Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) The City of Red Deer

Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) – Final Report 

The City of Red Deer 

Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) 


i



Executive Summary 

The Waste Management Master Plan’s vision, based on Council direction, is to provide strategic and 

detailed direction to reduce the per capita amount of waste sent to landfill through waste reduction and 

diversion initiatives that can be supported by the residents and businesses through their actions and 

choices. The plan is the fourth in a series of Waste Management Master Plans that were initiated in 1992, 

and aims to make Red Deer a recognized provincial leader in sustainable waste management. Consistent 

with the plan’s vision, Red Deer’s Environmental Master Plan, adopted in 2011, includes a goal to 

decrease the amount of waste going to landfill and increase waste diversion opportunities. 

In addition to data analysis, field observations and a review of best practices, research conducted for 

the project included considerable stakeholder consultations, particularly within the commercial sector. 

In 2011, approximately 75,000 tonnes of waste from the City of Red Deer were disposed at the Red Deer 

Waste Management Facility landfill. This translates to a disposal rate of 812 kg per capita. It is estimated 

that 63% of Red Deer’s waste originates in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector. 

The rate of waste diversion within the commercial sector is unknown, as this activity occurs within 

the private sector, and no reporting mechanism exists with The City. However, field observations and 

consultations suggest that considerable additional potential exists for increased diversion within the 

ICI sector. At the same time, the single-family residential waste diversion rate resulting from collection 

of recyclables and yard waste is reported to be 27%. Multi-family residential diversion programming is 

less effective, with issues around participation and contamination of recycling streams. 

The most significant residential waste diversion opportunities lie with organics, both yard waste and 

food waste. Estimates in the commercial sector suggest that the greatest diversion opportunities are 

represented by cardboard, paper and food waste. 

A waste reduction strategy was developed to build a progressive waste reduction program that will 

deliver increased diversion and make The City a leader in waste management programming, as outlined 

in the following elements and recommendations: 

Option Type 

Education / 

Promotion Overall 

Approaches 

Option 

Government leadership 

• Review and update internal procurement policy to encourage reduction, 

reuse and recycled content. 

• Develop a consistent comprehensive waste diversion program for all public 

buildings and operations. 

Community engagement 

• Develop a community engagement plan to promote waste reduction 

and diversion initiatives and leverage existing environmental networks. 

Community-based social marketing 

• Continue to build internal capacity in community-based social marketing, 

and integrate these approaches into all program designs 

and implementation. 

• Expand marketing efforts for existing programming to improve participation 

and address specific behaviour issues. 

• Initiate a cooperative design process between The City and contractors for 

recycling infrastructure to improve consistency in bin design, colours and 

signage. 

i

sonnevera international corp. 

Option Type 

Residential Waste 

Reduction/ 

Diversion 

Option 

Branding 

• Develop a Red Deer brand that provides a consistent program look and 

messaging throughout City waste reduction initiatives. 

Social Media 

• Investigate SmartPhone apps that can help to remind residents of waste 

management services and diversion opportunities. 

• Enhance The City’s website to provide more information related to 

The City’s waste reduction and waste management services, and 

incorporating more interactive features. 

Public spaces recycling 

• Pilot new and improved signage at existing public recycling bins, including 

assessment of participation and contamination levels, as well as an 

advertising campaign. 

• If the pilot is successful, all litter bins in public spaces should be replaced 

with multi-stream bins, and supported by ongoing promotional activities. 

Zero waste public events 

• Prepare a “zero waste event” guide for event organizers that provides tips 

on how to minimize waste at events and identifies local waste management 

resources and services. 

• Require event organizers to prepare a waste management action plan 

including waste reduction and diversion elements as part of special 

events permits. 

• Provide highly visible garbage and recycling containers to public events 

that are consistent (colours, signage) with other public space and municipal 

recycling initiatives. 

Backyard composting 

• Build upon the Composting at Home program through enhanced education 

and initiatives like subsidized composter sales to promote backyard 

composting throughout residential areas of Red Deer. 

Grasscycling and xeriscaping 

• Develop a grasscycling and xeriscaping awareness campaign linked to 

existing and future environmental campaigns related to healthy yards, 

water conservation and backyard composting. 

Expanded residential organics collection 

• Implement a year-long pilot of expanded residential organics collection 

to include food waste and soiled paper, testing combined yard and food 

waste, as well as separated collection over four seasons. 

• Utilizing results from the pilot, if deemed successful, implement communitywide 

residential organics collection. 

Bi-weekly garbage collection 

• Combine pilot of bi-weekly garbage and recyclables collection with 

expanded organics pilot. 

ii



Option Type 

Industrial, 

Commercial and 

Institutional Waste 

Reduction 

Option 

Enhanced Curbside Recycling 

• Enter into negotiations with the MRF’s operator to determine capabilities 

regarding collection of an expanded range of plastics. If positive, expand 

materials accepted in the blue box to all mixed container plastics and film. 

• Implement a pilot residential blue cart collection program. 

• Due to the larger volume that can be accommodated in a cart, if automated 

carts are expanded for use at all homes, bi-weekly collection of recycling 

should be considered. 

User-pay / volume limitations 

• An initial reduction of the can limit from its current rate down to 3 containers 

per week should be considered, followed by a subsequent reduction down 

to 2 containers. Implementation of a container reduction could be 

introduced at the same time as new recyclables are added to the program. 

Enhanced multi-family programming 

• Work with the recycling contractor to develop a targeted multi-family 

social marketing program. 

• As a launch to the campaign, provide in-suite recycling containers. 

Waste diversion assistance 

• Provide technical and information assistance to businesses and institutions 

that want to implement waste diversion programs. 

ICI recognition 

• Develop a recognition program for businesses achieving high standards 

in waste diversion. 

ICI food waste diversion 

• Initiate a pilot ICI food waste collection program, including promotion 

and education materials and training of staff at participating businesses, 

to identify specific opportunities and barriers to success. 

• Incorporating results from the pilot, introduce a community-wide promotion 

of ICI food waste collection service options. 

• Clarify the Utility Bylaw’s application to commercial organics 

collection services. 

• Support ICI locations that want to implement on-site composting. 

Enhanced ICI recycling collection 

• Work with contractors to design and implement alternate collection options 

for businesses in areas that present challenges to effective participation 

in diversion programs. 

• Consider providing municipal buildings with recycling services as an add-on 

to the multi-family recycling program 

Expanded C&D diversion opportunities 

• Expand the pallet recycling program to include all clean (uncoated) 

wood waste. 

