colJection and lOtting is not an issue Widely discussed. As one official of a curbside system noted, -nu. is not something we like to discuss publicly, because we ,don't want 'people to think their material is not going to be recycled; but. the amountor~e glass [rejected because it breaks before it can be sorted by colorlis encnmoua.- ... , .. , In Rhode Island, for example, non-recycled residue totaled 6,630 tons in 1990. Ninety percent of this residue, according to State officl~~ ,eI4aS- ,.By comparison, the program collected 8,037 tons of glaSs- that. <was sOld for recycling.34 Thus, 42% of the glass that was colIected could not be sold. A second example comes from Florida. A company that collects reeyclabIes from 260,000 homes in the suburbs ofMiamj reports.that47.5lJ,'ol~th..l0~~,~ tons of glass it colIected in 1990 and 1991 could not be recyc:Jed~ becauae itbrOb' ~ into piece&; that could not be sorted by color. The breakage occunr':ddJing. . collection and transportation, or when the material ia~dumped at the aorting facility.36 " " Aware of this problem, the Glass Packaging Institute has' ftuided" demonstration projects to develop technology that can reduce glass.. breakage. A Rhode Island demonstration found that relatively simple chan~ to collection., . equipment reduced glass breakage by approximatel1:~ an~ iD~ . changes to sorting equipment reduced breakage 52,-,.Mb >:'.; C", . N evertbeless, even after such modifications, a subStantial amount ot1arokln.. glass will remain in the colJected material. Since curbside programs often Collect commingled material, this glass breakage affects more than the quality of glass. Aluminum industry sources, for example, have complained that glass ~_ III!i J. .. .. .. .. .. -.. ~: ... ..... , .. I( Rhode Island Solid 'Waste Management Corporation, "MRFPerf'orm-nee;. 1990, - Ope cit. 36 "Bottles Set for Recycling End Up in Garbage Dump,- Associated Press, September 12, 1991. 36 Janet KelIer, "The Nitty-Gritty of Glass Recycling: Reducing Glaaa Breakage in ColIection and Processing," Resource Recycling, February 1992;' pp. 46-55. '.. .. .. .. - .. - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - CRS-27 ~ .,' plastic, and lead from commingled recyclables are contaminating shipments or aluminum cans from curbside.collection programs.~7 ..i . ' ' , . Plastics collected at curbside also have a substantial contamination problem, according to many industry officials. In testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the largest user of recyc1ed,PET plastic stated that, because of quality consideratio~, more than 90% oftbe PET bottles his company purchased came from deposit States.3I The nation'.'1argeIt waste hauler, Waste Management Incorporated, withdrew. from a p1aatic.s recycling joint venture last year because, in ,its opinion, the quality of the plastic collected in its curbside programs was not sufficient to justify further investments.38 Refund programs generally do not have the same quality problem, becau8e the containers are sorted before the glass has a chance to break, when the consumer returns them for refund. If glass does later break. (and often itis in- fact crus~ed before shipment, to conserve space in transportation), .it breab.~- among other glass containers of similar color. -., c. Costs and Methods of Financing ~r. Collection and sorting of containers for recycling through bottle bill systems. appears to cost more than collection and sorting of containers collected-at curbside. Tbe costs of bottle bills, nevertheless, are assured of financingi, aiDce- they are incorporated in product prices and paid by beverag! consumers, producers, and sellers. Curbside collection and sorting, on the other hand, is. generally. financed from tax revenues; as a result, in some cases, continued funding is politically uncertain.40 ~7 "Tbe Changing Aluminum Can Recycling Market,- Resource Recycling.. October 1990, pp. 29, 80. 3& See statement of Dennis M. Sabourin, Vice President, Wellman IDe., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments, Part 3, Hearing BeCcmt. the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection, Committee on Environment. and Public Works, March 5, 1992, p. 23 and pp. 48-51. ~8 See "Waste Management Bails Out of Venture with DuPont Co. on Recycling Plastics," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991, p. B4. 40 Bottle bills could, of course, be repealed. In that sense, their continued funding is not certain. But repeal would require legislative action, which does not appear likely: none of the 10 States has repealed a bottle bill since the fIrSt- of the laws was passed 22 years ago. The laws do not sunset, and as long as they are in force, they do not require appropriation of government funds to operate. Curbside programs, on the other hand, require annual appropriations from a government budget in most cases. CRS-28 .. 1. Co$l8. The net costs of both curbside colJection and deposit/refund programs are difficult to establish. Empirical data are not generally available to measure' the cost of either type of program on a State-widt!' basis. .. A particular problem in the case of a deposit system is that most of the cost data are proprietaJy and not subject to verification. Aware oftbis problem, the State of New York established a commission in 1989 that was asbdto determine; among other things, the actual cost of compliance with ita retlhWlble, container law. The Commiesion reported that, "Despite repeated' ~ to- cooperate, both, the soft drink and beer' industri., systematicalJr faiJeG., ta provide usable data,- nor Woul~ they permit a:1 accounting tirmto naluata,tJJe. data that was supplied. 