• Assess the potential benefits of adding aggregate diversion opportunities at 

the Waste Management Facility. 

iii


Option Type 

Infrastructure 

Enhancements 

Regulatory Options 

Option 

Automated cart-based garbage collection 

• Implement a pilot automated garbage collection program. 

• If the pilot is deemed successful, expand automated garbage collection 

community-wide. 

• If automated collection is implemented full-scale, consider offering 

residents variable can sizes to further enhance the user pay concept and 

create a financial incentive to maximize diversion. 

Organics processing facility 

• If a composting facility is deemed to be required to process residential 

and ICI food waste, conduct a composting feasibility study to determine 

technology, size and location of suitable processing facility. 

Differential tipping fees 

• Create a financial incentive for diverting recyclable and compostable 

materials through a system of differential tipping fees at the Waste 

Management Facility. 

Disposal bans 

• Consider implementation of disposal bans for waste materials that have an 

existing collection and processing infrastructure in place. 

Residential mandatory recycling / source separation 

• If promotion and education and financial incentives such as pay-as-youthrow 

garbage collection do not provide the desired level of residential 

program performance, implement curbside collection bans for all organics 

and recyclables that are part of both programs. 

ICI mandatory recycling / source separation 

• Once adequate alternatives exist for ICI organics and recyclables, if ICI 

diversion expectations are not met, require all businesses to participate in 

diversion programs. 

iv



Option Type 

Residuals 

Management 

Monitoring and 

Reporting 

Option 

Site development 

• Prepare and implement an integrated Design and Operations Plan for the 

landfill site, with provisions for minor updates every five years. 

• Develop a long-term capital cost plan which provides capital costs of all 

landfill related infrastructure projects and progressive closure costs. 

Airspace consumption 

• Implement annual topographical plans generated from aerial survey data. 

Based on the annual topographical plan, undertake an annual airspace 

consumption analysis. 

Operational considerations 

• Consider seasonal use of alternative daily cover at the site. 

• Review the terms of reference of the operations contract to ensure that 

it contains appropriate performance criteria. 

• Implement a comprehensive reporting system that provides the level 

of material breakdown to evaluate performance in different sectors. 

• Conduct on-site and load audits to assess breakout of waste from 

various sectors. 

• Carry out surveys at recycling depots to determine relative usage by 

commercial vs. residential sectors, as well as residents from outside 

Red Deer. 

• Request reporting of diversion amounts from the commercial sector, 

including businesses that direct ship materials out of the city, as well 

as total collection volumes from contractors. 

• Incorporate environmental benefits calculations into the reporting system. 

Based on implementation of this strategy, the targeted overall per-capita disposal rate is reduced from 

812 kg per capita in 2011 to 500 kg per capita in 2023. At the same time, the annual kg of garbage per 

residential account is targeted at 400 kg, down from 610 kg in 2011. 

The Waste Management Master Plan underwent an extensive stakeholder review process, including 

public consultations to gain feedback from residents and business owners / operators on the proposed 

plan. Results showed that the City of Red Deer's residents and businesses are generally in support of the 

actions proposed within the Waste Management Master Plan. 

v


Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i 

Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... vii 

Table of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Council Vision ................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Plan Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1 

2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2 

2.1 Waste Management Master Plan History ....................................................................................... 2 

2.1.1 1992 Waste Management Master Plan .................................................................................... 2 



2.2 Environmental Master Plan ............................................................................................................. 3 

2.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 4 

3 Existing Waste Management System and Waste Characterization ...................................................... 6 

3.1 Disposal, Diversion and Waste Generation .................................................................................... 8 

3.2 Environmental Benefits of Diversion ............................................................................................. 11 

3.3 Composition of Residential Waste Disposed ................................................................................ 11 

3.4 Stakeholder Input .......................................................................................................................... 12 

3.4.1 Customer Survey Highlights ................................................................................................... 12 

3.4.2 Feedback from the ICI Sector ................................................................................................ 14 

3.4.3 Feedback from the Construction and Demolition (C&D) Sector ............................................. 14 

4 Diversion Potential ............................................................................................................................... 16 

5 Waste Management Strategy .............................................................................................................. 19 

5.1 Waste Reduction, Diversion and Residuals Management Elements ............................................ 19 

5.1.1 Education / Promotion Overall Approaches ........................................................................... 20 

5.1.2 Residential Waste Reduction / Diversion ............................................................................... 32 

5.1.3 Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) Waste Reduction / Diversion ............................... 42 

5.1.4 Infrastructure Enhancements ................................................................................................. 48 

5.1.5 Regulatory Options ................................................................................................................. 51 

5.1.6 Residuals Management .......................................................................................................... 55 

5.1.7 Monitoring and Reporting ....................................................................................................... 58 

6 Summary of Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 60 

7 Prioritization ......................................................................................................................................... 64 

7.1 Ranking of Program Elements ...................................................................................................... 64 

8 Public Consultation .............................................................................................................................. 66 

9 Implementation Schedule .................................................................................................................... 69 

10 Financial and Staffing Implications ...................................................................................................... 72 

10.1 Estimated Expenditures ................................................................................................................ 72 

10.2 Human Resources ........................................................................................................................ 72 

11 Estimated Diversion ............................................................................................................................. 75 

12 Targets ................................................................................................................................................ 77 

13 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 79 

vi



APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 80 

Appendix A – Previous Waste Management Master Plans 

Appendix B – Existing Solid Waste Management System in Red Deer 

Appendix C – Utility Bylaw 3464 

Appendix D – ICI Audits and Interviews 

Appendix E – Education / Promotion Overall Approaches 

Appendix F – Residential Waste Reduction 

Appendix G – Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Waste Reduction / Recycling Examples 

Appendix H – Waste Collection Examples 

Appendix I – Regulations 

Appendix J – Comparison of Alberta Municipal Residential Diversion Programs 

Appendix K – Municipal Research 

Appendix L – Financial Analysis 

Appendix M – Red Deer Promotion / Education Materials 

Appendix N – Public Consultation Results 

Table of Figures 

Figure 1: Origin of Red Deer waste .......................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 2: Breakdown of Residential Waste Excluding Multi-Family Buildings in 2011 ............................. 8 

Figure 3: Breakdown of Residential Waste Including Multi-Family Buildings in 2011 .............................. 9 

Figure 4: Historical Residential Recyclables Collection ............................................................................ 9 

Figure 5: Breakdown of Residential Recyclables Collected ................................................................... 10 

Figure 6: Residential Recyclables Collection Mechanism ...................................................................... 10 

Figure 7: Estimated Composition of Residential Waste Disposed .......................................................... 12 

Figure 8: Sources of Waste Materials Generated in Alberta .................................................................. 16 

Figure 9: City of Red Deer Waste Sources ............................................................................................. 16 

Figure 10: Composition of ICI Waste ...................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 11: City of Toronto Workstation Waste Containers ..................................................................... 21 

Figure 12: Richmond’s Environmental Purchasing Guide ...................................................................... 21 

Figure 13: Centralized Waste Station in City of Markham ...................................................................... 21 

Figure 14: City of Red Deer logo ............................................................................................................ 24 

Figure 15: Green Deer branding ............................................................................................................. 25 

Figure 16: Effective signage combining clear words with photos ........................................................... 25 

Figure 17: Single-stream recycling sign .................................................................................................. 26 

Figure 18: Medicine Hat my-waste App .................................................................................................. 27 

Figure 19: Bus stop recycling station in Red Deer .................................................................................. 29 

Figure 20: Markham Silver Box Public Space Recycling Container ....................................................... 29 

Figure 21: Markham Park Recycling Container ...................................................................................... 29 

Figure 22: Markham Super Mailbox Recycling Container ...................................................................... 29 

Figure 23: Recycling Station at Carnival San Francisco ......................................................................... 31 

Figure 24: Recycling trailer ..................................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 25: Montgomery County Grasscycling Poster ............................................................................. 34 

Figure 26: Montgomery County Grasscycling Magnet ............................................................................ 34 

Figure 27: Curbside organics collection bin ............................................................................................ 35 

Figure 28: Food waste collection bin and kitchen catcher ...................................................................... 36 

vii


Figure 29: Variable subscription garbage carts ...................................................................................... 39 

Figure 30: Capital Regional District Reusable Bag ................................................................................. 41 

Figure 31: Portland Recycle at Work Central Collection Box ................................................................. 42 

Figure 32: Portland Recycle at Work Desk-side Box .............................................................................. 42 

Figure 33: Portland Container Recycling Poster ..................................................................................... 42 

Figure 34: Portland Mixed Paper Recycling Poster ................................................................................ 42 

Figure 35: Toronto Yellow Bag Collection Program ................................................................................ 46 

Figure 36: Construction and Demolition Waste Disposed at the Waste Management Facility ............... 47 

Figure 37: Port Coquitlam Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste Carts .................................................. 49 

Figure 38: Ranking of Program Elements ............................................................................................... 65 

Figure 39: It is important that we reduce the amount of waste sent to the landfill. ................................. 66 

Figure 40: It is important that Red Deer becomes a leader in sustainable waste management. ............ 66 

Figure 41: Support for Reducing Waste Sent to the Landfill .................................................................. 67 

Figure 42: Support for Red Deer Being a Waste Management Leader .................................................. 67 

Figure 43: Estimated Diversion – Implementation of Strategy ................................................................ 76 

Table of Tables 

Table 1: Environmental Master Plan Targets ........................................................................................... 4 

Table 2: Estimated City of Red Deer Residential Diversion Potential .................................................... 17 

Table 3: Estimated City of Red Deer Commercial Diversion Potential ................................................... 18 

Table 4: Waste Management Strategy Elements ................................................................................... 19 

Table 5: Residential Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 67 

Table 6: ICI Survey Results .................................................................................................................... 68 

Table 7: Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 69 

Table 8: Implementation Budget and Schedule ...................................................................................... 73 

Table 9: Estimated Diversion .................................................................................................................. 75 

Table 10: Environmental Master Plan Targets ....................................................................................... 77 

Table 11: Current Diversion Amounts ..................................................................................................... 77 

Table 12: Proposed Waste Targets ........................................................................................................ 78 

viii



1 Introduction 

In January 2012, sonnevera international corp. (sonnevera) was contracted by The City of Red Deer 

to develop an updated Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) to establish a strategic direction 

and planning framework for waste management in Red Deer for the next 25 years. This resulting 

WMMP provides a detailed work plan for the next ten years that focuses on achieving the mandate 

set forth by The City of Red Deer’s Waste Management Section: to collect and dispose solid waste 

in an environmentally responsible manner, with emphasis on recycling and reuse where feasible. 

The plan works towards this mandate, while building on the successes of the current waste 

management system. 

1.1 Council Vision 

In April 2012, City Council attended a workshop to provide input into the process to update Red Deer’s 

WMMP. As a result of their input, the following vision for the Plan was developed: 

Red Deer’s WMMP will provide strategic and detailed direction to reduce the per capita 

amount of waste sent to landfill through waste reduction and diversion initiatives that can 

be supported by the residents and businesses through their actions and choices. The plan 

aims to make Red Deer a recognized provincial leader in sustainable waste management. 

1.2 Plan Objectives 

In addition to the vision provided above, Council input was also used to establish objectives for the 

WMMP. The options selected for inclusion in the WMMP will aim to achieve the following objectives: 

• Encourage and support waste minimization behaviours; 

• Recognize that convenience and accessibility are critical to maintaining community support; 

• Create measurable environmental benefits, such as decreasing the annual per capita 

disposal rate; 

• Support sustainable waste management on a regional level; and 

• Optimize diversion potential and cost to derive the best value. 

1


2 Background 

The City of Red Deer is centrally located within Alberta, situated approximately 150 kilometers north 

of Calgary, and is surrounded by Red Deer County. It is Alberta’s third most populous city, after Calgary 

and Edmonton, with an approximate population of 92,000, based on the 2011 municipal census. The City 

has consistently seen a steady increase in population due to its thriving oil and agricultural industries. 

The City operates a successful waste management service that includes collection of recycling, yard 

waste and garbage, and a state-of-the-art waste management facility. With the growth of the city, as 

well as public expectations for progressive environmental programs and services, The City strives to have 

its solid waste programs and services meet community expectations. It is with this in mind that The City 

conducts annual customer surveys and regularly reviews and updates its WMMP, and has developed an 

Environmental Master Plan (EMP) to serve as a roadmap to improve the city’s sustainability, including 

specific goals for waste management. These existing documents serve to frame the development of the 

new WMMP – from the identification of successes and opportunities for improvement to establishing longrange 

targets for the performance of the waste management system. 