41 .. .. .. Many estimates have been made for both types of program, but the results\ . are often determined by assumptions concerning key variables. Total costs depend on such variables as the volume- and variety of materialacolleetect,: crew size on collection trucks, distances from colJection routes, to sorting l~; . reverJuesreeeived for recovered materials, and avoided costs- of landfill or other. . waste management. Theae factors vary greatly from one section of the ~" to another, and (in some cases) between different time periOds; in~ the: ss:m.: location. .. .. .. Even where the total cost of a curbside collection program iai knowur,., second set of questions arises. How does one apportion the collection and sorting cost among the materials colJected - in proportion to therwei~ofeach material? In proportion to its volume? In proportion to the labor; eneJVt':and~ ' capital costs required to sort the material? Does one adjust the.data,to accoQut!: for contaminated or unusable material which is rejected by the system. and landfiUed? In general, these questions are not addressed in the literature; as- a result, one must be wary of the reported data. .. . .. . Revenues from the sale of scrap also vary, depending on market conditions and the quality of the material. Revenues in deposit programs can be greatJy affected by the amount of unredeemed containers. Thus, in the d.iscassiouthat follows, one should be aware that the data cited contain more than the;usual degree of softness. .. .. One little discussed variable is the degree to which deposit systems: lead to the use of refillable containers. The use of refillable containers generally costs;, less than the use of disposable containers, particularly if return rates are, higIL As noted previously, most of the early studies of the effects of bottle bills found that the market share of refillable containers had increased in bottle bill States. As a result, the studies concluded that deposit/refund programs cost leu- than any policy alternative. The GAO, for example, estimated in 1977 that the net' .. .. .. ... New York State, Report of the Moreland Act Commission on the, Returnable Container Act, March 15, 1990, p. 8. IlllIl l1li . - CRS-29 .. saving to businesses from a national bottle bill would be $0.8 to $1.2 billion annually.42 - .. In more recent years, however; brewers and bottlers have phased out most refillable containers even in bottle bill States. If deposit/refund programs do not use refillable containers, costs increase. A study conducted in New York State in 1984 found that. net costs increased by as much as 2.36 cents per container.4~ Other estimates (conducted with funding from the industries opposing bottle. bills) have concluded that costs are as high as 7.5 cents per container." Since the United States uses more than 100 billion beer and soft drink containers per year, these per container estimates would translate into a direct cost of $3.8 billion to $4.9 billion annually if a national refund law were enacted, according to the National Soft Drink Association.46 These costs would be borne by beverage consumers or the industries making and selling beverages. .. .. .. Curbside programs also cost money, but several studies have concluded that the cost of collection and sorting through bottle bills exceeds the cost of curbside collection and sorting. One study conducted for the nation's largest brewer concluded that bottle bills cost $121 per ton of material recycled in a rural State (Vermont) and $235 per ton in a more urban State (New York). Curbside programs were estimated to cost $101 per tan recycled in Vermont and $59 per ton in New York. 46 A second study, not conducted with industry funding, also concluded that "a bottle bill is a more expensive form of waste management than curbside recycling collection,- although it added that there were other benefits from a bottle bill, such as litter reduction and reduced injuries due to broken glass, that were not addressed by such a comparison.4? .. - - - - 42 U.S. General Accounting Office, "Potential Effects of a National Mandatory Deposit on Containers," Report No. PAD-78-19, December 7, 1977, Table 12. - .. 43 State University of New York, Nelson A. RockeCeller Institute oC Government, Ope cit. - << George K. Criner, Steven L. Jacobs, Stephanie R. Peavey, -An Economic and Waste Management Analysis of Maine's Bottle Deposit Legislation: (Orono, Maine: Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, April 1991), pp. 29-32. - 46 Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. Cor the National Soft Drink Association,' "Economic Impact of a National Beverage Container Deposit Law: June 1991, p. VI. 46 Franklin Assoriates, Ltd., for Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., "Tbe Role of Beverage Containers in Recycling and Solid Waste Management," Prairie Village, Kansas, April 1989, p. xxxiv. ' 47 Frank Ackerman, Todd Schatzki, "Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling Collection," Resource Recycling, June 1991, pp. 75-78. .. - - - III CRS-30 till 2. Financing. Who pays these costs raises another set or'questions.; - In 'a bottle biU system, once the legislation is passed, the additional co.t:I"-are'-- internalized in product costs, where they are paid bycoDSumers, producen,.or sellers of beverages. In a curbside 'program, the, costa .ofrecycling,.are paid.. by taxpayers, whether or not they consume the afl'e~ ~roducta. ,., , ;. .. . -'.' . r Fundingshortages have slowed or prevented th8imp.~eiDen~QJ;1~ recycling pro~ in many jurisdictions. The ~~tnct.o~.,CR~~~PJo~~=-:-_' case in point. The citY' government's 1989 recjdinC~1!:~~~~ pickup of newspapers, bottles, and cans by April199Q;p~~:tJle,e!tY.'~~1it ~~ comply. . In November 1992, in response to a auit"by'~tHe.. .~ietra:'~.- Common Cause, a judge ordered the city to provide curbside- ~-ia au-:~: residents served by the city'8 garbage collection service, by-.Janwuy i_ ""~..a:': time of intense pressure on the city's' finances, whiclflUis Jed"tCf fUrJ6ugbrot " teachers and other city employees and a projected billion 49~.bud~deW:it in tiscat 1993 and 1994, the city is less than;eDthusi..tJ~(~~~I....:. recycling services.4' A1I a re&u:t, the City COunciJ-p.....~ rea~~'U.