2.1 Waste Management Master Plan History 

The City of Red Deer prepared its first Solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) in 1992. The Plan 

was reviewed and updated in 1998 and 2005. These plans have been the basis for the programs and 

services that are in place today. This section provides a brief overview of the previous Plans and reports 

on their implementation status. A full listing of the recommendations in each Plan and their 

implementation status is provided in Appendix A. 

2.1.1 1992 Waste Management Master Plan 

The first WMMP was prepared in response to the community’s increasing concern about the environment. 

Council directed staff to prepare a plan that investigated and formulated policy on the city’s waste 

management issues. The objectives of the 1992 Plan were to reduce reliance on landfilling through 

a solid waste management system that incorporates reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery, and to 

assist the Province in achieving its goal of 50% waste reduction by the year 2000. 

The recommendations in the 1992 WMMP were expected to divert 20% of waste away from landfilling. 

The key recommendations were: 

• Implement a 5 container limit on residential garbage collection 

• Apply for approval for the development of a dry waste site 

• Ban white goods (large metal appliances) from the landfill 

• Develop a promotion and education program 

• Pilot a yard waste collection and composting program 

City staff reported that the majority of the recommendations in this plan were implemented. 


The goal for the 1998 WMMP was to determine what parts of the solid waste system could be 

improved and whether further waste reduction could be achieved. The key recommendations in 

the 1998 Plan were: 

• Increase organics diversion through encouraging backyard composting and consideration 

of a pilot program for food waste 

• Implement a 5 bag limit on residential garbage collection (not previously implemented) 

• Actively encourage businesses to participate in waste diversion 

All of the recommendations in this plan were implemented. 

2




The goal for the 2005 WMMP was to obtain confirmation of the strategic direction of waste management 

programming. The recommendations in the 2005 Plan continue to promote waste diversion in both the 

residential and commercial sectors, which is consistent with the direction of the previous plans. 

The recommendations from this plan that have been completed are: 

• Provide a second drop-off depot for recyclables 

• Recycle e-waste materials not in the provincial stewardship program 

• Promote backyard composting 

• Provide School Recycling Program 

The recommendations from this plan that were not fully implemented are: 

• Lower 5 unit set out limit for waste collection 

• Make recycling directory available online 

• Promote grasscycling 

• Investigate the economics of recycling more wood 

Some additional recommendations were not implemented because alternative actions were taken. 

Examples include: 

• Host Online Swap and Shop Service – other on-line services such as FreeCycle, Kijiji and 

Craigslist are readily available and widely used 

• Provide Waste Oil Drop-off – being done through private recycling facilities 

• Provide Additional E-waste Drop-off Depot in Red Deer – The volume of e-waste disposed 

has not yet warranted a second e-waste location 

• Recycle Printer Cartridges – being done through several retail stores 

• Recycle concrete and asphalt – being done through private recycling facilities 

2.2 Environmental Master Plan 

In April 2011, Council approved The City’s Environmental Master Plan (EMP) which outlines seven key 

areas of action: water, ecology, transportation, the built environment, air, energy and waste. 

The main goal related to waste is to decrease the amount of waste going to landfill and increase waste 

diversion opportunities. Specific actions to achieve this goal included in the EMP are: 

• Update the Waste Management Master Plan. 

• Review differential tipping fee structure to identify opportunities to encourage (incent) diversion. 

• Create an education campaign, toolkits and pilot projects around household and community 

composting. 

• Partner with developers and builders to advance recycling and diversion of construction waste on 

development sites. 

3


The EMP also sets out specific targets to drive the implementation of the Plan. The targets are shown in 

the following table: 

Table 1: Environmental Master Plan Targets 

Timeline Residential Solid Waste Targets Waste Diversion Targets* 

2009 

(baseline) 

183 kg per capita/year 10% diversion 

By 2015 10% reduction from 2009 levels 20% diversion 



*Diversion is the percentage of waste diverted per year per tonne of waste landfilled 

2.3 Methodology 

During the development of this WMMP, several tasks were completed to define the recommendations for 

Red Deer’s future waste management system. Those tasks included: 

• Gathering and reviewing existing historical reports and data on solid waste management 

in Red Deer 

• Site visits to the major solid waste facilities 

• Participating in residential and commercial garbage and recycling collection services 

• Interviews with key stakeholders 

• A workshop with City of Red Deer’s staff involved in solid waste management 

• Waste audits at the landfill 

• An on-line survey for businesses 

• Site visits and waste audits at randomly selected businesses and institutions 

• Consultation meetings with a variety of stakeholders including: 

– The Downtown Business Association 

– Red Deer Home Builder’s Association 

– Red Deer Construction Association 

– Environmental Advisory Committee 

– ReThink Red Deer 

– Service providers 

– City staff from various departments 

• Compiling and assessing best management practices for application to Red Deer 

• Preparing a comparative assessment of waste management programs in other Alberta 

municipalities 

• Reviewing the results of The City’s Customer Satisfaction Surveys 

• Review of The City’s waste management budget 

The stakeholder consultations were conducted on an individual and group basis to determine potential 

barriers, opportunities and customer needs. The waste stream analyses and visual audits provided 

insight into trends specific to Red Deer and allowed diversion potential to be estimated. A review of best 

practices in communities similar to Red Deer identified potential approaches that could be implemented 

in Red Deer, including economic incentives, regulatory mechanisms and voluntary measures. 

The recommended options presented in this document were selected based on a thorough understanding 

of the current system, preferences identified during stakeholder consultation and their success in 

4



comparable jurisdictions. The selection of options also considered The City’s Environmental Master Plan 

and waste management strategy. 

Upon completion of the Draft WMMP, a workshop was held with City Council and the Environmental 

Advisory Committee to review results and recommendations prior to public release of the document. 

Feedback from this process was used to refine the implementation plan and schedule, followed by tabling 

of the report at City Council, at which point the draft report became public. 

An extensive program of public consultations was then launched over a period of two months, including 

attendance at public events and online surveys to gain feedback from residents and business owners / 

operators on the proposed plan. Audiences and venues were selected to ensure broad community 

representation, as well as a range of public demographics, and included recreation facilities, shopping 

malls, coffee shops, Red Deer College, business events, a seniors’ centre and a large consumer trade 

fair. The consultation process was promoted through advertising and social media to encourage 

participation, ultimately resulting in direct contact with about 850 individuals (residents and businesses), 

and completion of 909 residential and 51 business surveys. Additional information on the public 

consultation process is included in Section 8. 

5


3 Existing Waste Management System and Waste Characterization 

There is a broad range of waste management programs and infrastructure in the City of Red Deer and 

this Plan is intended to build on the success of the existing system. The following is a brief summary of 

the key components of the waste management system in Red Deer followed by data on waste 

generation, diversion and disposal. A detailed description of the policies, programs and infrastructure 

is provided in Appendix B. 

Policy 

• The City’s Utility Bylaw gives The City control over garbage collection services provided to 

residential, institutional and commercial properties. Consequently, The City, through its 

contractors, provides collection services to all residents and most businesses within the city (see 

Appendix C). Waste generated at construction and demolition sites, as well as Michener Centre, 

is not included under The City’s bylaw. Waste collected in containers larger than six cubic yards 

is also excluded from the bylaw. The City’s Utility Bylaw provides significant control over how 

solid waste is collected and where it is disposed. The control afforded by this bylaw is unique in 

Alberta and provides The City with the potential to influence waste management practices in all 

sectors. 

• To encourage use of recycling and yard waste services, residents are limited to 5 containers of 

garbage on a weekly basis 

Education and Promotion 

• The City has an educational interpretive centre located at the Waste Management Facility that 

receives 1,400 students per year 

• The “Blue Line” is a telephone hotline service to answer questions about The City’s waste 

management programs 

• The City utilizes utility bill inserts and newspaper advertising to provide information regarding 

waste management programs and events 

• The City publishes brochures on composting and naturescaping 

• City staff participate in “Let’s Talk” and Enviro Fair events 

Reduction and Reuse Programs 

• The City promotes the “Kick it to the Curb” reuse event for residents 

• The City encourages use of on-line services such as Craigslist and Kijiji 

• The “Take It or Leave It” Centre at the Waste Management Facility offers opportunities to drop off 

or pick up reusable furniture 

• There are also various commercial and non-profit retailers of used goods independent of The City 

of Red Deer programs 

• The City promotes alternatives to the single-use plastic bag 

• Backyard composting is promoted through the “Composting at Home” pilot project and on-line 

information resources 

Recycling 

• Curbside collection of recyclables is provided to residents (blue box for single-family homes 

and cart-based collection for multi-family buildings) 

• Two recycling depots accept the same materials that are collected through the 

residential program 

• Materials collected though the residential collection program and at the recycling depots are 

processed at a local Material Recovery Facility (MRF) owned by Waste Management Inc. 

6



• Red Deer’s Waste Management Facility provides a broad range of additional recycling/diversion 

opportunities, including scrap metal, appliances, drywall, toilets, asphalt shingles, electronics, 

yard waste, tires, pallets and household hazardous waste (HHW) 

• There are private collection companies that provide recycling collection services to businesses; in 

addition, some large commercial businesses manage their recyclables internally, baling materials 

(e.g. cardboard) on-site and shipping them back to central warehouses 

• There are two private companies that recycle concrete and asphalt 

Composting 

• Seasonal yard waste collection is provided to single-family homes. 

• The City composts yard waste at the Waste Management Facility. The operation of the 

composting facility is provided through contract. 

• There is a private composting facility situated outside of Red Deer near Penhold that can manage 

a wide variety of organic feedstocks (yard waste, clean wood chips, food waste, manures) 

Garbage Collection 

• Residential garbage collection is provided by The City to all residential buildings 

• Businesses and institutions also receive collection of garbage through The City if their garbage 

container is 6 cubic yards or smaller. 

• Construction and demolition projects must hire their own waste removal service or haul it 

themselves to the landfill 

Disposal 

• The City of Red Deer WMF is a regional landfill which accepts waste from the City of Red Deer 

limits, as well as surrounding communities which have established a contract to use the WMF. 

The surrounding communities which have agreements with the The City include the Town of 

Sylvan Lake, the Town of Penhold, the Town of Blackfalds and the Town of Bowden. Although no 

formal agreements exist between The City of Red Deer and the Towns of Innisfail, Delburne and 

Elnora, waste from these communities are accepted into the WMF. 

• All garbage collected in Red Deer must be delivered to The City’s Waste Management Facility 

where the only operational landfill in the city is located. The Waste Management Facility is owned 

by The City and the operation is contracted out. 

• The landfill is a Class II landfill and began accepting waste in 2001. It has an estimated remaining 

lifespan of 50-55 years. 

• There are 10 landfill sites within the City of Red Deer where municipal solid waste was disposed 

prior to 1972. In 1972, The City of Red Deer began operating a central landfill facility located on 

the southern limit of the city. This landfill was closed in 2001 and is maintained and monitored by 

The City. 

Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) 

• A HHW collection depot has been set up at the Waste Management Facility where HHW is 

collected free of charge from residents. Materials collected at the depot are recycled or properly 

disposed of. 

• Motor oil and prescription drugs are not received at the HHW depot because there are several 

other collection locations for these items in the city. 

Financing 

• The financing of solid waste services in Red Deer is based primarily on user fees for the type of 

service rendered (collection or disposal). 

• General taxes are not used to finance these services. 

7


• This approach to financing ensures that each service is self-sustaining and the fees charged for 

each service reflect the actual cost to provide that service. Additionally, this approach is “user 

pay,” requiring the generators of garbage and recycling to pay only for the services that they use 

and, in the case of commercial generator, for the quantity of garbage that they generate. 

3.1 Disposal, Diversion and Waste Generation 

In 2011, 74,622 tonnes of waste from the City of Red Deer were disposed at the Red Deer Waste 

Management Facility landfill. This translates to a disposal rate for the City of Red Deer in 2011 of 812 kg 

per capita, which compares to a Canadian average of 777 kg per capita, or an Alberta average of 

1,122 kg per capita (Stats Can, 2010). 

The breakdown in waste by source, as tracked at the Waste Management Facility, is shown in Figure 1. 

It is important to note that the amount of multi-family waste is estimated based on a number of 

assumptions, rather than direct measurement. Methods such as load audits would serve to increase 

the confidence associated with these assumptions. 

7% 

30% 

63% 

Total commercial 

Total residential 

Total multi-family 

Figure 1: Origin of Red Deer waste 

It is unknown how much waste material is diverted from the commercial sector through recycling, as this 

activity occurs in the private sector, and no reporting mechanism exists with The City. However, average 

commercial recycling rates according to Stats Can are approximately 11% for Alberta. Assuming this 

average applies to Red Deer would suggest diversion of approximately 5,000 tonnes of recyclables in the 

commercial sector. 