~--' extendin the deadlines to 1996.411 "'.,.. -". ,'''_ _" ,__~C.I .:l--:.i...i'..i'-':.,;" g .. ~ '...::, ,: .. ...~;:: ~:' - .:' . .. .. IIIIiI --] '"",, ...~ Ill. New York City, wbich runs the Nation'81~'~*pr;,gnu:ft ~.; similar budget problems. The cost orits program iD'l~Iatimatea'.t'.~JO'Hl million. In the 8pring of 1991, Mayor Dinkins; taeed' ~t1f"\$3.emmqD~~OJ in the city budget, proposed a one-year suspeDliOJt9_~~~'~..rne.J~c~ program. Funding was eventually restored, 'but th.ciffat"cm.~L''; the lay-ofl' of 85% of the Recycling Office 8taa'atId"~I~'of ~~:! processing facility to wbich the materials had been tIIlttlL TlteprograDtl;ps~~ ;'.~ funding continues to be uncertain, relying, as it does, on general revenues. III ... .. Without a secure BOUrce of funding, many citi_c:II&eYemuau,...b&leieed to choose between recycling and other programs., IiijtlJe.JODI')!UIlfthUJ....,.~II-\\'~ limits on curbside collection.s:.:. ;',., . - 3. Do Bottle Bills -Skim- Resources from ~~JtA ~18Ue- raised by the potential coexistence of bottle billa and curb8id8f'~p..(.h,; whether deposit programs skim the most valuable materials from curbside collection, adversely afl'ectingthe economiCS"of'suclJ"pt6glaw..,,-, . ;<;.<, .. '.. Aluminum cans are the most vaJuabJe-'material.iCoJrectecl.ror"-ree"iclmg;~ According to Recycling Times, prices for used aluminum beverage'"Can.ra,...'M from $400-$840 per ton in December 1992. PET 80ft drink bottles, if not mixed with other materials, can also be valuable. PE'r'prices are' reportecbwbe as :. ..;........~ .~~:i...~ ~ .. .. .. 4. "Judge Says He'lJ Set Deadlines for City to Obey, Recycling: Law: Washington Post, November 7, 1992, pp. Bl, B7~' '" 411 wJudge Backs Delay of Recycling: Washington Post, January 7, 1993, p. D.C. 3. I11III .. I11III - CRS-31 - high as $200 per ton.6O Other items, such as newspaper and glass often have a price of zero. - Given the price of aluminum (and to a lesser extent that of PET>, many have argued that bottle bills will take the most valuable materials away from curbside programs. A study for the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) concluded that beverage containers accounted for 73% of total revenues generated by curbside recycling in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.61 In subsequent material distributed to Congressional offices, NSDA stated,--rbe most damaging effect of a national deposit system is on existing: recycling programs, which depend on valuable beverage containers for more than 70$ of scrap revenue. Deposit iaws take away this revenue..u - - - - There is no doubt that aluminum is the "cash cow. of curbside recycling programs. But, even with this cash cow, the programs generally do not earn a profit. For example, in Anne Arundel County, revenues from all materials cOver only 20% of the program's operating costs. Because both revenues and costs would be lower if beverage containers were removed from the curbside system, the net cost of the program in Anne Arundel County would increase by only 5% if a deposit law were in effect.63 - .. In dollars and cents, the amounts involved are very small: NSDA estimated Anne Arundel's increased cost at $24,430 if a bottle bill were enacted - 11 cents per household per month. In !slip, New York, the other community studied for NSDA, the increase in net cost was even less.64 - - Two local governments that studied this issue reached similar conclusions. Reve:1ues would be lower, but so would be costs, if a bottle bill removed beverage containers from existing curbside programs. Because more material would be recycled, there would be net benefits to the cities in both cases. The city of Seattle concluded: - - Under current conditions, a bottle bill would result in a 15% reduction in tonnage and a 28% decline in overall revenues to Seattle's curbside recycling program. More specifically, revenue from the sale of curbside - 60 Recycling Times, January 12, 1993, p. 5. Prices reported were for the period December 3-29, 1992. - 61 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., for National Soft Drink Association, "Impact of Container Deposits on Curbside Recycling: Two Case Studies,. July 1991, p. IV-1. - - 62 National Soft Drink Association, "National Bottle Bill Would Hurt Consumers, Recycling Programs," undated (distributed 1992). 63 GBB for NSDA, Case Studies, p. IV-2. 64 Ibid., pp. IV-I and IV-2. - - .. CRS-32 -, materials would decline by 46%. However, these declines are more than offset by additional tonnage recovered through the deposit law and cost-savings to the City from avoided collection and disposal costs. Our analysis indicates that were a deposit law to be passed, the City would be able to compensate curbside recyclers for lost revenue and still continue the curbside program.66 .. ,- The City .of Cinl!inuati reached a similar conclusion. In its analyiis, implementati~n of a bottle bill in addition to the city's existing curbside program would increase the amount of material recycled by 60'11, wliile the city's cast i would decrease from $94 to $72 per ton recycled.66. \ i~_ ~--.~-'.:'_' .. - - .. .. .. .. till .. .. .. 66 Letter from Diana Gale, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, to R. Gifford Stack, Vice President, National Soft Drink Association, September 6, 1991. 66 Memorandum from George Rowe, Director of Public Works, to the Intergovernmental Affairs and Environment Committee, City Council, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 29, 1991, pp. 12-17.. Note that the reduction in cost refers to the city government's costs only. If costs to private parties were included, as they were in studies done for the affected industries, costs per ton might increase. .. " .. .. .. .. CRS-33 - CONCLUSION - This report has examined three {ASpects of curbside and deposit-refund systems as means of collecting beverage containers: the amount of material collected; the quality of the material collected; and cost factors, including whether deposit systems skim resources from curbside recycling. There eJ:e many other issues that could be addressed in comparing the two systems,67 but the key issues raised by affected parties in recent ~ears are those addressed ~. this report. - - In gener~, the report concludes that: - . Curbside collection and deposit-refund systems are not designed to serve exactly the same purposes. In addition to pro~oting racy .;~..