At the same time, roughly 25,000 tonnes of materials were collected through the single-family residential 

garbage, recycling and organics collection programs in 2011. Figure 2 shows the relative quantity of 

materials collected in each stream, based on measurements. 

11% 

16% 

Recycling 

Garbage 

73% 

Yard waste 

Figure 2: Breakdown of Residential Waste Excluding Multi-Family Buildings in 2011 

8



Approximately 22,600 tonnes of residential solid waste are disposed at the Red Deer Waste Management 

Facility, which includes 16,600 tonnes collected curbside from single-family residences, with the 

remaining materials delivered to the Waste Management Facility by residents. This translates to a 

residential per-capita disposal rate of 246 kg per capita, which compares to a Canadian residential 

average of 259 kg per capita and an Alberta average of 273 kg per capita (Stats Can, 2010). 

The residential waste breakdown for the entire residential sector as a whole (including multi-family 

buildings), illustrated in Figure 3, displays a slightly lower waste diversion rate. The amount of waste 

currently being diverted from single-family homes alone (Figure 2) drops by 3% when multi-family 

estimates are included, showing lower rates of diversion occurring in multi-family residences, suggesting 

a need for enhanced programming in this sector. This conclusion was confirmed by field observations. 

9% 

15% 

Recycling 

Garbage 

76% 

Yard waste 

Figure 3: Breakdown of Residential Waste Including Multi-Family Buildings in 2011 

The amount of material diverted through the residential recycling program has increased since 2008, from 

approximately 4,500 tonnes to 5,500 tonnes in 2011, as seen in Figure 4. This increase of more than 20% 

is significantly higher than the corresponding population increase of approximately 5%, but is speculated 

by City staff to be largely due to better tracking and measurement. The breakdown of diverted materials 

is illustrated in Figure 5, the largest components of which are newspaper (2,400 tonnes) and cardboard 

(1,200 tonnes). It is unclear how the ultimate residuals rate associated with recycling is factored into 

these volumes, although this is an important practice to consider. 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

tonnes 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

2008 2009 2010 2011 

Figure 4: Historical Residential Recyclables Collection 

9


2500 

2000 

tonnes 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Figure 5: Breakdown of Residential Recyclables Collected 

Figure 6 shows the relative contribution of recyclables from the residential blue box program, multi-family 

collection program, and drop-off depots. As shown, the blue box program contributes over 80% of the 

total residential recyclables collected. 

5,000 

4,500 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

2009 2010 2011 

Blue box 

Multi-family 

Depots 

Figure 6: Residential Recyclables Collection Mechanism 

It is important to note that a portion of the material collected at the drop-off depots originates in the 

commercial sector. The relative use of the drop-off depots by businesses is currently unknown, but could 

be estimated through on-site interviews of users. This type of research would also identify potential use 

by participants from outside Red Deer. 

10



3.2 Environmental Benefits of Diversion 

The environmental benefits associated with diversion of residential recyclables in Red Deer include 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of almost 12,000 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. This represents the 

following equivalencies: 

Using the USEPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energyresources/calculator.html), 

this is the equivalent of the emissions from 2,350 passenger vehicles for one 

year, or almost 28,000 barrels of oil, 158 tanker trucks of gasoline, the energy use of over 1000 homes 

for a year, or the carbon sequestered by more than 300,000 tree seedlings over 10 years. These 

equivalencies are useful in communicating program benefits to the public. 

In 2010, according to The City of Red Deer Corporate GHG Inventory, landfill emissions account 

for the largest part of Red Deer’s GHG inventory, representing 48% of The City’s total emissions of 

137,000 tonnes of eCO 2 . The inventory also suggests a reduction target of 30% GHG emission reduction 

by 2020 and 50% reduction by 2035. Recycling GHG offsets are not factored into the GHG inventory, 

since the offsets occur in a remote location, and cannot be attributed directly to The City of Red Deer 

activities (The City is only responsible for collection of materials, not recycling). However it is interesting 

to note that the offsets associated with the current program are approximately 9% of the total corporate 

GHG inventory. 

Tracking environmental benefits associated with diversion programs is an important element in achieving 

Council’s objective of creating measurable environmental benefits. 

3.3 Composition of Residential Waste Disposed 

Figure 7 shows the estimated weight-based composition of the residential waste currently going to 

disposal. Summer and winter residential waste composition studies were conducted in August 2007 and 

December 2007, respectively. The results from both studies were compiled and average values were 

established. The studies show that organic waste constitutes the majority of the residential waste at 

approximately 37%, with paper products accounting for 20%, and plastics making up 12% of the waste. 

11


Figure 7: Estimated Composition of Residential Waste Disposed 

3.4 Stakeholder Input 

In developing the WMMP, opinions about the current solid waste system and ideas for the future were 

sought from stakeholders. Meetings were held with City staff and organizations like the Environmental 

Advisory Committee, Downtown Business Association, the Red Deer Home Builders’ Association, 

Red Deer Construction Association and ReThink Red Deer. Businesses and institutions were interviewed 

in person and additional input was gathered though a Chamber of Commerce online survey. The City 

of Red Deer’s Customer Satisfaction Surveys also provided information on which areas to target 

for improvement. 

This section summarizes the stakeholder input. This input aided in the assessment and selection of 

options for Red Deer’s future waste management system. 

3.4.1 Customer Survey Highlights 

The City of Red Deer contracts annual telephone surveys of randomly selected households to determine 

public opinion on The City’s environmental services. This information provides significant insight into the 

opportunities to improve performance and/or participation levels. The key findings of the survey over the 

past two years that relate to the development of the Waste Management Master Plan are summarized as 

follows: 

12

Successes (2010) 



• 96%satisfaction level with the Garbage collection, Blue Box Recycling, and Yard Waste Services 

• 95% reported usage of Blue Box Recycling 

• Reported usage of Yard Waste Services of 79%. The top reasons for not using this service were 

little or no yard waste,’ ‘yard service / landlord removes it’ and ‘take it to Waste Management 

Facility ourselves” – indicating a high overall level of residents participating in yard waste 

diversion 

Opportunities for Improvement (2010) 

• The top reason for not being ‘very satisfied’ with Blue Box Recycling is ‘limitation on material 

accepted.’ The percentage of respondents citing this reason has been increasing over the past 

several years 

• 51% of respondents support a reduction in the five garbage container limit. This is the highest 

level of support received in the past ten years. 64.3% of these supporters feel the limit could be 

reduced to three containers. The majority of households interviewed (80%) use the five-container 

limit for garbage less than five times per year. Over one-third of respondents (39%) indicated they 

never use the five-container limit 

• One of the top reasons that customers are not “very satisfied” with the recycling program is that 

they feel that the box is not big enough or durable enough. Half of respondents indicated the Cityissued 