-:~~ deposit-refund systems reduce litter generation and make possible the use of refillable beverage containers. Curbside programs can target a , ,wider range of materials than a deposi~ system, and ~us have the potential to achieve a greater diversion of ww for r\cycling. - - . Both systems can serve as elements of comprehensive recycling programs. Neither constitutes a comprehensive program by itself. N either excludes the use of the other. - - . Curbside programs are growing faster thEm deposit programs. Since 1988, the number of communities using curbside collection for recycling has quadrupled. By contrast, no new State has enacted a bottle bill since 1986, although a number of the existing bottle bill laws have been amended to include additional beverages since that time. - - . Curbside programs are more common in deposit States than in non- deposit States: 43% of the population in deposit States has access to curbside recycling, versus 22% of the population in non-deposit States. - . Deposit systems collect more of their target materials than do curbside programs. Return rates in deposit systems range from 72% to 98%. The best curbside programs capture less than 70% of the targeted material - in many cases, substantially less. - - - 67 Other issues might include the effects of the two systems on recycling infrastructures, employment, energy and raw material use, container substitution (e.g., whether plastic or aluminum substitute for glass), prices of the affected products, structure of the affected industries, public opinion, and other variables. Many of these issues were studied in the late 1970s, when a national bottle bill first came before the Congress. These studies are still instructive, but the affected industries, the structure of distribution systems, the amounts and kinds of material used for packaging, and other factors have changed in numerous ways since that time. - - - ~. . CRS-34 · Because the bottles and cans are sorted and handled individually when returned. to retailers, the materials collected by deposit systems are generally of a higher quality than the same types of materials, when collected by curbside programs, particularly- if the latter are, commingled during collection. · Deposit-refund materials cost more per ton collected. TheM adctiticmal. . costs are internalized in product prices. Curbside systems.,: while costi~g less per ton, depend on tax revenues; the ability to maintaDt' or expand levels of curbside service is, therefore, dependent on local government budgets. · Deposit systems skim potential sources of'revenue from curbside programs, but they also reduce the operating: costs - of curbside programs. Local governments would appear' to. achine'" greater diversion of solid waste from' disposal at a lower coat' per ton if both a bottle. bill and a curbside collection program Yler& inplac&" These results suggest that deposit systems and curbaid&. recyding.are compatible. While each can be used to target various IegmmU of the wute stream, both approaches in combination are likely toincrease-th&'amount and quality of the material collected. - I- ...... - . :.: .. ... ...: .' . " III IIIlI .. .. .. IIIIIIi .. .. till .. . .. III ;~ ... - _Cl/a;r;;g''i;;n ONTARIO REPORT #1 - - REPORT TO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 - SUBJECT: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MON DAY, OCTOBER 21, 1996 - - RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION - a) Report PD-138-96 Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan - b) Report FD-18-96 Monthly Fire Report - August, 1996 2. STATUS OF REVIEW OF THE SIGN BY-LAW - THAT Report PD-139-96 be received; and - THAT Council authorize notification in local newspapers of Council's intention to pass a Sign By-law. - 3. PROPOSED DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - RELADANORA HOLDINGS INC. - THAT Report PD-140-96 be received; - THAT Report PD-140-96 be approved as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the proposed Official Plan Amendment submitted by Reladanora Holdings Inc.; - THAT a copy of Council's decision and Report PD-140-96 be forwarded to the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham Planning Departments; and - THAT the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham advise the Municipality of Clarington of their Council's respective decisions. - - - CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ": TEMPERANCE STREET. BOWMANVILLE .ONTARIO. L1C 3A6. (905) 623,3379, FAX 623.4169 @ RECYClED PAPER - .. Report # 1 - 2 - October 28, 1996 .. 4. PROPOSED DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - KOSE PROPERTIES INC. .. THAT Report PD-141-96 be received; ... THAT Report PD-141-96 be approved as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the proposed Official Plan Amendment submitted by Kose Properties Inc.; .. THAT the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham advise the Municipality of Clarington of the respective Councils' decisions; and till THAT a copy of Council's decision and Report PD-141-96 be forwarded to the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham Planning Departments. ... 5. MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADIUSTMENT III THAT Report PD-142-96 be received; - THAT Council concur with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on October 10, 1996; and ... ..,. THAT Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Mun ici pal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment in the event of an appeal. ... 6. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN & ZONING BY-LAW - 829426 ONTARIO INC. (MARKBOROUGH PROPERTIES) III THAT Report PD-143-96 be received for information; and - THAT all interested parties listed in Report PD-143-96 and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. .. 7. APARTMENTS IN HOUSES THAT Report PD-144-96 be received; till THAT Staff be authorized to proceed to take all necessary action to: III a) bring forward an amendment to the Zoning By-law with respect to apartments in houses; and .. b) to subsequently implement a registry system for apartments in houses. .. .. - - Report #1 - - 3 - October 28, 1996 - 8. - - 9. - - 10. - - - .. 11. - - 12. .. - - - - ANIMAL CONTROL MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 1996 THAT Report CD-52-96 be received for information; and THAT a copy of Report CD-52-96 be forwarded to Animal Alliance of Canada. PARKING ENFORCEMENT MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 1996 THAT Report CD-53-96 be received for information; and THAT a copy of Report CD-53-96 be forwarded to the Bowmanville B.I.A. for their information. CASH ACTIVITY REPORT FOR AUG UST 1996 THAT Report TR-80-96 be received; THAT, in accordance with provision of Chapter M-45, Section 79 (1) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, the Treasurer reports the cash position of the Municipality of Clarington for the month ended August 31, 1996, is as shown on the schedule attached to Report TR-80-96; and THAT Part "A" of the expenditures for the month of August, 1996, be confirmed. 1995 AUDIT REPORT AND MANAGEMENT LETTER THAT Report TR-81-96 be received; and THAT the recommendations and actions identified in the body of Report TR-81-96 be endorsed. GARBAGE COLLECTION - 1997 - 2001 THAT Report WD-35-96 be received; THAT the Council of the Municipality of Clarington supports the proposal by Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. to establish a transfer station at 178 Darlington/Clarke Townline Road South, south of Highway No.2 (the former Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Works Depot); lIIIl lIIIl Report # 1 - 4 - October 28, 1996 .. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Municipality of Clarington supports the establishment of a transfer station; .. THAT the existing contract for garbage collection, paragraph 24, Schedule D, Contract CL-94-36, be revised to refer to a negotiated rate per stop, rather than a kilometre rate; .. .. THAT Council approve a rate per stop of $2.88, amounting to a reduction of approximately 3% on the 1996 rate of $2.97 (projected 5.5% reduction on the 1997 rates), to take effect upon commencement of operations at the transfer station; .. THAT a royalty be paid annually to the Municipality of Clarington amounting to approximately $55,000 in 1997 from charges on all Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (1.c.1.) waste passing through the transfer .. station; .. THAT royalties paid be deposited into the General Capital Reserve Account No. .. 2900-17-X for Municipal Uses, as determined by Council through the annual budget process; ... THAT Contract CL-94-36 be extended for two (2) years, concluding co-incidental with the Region's five (5) year contract on December 31, 2001; ... THAT there be no increase in the contract price during the two (2) year extension over and above the rate achieved through the application of the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) adjustment, as identified in the existing contract; till THAT the Purchasing By-law, Paragraph 5.06, be waived for tendering the contract for the two (2) years beyond the existing agreement, Contract CL-94-36; and .. THAT Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. be advised of Council's decision. till 13. ADDENDUM TO REPORT CS-09-96 - AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ASSIST YOUTH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. THAT addendum to Report CS-09-96 be received; .. THAT Report CS-09-96 be received; IIiIi III - - Report #1 - 5 - October 28, 1996 - - THAT the recommendations contained in Report CS-09-96 be approved; - THAT Council endorse in principle subject to Report CS-09-96 recommendations as outlined in the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth Findings and Recommendations as presented to Council on June 24, 1996; - THAT Council recognizes the Youth Council and Advisory Board as the advisory group to speak to youth issues; - THAT as it deems necessary the Advisory Board and Youth Council update Municipal Council on its programs and activities; - THAT a Committee of Staff from the Municipality assist the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth with the design of the implementation strategy; - THAT, once the implementation strategy has been designed, the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth be formally disbanded; and - THAT a copy of Addendum to Report CS-09-96 be forwarded to the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth, the advisors to the Committee and they be advised of action taken. - - - - - - - - - - - - THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON General Purpose and Administration Committee - - ROLL CALL Present Were: - - - Also Present: - - - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - MINUTES - - - - - - - Minutes of a meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on Monday, October 21,1996 at 9:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Mayor D. Hamre Councillor A. Dreslinski (Until 10:55 a.m.) Councillor C. Elliott Councillor L. Hannah Councillor M. Novak Councillor P. Pingle Councillor D. Scott Chief Administrative Officer, W. Stockwell Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Fire Chief, M. Creighton Treasurer, M. Marano Director of Public Works, S. Vokes Director of Planning and Development, F. Wu Deputy Clerk, M. Knight Mayor Hamre chaired this portion of the meeting. There were no declarations of interest stated for this meeting. Resolution #GPA-517-96 Moved by Councillor Pingle, Seconded by Councillor Dreslinski October 21, 1996 THAT the minutes of a regular meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on October 7, 1996, be approved. "CARRIED" G.P.& A. Minutes DELEGA TIONS PUBLIC MEETINGS .. - 2 - .. October 21, 1996 .. (a) Ron Collis, 177 Vail Meadows, Bowmanville, L1C 4T4 - re: Addendum to Report CS-09-96 - presented a copy of his presentation wherein the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth expressed support for the recommendations contained in Addendum to Report CS-09-96. ... .. There were no public meetings scheduled for this date. Councillor Dreslinski chaired this portion of the meeting. .. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan Status of Review of the Sign By-law Proposed Durham Regional Official Plan Amendment Reladanora Holdings Inc. Resolution #GPA-518-96 .. Moved by Mayor Hamre, seconded by Councillor Hannah .. THAT Report PD-138-96 be received for information. "CARRIED" .. Resolution #GPA-519-96 Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Pingle .. THAT Report PD-139-96 be received; and THAT Council authorize notification in local newspapers of Council's intention to pass a Sign By-law. .. "CARRIED" III Resolution #GPA-520-96 .. Moved by Mayor Hamre, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report PD-140-96 be received; .. THAT Report PD-140-96 be approved as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the proposed Official Plan Amendment submitted by Reladanora Holdings Inc.; .. THAT a copy of Council's decision and Report PD-140-96 be forwarded to the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham Planning Departments; and .. THAT the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham advise the Municipality of Clarington of their Council's respective decisions, .. "CARRIED" .. .. - G,P,& A, Minutes - - 3 - October 21, 1996 - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONT'D. - Proposed Durham Regional Official Plan Amendment Kose Properties I nc. - - - - - Monitoring of the Decisions of the Committee of Adj ustment - - - - Proposed Amendment to Clarington Official Plan & Zoning By-law 829426 Ontario Inc. (Markborough Properties) 014.DEV,96.053 009,96.002 - - - - - - Resolution #GPA-521-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Pingle THAT Report PD-141-96 be received; THAT Report PD-141-96 be approved as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the proposed Official Plan Amendment submitted by Kose Properties Inc.; THAT the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham advise the Municipality of Clarington of the respective Councils' decisions; and THAT a copy of Council's decision and Report PO-141-96 be forwarded to the Town of Whitby and the Region of Durham Planning Departments. "CARRIED" Resolution #GPA-522-96 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Scott THA T Report PD-142-96 be received; THAT Council concur with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on October 10, 1996; and THA T Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment in the event of an appeal. "CARRIED" Resolution #GPA-523-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Scott THAT Report PD-143-96 be received for information; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PD-143-96 and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. "CARRIED" G.P.& A. Minutes l1li .. - 4 - October 21, 1 996 .. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONT'D. Apartments in Houses CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Animal Control Monthly Report for September 1996 Parking Enforcement Monthly Report for September 1996 l1li Resolution #GPA-524-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Elliott ... THAT Report PD-144-96 be received; THAT Staff be authorized to proceed to take all necessary action to: .. a) bring forward an amendment to the Zoning By-law with respect to apartments in houses; and .. b) to subsequently implement a registry system for apartments in houses. "CARRIED" l1li Councillor Pingle chaired this portion of the meeting. till Resolution #GPA-525-96 lIIII Moved by Mayor Hamre, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report CD-52-96 be received for information; and till THAT a copy of Report CD-52-96 be forwarded to Animal Alliance of Canada, "CARRIED" .. Resolution #GPA-526-96 .. Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Scott THAT Report CD-53-96 be received for information; and .. THAT a copy of Report CD-53-96 be forwarded to the Bowmanville B.I.A. for their information. till "CARRIED" .. .. III IIIit - ... G,P.& A. Minutes - TREASURY DEPARTMENT ... - Cash Activity Report for August 1996 - - - - 1995 Audit Report and Management Letter .. .. - FIRE DEPARTMENT .. Monthly Fire Report August, 1996 .. - - 5 - October 21, 1996 Councillor Novak chaired this portion of the meeting, Resolution #GPA-527-96 Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Scott THAT Report TR-80-96 be received; THAT, in accordance with provision of Chapter M-45, Section 79 (1) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, the Treasurer reports the cash position of the Municipality of Clarington for the month ended August 31, 1996, is as shown on the schedule attached to Report TR-80-96; and THAT Part "A" of the expenditures for the month of August, 1996, be confirmed. "CARRIED" Resolution #GPA-528-96 Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Elliott THAT Report TR-81-96 be received; and THAT the recommendations and actions identified in the body of Report TR-81-96 be endorsed. "CARRIED" Councillor Scott chaired this portion of the meeting. Resolution #GPA-529-96 Moved by Councillor Pingle, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT Report FD-18-96 be received for information. - COMMU'-!ITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT "CARRIED" - - - See Resolution #GPA-533-96, Page 7. G.P.