Blue Box is big enough for their family’s needs, suggesting that the other half feel that it 

does not meet their needs 

• 20% of Blue Box users indicated that they throw away Blue Box items. Metals (tin cans, etc.) 

are the most frequently mentioned item thrown out (43%) 

• Some reasons provided for disposing acceptable Blue Box items included: too difficult to clean, 

items contaminated by food, and Blue Box too full 

• Half of respondents (51%) indicated that they were aware of the ‘Kick it to the Curb’ program 

and only 10% of respondents who knew about it participated in the Kick It to the Curb program 

However, 72% of respondents indicated they would be ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to 

participate in the ‘Kick it to the Curb’ program if it were to be held again 

Of Interest (2010) 

• 61% of respondents would be ‘very likely’ (33%) or ‘somewhat likely’ (28%) to use a year round 

service to collect kitchen food waste (organics) at the curb to be made into compost 

• 15% of respondents indicate that they use the Recycling Drop-off Depot at the Cannery Row 

Bingo location 

• 72% of households reported using the landfill site in the past year 

Successes (2011) 

• The vast majority of respondents (97%) provided a satisfied rating with garbage collection 

services 

• 96% of respondents use the Blue Box recycling program and 95% are satisfied with the program 

• 81% of respondents use the yard waste service. As with the 2010 survey, those that don’t 

participate indicate that they use methods other than garbage disposal to manage their yard 

waste. Satisfaction level with the yard waste program is 98% 

• A significant increase was seen in 2011 in regards to awareness of the Kick it to the Curb 

program (81%, versus 51.1% in 2010) and participation in the program (18%, versus 10% in 

2010). 78% of respondents indicated that they were very or somewhat likely to participate in 

future Kick it to the Curb events 

13


Opportunities for Improvement (2011) 

• 17% of respondents report putting some recyclables in the garbage 

• 23% of residents backyard compost 

• Over half (53%) of respondents would support a change to lower the five garbage container limit 

(an increase from 51% in 2010 and 48% in 2009). Of those supporting this change, 57% would 

support a limit of 3 units (a significant decrease from 64% in2010), 23% support 2 units (a 

significant increase from 7% in 2010) and 20% would support 4 units (a significant decrease from 

27% in 2010) 

Of Interest (2011) 

• Over half (57%) of respondents stated they were likely to use a kitchen food waste collection 

program. The level of interest in this service has been decreasing slightly over the last two survey 

periods (61% in 2010 and 65% in 2009) 

• 72% of respondents use the waste management facility 

3.4.2 Feedback from the ICI Sector 

Interviews with businesses throughout the city and the on-line survey provided the following insights 

regarding waste management in the ICI sector: 

• There are no substantial concerns or issues with the garbage collection system 

• The level of recycling is highly variable from business to business 

• Cost of recycling collection services was mentioned as a barrier to participation for some 

businesses 

• There is a lack of knowledge of the diversion services available in Red Deer 

• Many businesses that recycle have a staff person that champions recycling and may be 

involved in bringing the recyclables to a depot or to their home 

• Various businesses expressed the desire to have a type of “blue box” program, in which 

a recycling bin would be available for multiple materials such cardboard, plastics and tin 

(Note: such as service is currently available through private collection companies in Red Deer) 

• Some businesses are interested in organic waste recycling, provided the potential issues of odour 

and pest control are dealt with and regular collection is available 

Additional information on current practices in Red Deer’s ICI sector, and feedback from this sector, 

including online survey results, are outlined in Appendix D. 

3.4.3 Feedback from the Construction and Demolition (C&D) Sector 

Stakeholder consultations were conducted with the Red Deer Home Builders Association and the 

Red Deer Construction Association. Representatives from various sectors of the industry attended, 

including association members (builders), developers, trades contractors, a City of Red Deer official 

from the Inspections and Licensing Department, as well as the government relations manager for the 

Canadian Home Builders Association. 

Discussions revealed that most small home builders (those constructing



The attendees demonstrated interest in reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste 

currently being landfilled in Red Deer, however stressed that the infrastructure to do so needs to exist first 

(for example a regional C&D materials recycling facility). Source separating recyclable materials on the 

job site(s) is limited by high bin rental/removal costs for small volumes produced by individual contractors, 

as well as space restrictions and potential for unauthorized use of bins. Suggestions for how The City 

could support more C&D waste recycling included: 

• Provide well-labeled waste and recycling bins in centralized areas of active development 

• Educating workers and properly labeling bins, 

• Consider having staff at these sites to enhance proper participation and to minimize 

illegal dumping 

• Assist and promote communication between stakeholders (City staff, contractors, waste 

management companies) 

Industry representatives were not enthusiastic about award programs, because the potential 

effectiveness was viewed as being quite low. Options involving paperwork (such as construction project 

waste management plans and deposit/refund schemes) were not well received because such approaches 

were perceived as being administratively burdensome with limited benefits. Deconstructing buildings 

as opposed to simply demolishing was also deemed cost ineffective due to the time requirements and 

associated labour costs. In summary, the industry is positive about recycling, but doing so needs to be 

seen as cost-effective. 

15


4 Diversion Potential 

Figure 8 shows the average breakdown of the waste stream by sectors in Alberta. 

Figure 8: Sources of Waste Materials Generated in Alberta 

(Alberta Environment, 2006) 

As can be seen in Figure 8, industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste constitutes the majority 

of waste materials generated in Alberta, with residential waste making up a third of the overall solid 

waste stream. 

7% 

30% 

63% 

Total commercial 

Total residential 

Total multi-family 

Figure 9: City of Red Deer Waste Sources 

This compares to Figure 9 which shows the estimated breakdown of Red Deer waste as reported at the 

Waste Management Facility. As shown, the relative sources are quite similar. 

As shown, the residential waste stream makes up only about a third of the overall municipal solid waste 

stream, with ICI and C&D making up the additional two-thirds. 

Figure 7, shown earlier in this report, provides the composition of the residential waste stream based on 

waste audits conducted in Red Deer. 

16



The largest components of the residential waste stream are organic waste (37%), paper products (20%), 

and plastics (12%). 