& A. Minutes III j .. - 6 - October 21, 1996 III Councillor Elliott chaired this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .. Garbage Collection 1997 - 2001 Resolution #GPA-530-96 III Moved by Mayor Hamre, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT Report WD-35-96 be received; III THAT the Council of the Municipality of Clarington supports the proposal by Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. to establish a transfer station at 178 Darlington/Clarke Townline Road South, south of Highway No.2 (the former Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Works Depot); .. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Municipality of Clarington supports the establ ishment of a transfer station; .. THAT the existing contract for garbage collection, paragraph 24, Schedule 0, Contract CL-94-36, be revised to refer to a negotiated rate per stop, rather than a kilometre rate; .. THAT Council approve a rate per stop of $2.88, amounting to a reduction of approximately 3% on the 1996 rate of $2.97 (projected 5.5% reduction on the 1997 rates), to take effect upon commencement of operations at the transfer station; .. .. THAT a royalty be paid annually to the Municipality of Clarington amounting to approximately $55,000 in 1997 from charges on all Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (1.c.1.) waste passing through the transfer station; .. THAT royalties paid be deposited into the General Capital Reserve Account No. 2900-17-X for Municipal Uses, as determined by Council through the annual budget process; .. THAT Contract CL-94-36 be extended for two (2) years, concluding co-incidental with the Region's five (5) year contract on December 31, 2001; till THAT there be no increase in the contract price during the two (2) year extension over and above the rate achieved through the application of the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) adjustment, as identified in the existing contract; .. THAT the Purchasing By-law, Paragraph 5.06, be waived for tendering the contract for the two (2) years beyond the existing agreement, Contract CL-94-36; and II1II .. III .. - - G.P.& A. Minutes - - 7 - October 21, 1996 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONT'D. - - - - - - - .... .. ADMINISTRATION .... UNFINISHED BUSINESS .... - Addendum to Report CS-09-96 Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth Findings and Recommendations S04.\O - - - - THAT laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. be advised of Council's decision. "CARRIED lATER IN THE MEETING" (SEE FOllOWING MOTIONS) Resolution #GPA-531-96 Moved by Mayor Hamre, seconded by Councillor Hannah THAT the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Bruce R. Mortensen, Manager, Municipal Markets, laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd., to answer questions from Members of the Committee. "CARRIED" Resolution #GPA-532-96 Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA-530-96 be amended by adding the words: "in a suitable location" at the end of the third paragraph. "MOTION lOST" Resolution #GPA-530-96 was then put to a vote and "CARRIED". Mayor Hamre chaired this portion of the meeting. There were no reports considered under this section of the agenda, Resolution #GPA-533-96 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT addendum to Report CS-09-96 be received; THAT Report CS-09-96 be received; THAT the recommendations contained in Report CS-09-96 be approved; G.P.& A. Minutes "" ... - 8 - October 21, 1996 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONT'D. IIiI OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT THAT Council endorse in principle subject to Report CS-09-96 recommendations as outlined in the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth Findings and Recommendations as presented to Council on June 24, 1996; III .. THAT Council recognizes the Youth Council and Advisory Board as the advisory group to speak to youth issues; THAT as it deems necessary the Advisory Board and Youth Council update Municipal Council on its programs and activities; III THAT a Committee of Staff from the Municipality assist the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth with the design of the implementation strategy; II1II THAT, once the implementation strategy has been designed, the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth be formally disbanded; and IIli THAT a copy of Addendum to Report CS-09-96 be forwarded to the Ad Hoc Committee to Assist Youth, the advisors to the Committee and they be advised of action taken. III "CARRIED" ... There were no items considered under this section of the agenda. .. till Resolution #GPA-534-96 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hannah .. THAT the meeting adjourn at 11 :00 a.m. "CARRIED" .. .. Diane Hamre, Mayor IIli III Marie p, Knight, Deputy Clerk III III THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON /1J. ~ REPORT m Meeting: COUNCIL Fife # Res. # By-Law # Date: OCTOBER 28 1996 Report #: ADMIN. 28 - 9Pife #: Subject: POSITION OF CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following: 1. That Report ADMIN. 28-96 be received; and 2. That Council ratify the decision of the Chief Administrative Officer that transfers the Building Division of the Planning and Development Department to the Public Works Department and appoints Mr. Stephen A. Vokes as the Chief Building Official for the Municipality of Clarington, effective October 21 1996; and \ 3. That the attached by-law be passed to appoint Mr. Stephen A. Vokes, Director of Public Works as the Chief Building Official on an interim basis. REPORT: On September 9 1996 Council approved Report PD-123-96, which appointed Mr. Frank Wu as the Chief Building Official on an interim basis. Since then the Chief Administrative Officer has had discussions with Mr. Wu, who has indicated that he may lack the academic/technical schooling as well as the working experience needed to discharge the responsibilities of the Chief Building Official of Clarington. Accordingly, the Chief Administrative Officer has transferred the Building Di vision of Planning and Development to the Department of Public Works, reporting directly to Mr. Stephen A. Vokes, on an interim basis, effective October 21 1996. Mr. Vokes has an engineering degree and has had previous experience in the capacity of Chief Building Official. It is anticipated that the permanent position of Chief Building Official will be addressed in the 1997 budget discussions. Respectfully submitted, ~ W. H. Stockwell, Chief Administrative Officer WHS:nof JlECYCLEO I:Z:\. ".I"E" ....pEft '<I:I "ECYCLl - CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 96-182 - - being a By-law to repeal By-law 96-139 and to authorize the entering into of an Agreement with Trulls Land Corporation, the Owners of Plan of Subdivision 18T-89022, and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington in respect of Plan 18T-89022, - WHEREAS Council on April 15th, 1996, approved draft plan of subdivision 18T -89022 and authorized the execution of a subdivision agreement with the Owner; - - AND WHEREAS Council on July 8th, 1996 passed By-law 96-139, authorizing the execution of a subdivision agreement with Kiddicorp Investments Limited, the Owner of said lands; - AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington has been advised that Kiddicorp Investments Limited is no longer the Owner of the said lands; - - AND WHEREAS Trulls Land Corporation being the new Owners of draft plan of subdivision 18T-89022 wishes to proceed to finalize the Subdivision Agreement; - NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: - 1, THA T the Mayor and Council are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, and seal with the Corporation's seal, an Agreement between Trulls Land Corporation, the Owners of Plan of Subdivision 18T-89022. - 2, THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to accept, on behalf of the Municipality, the said conveyances of lands required pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement. - 3, THAT By-law 96-139 be repealed, - By-Law read a first time this 28th day of October, 1996 - By-Law read a second time this 28th day of October, 1996 By-Law read a third time and finally passed this 28th day of October, 1996 - MAYOR - CLERK - - - THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON - BY-LAW 96-183 - being a by-law to amend By-law 89-173, a by-law respecting the appointment of a Chief Building Official and Building Inspectors and to repeal By-law 96-160 - WHEREAS the Ontario Building Code Act requires Council to appoint a Chief Building Official to enforce the Ontario Building Codes. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: - 1. THAT By-law 89-173 be amended by deleting paragraph 1) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: - 1) THAT in addition to his duties as the Director of Public Works, Mr. Steven Vokes be appointed as the Chief Building Official for the Municipality of Clarington effective October 21, 1996. - 2. THAT By-law 96-160 be repealed. - - By-law read a first and second time this 28th day of October 1996. - By-law read a third tim~ and finally passed this 28th day of October 1996. - - - MAYOR - CLERK - - - - - THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ~~ m REPORT Meeting: COUNCIL File # Date: OCTOBER 28 1996 Res. # ADMIN. 28 - 9Pile #: By-Law # Report #: Subject: POSITION OF CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following: 1. That Report ADMIN. 28-96 be received; and 2. That Council ratify the decision of the Chief Administrative Officer that transfers the Building Division of the Planning and Development Department to the Public Works Department and appoints Mr. Stephen A. Vokes as the Chief Building Official for the Municipality of Clarington, effective October 21 1996; and 3. That the attached by-law be passed to appoint Mr. Stephen A.Vokes, Director of Public Works as the Chief Building Official on an interim basis. REPORT: On September 9 1996 Council approved Report PD-123-96, which appointed Mr. Frank Wu as the Chief Building Official on an interim basis. Since then the Chief Administrative Officer has had discussions with Mr. Wu, who has indicated that he may lack the academic/technical schooling as well as the working experience needed to discharge the responsibilities of the Chief Building Official of Clarington. Accordingly, the Chief Administrative Officer has transferred the Building Division of Planning and Development to the Department of Public Works, reporting directly to Mr. Stephen A. Vokes, on an interim basis, effective October 21 1996. Mr. Vokes has an engineering degree and has had previous experience in the capacity of Chief Building Official. It is anticipated that the permanent position of Chief Building Official will be addressed in the 1997 budget discussions. Respectfully submitted, ~ W. H. Stockwell, Chief Administrative Officer WHS:nof AECYClED ~ PAPIER PAPER \fJ:I RECYCLE THIS IS PRINTED 00 RECYCLED PAPER THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 96-183 being a by-law to amend By-law 89-173, a by-law respecting the appointment of a Chief Building Official and Building Inspectors and to repeal By-law 96-160 WHEREAS the Ontario Building Code Act requires Council to appoint a Chief Building Official to enforce the Ontario Building Codes. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT By-law 89-173 be amended by deleting paragraph 1) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 1) THAT in addition to his duties as the Director of Public Works, Mr. Stephen A. Vokes be appointed as the Chief Building Official for the Municipality of Clarington effective October 21, 1996. 2. THAT By-law 96-160 be repealed. By-law read a first and second time this 28th day of October 1996 By-law read a third time and finally passed this 28th day of October 1996 ACTING MAYOR CLERK