These waste composition values were applied to Red Deer’s total residential curbside waste collection 

(16,500 tonnes) to produce theoretical potential additional diversion values for various components of the 

waste stream, as shown in Table 2, along with actual diversion for each category. It is important to note 

that these diversion potential estimates assume all material is recyclable, when in actuality portions of the 

material will not be acceptable, even in an expanded program. This reality is considered in actual strategy 

elements. For this assessment, it was also assumed that newspaper represents 50% of the 

paper category. 

Table 2: Estimated City of Red Deer Residential Diversion Potential 

Current 

Diversion 2010 

(tonnes) 

Additional 

Diversion Potential 

(tonnes/year) 

ONP* 2400 1650 

Other Paper** 1464 1650 

Glass 101 150 

Metal 119 500 

Plastic 112 1900 

Yard Waste 3400 3700 

Food Waste 0 2500 

Total 12,050 

*ONP – Old Newspaper 

**Other Paper includes cardboard 

Table 2 also clearly shows that the highest potential diversion within the residential sector lies 

with organics. 

There is no detailed waste composition information available for Red Deer’s commercial waste stream, 

so provincial commercial waste analysis information has been applied. 

17


Figure 10: Composition of ICI Waste 

(Alberta Environment, 2006) 

Figure 10 shows the provincial average composition of ICI waste for Alberta. As shown, the largest 

constituent is paper, of which the largest component is cardboard. These waste composition values 

were applied to Red Deer’s total estimated commercial waste generation (46,500 tonnes) to produce 

theoretical potential diversion values for the commercial sector, as shown in Table 3. 

Table 3: Estimated City of Red Deer Commercial Diversion Potential 

Current 

Diversion 2010 

(tonnes) 

Additional 

Diversion Potential 

(tonnes/year) 

Cardboard unknown 12,500 

Other paper unknown 12,500 

Food waste 0 7000 

Total 32,000 

It should also be noted that food waste is concentrated in certain portions of the ICI sector, specifically 

restaurants and grocery stores. Therefore, diversion of this material can be approached through a 

targeted program directed at these businesses. 

With aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs, over 50% diversion in the ICI sector should be 

readily achievable. Red Deer has a distinct advantage in that it supplies waste collection services to the 

commercial sector, and therefore has greater influence over potential diversion initiatives in this sector. 

18



5 Waste Management Strategy 

5.1 Waste Reduction, Diversion and Residuals Management Elements 

The following strategy elements, outlined in Table 4, for enhanced programs and increased diversion 

have been identified for The City of Red Deer, based on needs and opportunities identified, research into 

best practices, and initial feedback from stakeholders. Detailed information has been compiled on these 

initiatives that may be considered by The City for future program development, and is outlined in the 

Appendices. In particular, case study examples of programming options have been developed to provide 

guidance on planning and implementation of potential options. These examples for options listed in Table 

4 are presented in Appendix E through Appendix I. For comparative purposes, summary information on 

programs in other municipalities, both in and outside of Alberta, is also included in Appendix J and 

Appendix K. 

Table 4: Waste Management Strategy Elements 

Option Type Option Appendix 

Education / 


Approaches 



Diversion 

Industrial, 





Enhancements 




Branding 

Social Media 







Enhanced curbside recycling 








Automated cart-based residential collection 


Appendix E 

Appendix F 

Appendix G 

Appendix H 

Regulatory Options Differential tipping fees Appendix I 

Disposal bans 



19


Option Type Option Appendix 

Residuals 



Reporting 




Appendix L 

The diversion potential associated with each potential option is highly variable, depending on a number 

of factors, including effectiveness of the communications / education campaign used to promote the 

program. For example, focused community-based social marketing has the potential to improve the 

performance of diversion programs markedly. 

A description of each option and the resources required follows. 

5.1.1 Education / Promotion Overall Approaches 

5.1.1.1 Government Leadership 

It is very important for The City to lead by example by establishing progressive waste reduction policies 

and programs. Providing waste minimization leadership shows commitment to Red Deer’s citizens, 

acts as a model for local businesses and institutions, and supports Council’s vision of being a recognized 

leader amongst communities in Alberta and across Canada. This type of initiative is also very likely to 

be supported by Red Deer residents and businesses, as evidenced in the results of the WMMP public 

consultation survey, that showed 86% of residential respondents and 93% of commercial respondents 

agreed that Red Deer should become a leader in sustainable waste management. 

A leadership role would include green procurement policies that support waste minimization and 

aggressive waste minimization programs in all municipal operations. The City of Markham is a good 

example of a waste diversion leader; they have implemented the following initiatives within their 

municipal operations: 

• Removed all garbage containers from staff work stations and offices 

(went from 500 containers to 45) 

• Provided a small blue box at each desk 

• Staff was instructed to empty as needed into larger centralized recycling container 

• Introduced centralized organics containers 

• Internal material bans from garbage 

• Zero Waste Food and Catering Services and Events Policy 

• Local Food Plus Procurement Practices 


A leadership role would include green procurement policies that support waste minimization and 

aggressive waste minimization programs in all municipal operations. The City of Toronto implemented 

an internal waste diversion program that is recycling 85% of the waste generated in 17 buildings. The City 

of Richmond, BC has an environmental purchasing policy and guide, which includes an environmental 

purchasing checklist for suppliers to complete. Other examples of municipalities who have successfully 

adopted a leadership role in this manner are described in Appendix E. 

20



Figure 11: City of Toronto 

Workstation Waste Containers 

Figure 12: Richmond’s 

Environmental 

Purchasing Guide 

Figure 13: Centralized Waste 

Station in City of Markham 

5.1.1.1.1 Recommendations 

The City of Red Deer currently has a corporate procurement policy that includes the following statement: 

The City is committed to reducing its environmental impact and will therefore: 

• avoid goods and/or services that adversely affect the air, water or terrestrial environments; 

• give preference to environmentally friendly goods and/or services when quality and service 

is equal or better and price is equal to or lower than other less environmentally friendly goods 

and/or services; 

• promote goods and services that make lesser demands on unsustainable resources. 

This statement is a good start to establishing a progressive green procurement policy that could drive 

green purchasing within City operations if it was actively promoted and monitored for compliance. 

The current policy for purchasing of goods should be reviewed with the intention of encouraging suppliers 

of goods to address recycled content and recyclability of their product and the potential reuse of shipping 

containers and packaging as part of their quote. The purchasing policy for services, including construction 

services, should require contractors to identify how they will reduce, reuse or recycle waste materials in 

their operations/project. 

Similarly, internal diversion programs currently exist in most City operations; however, these programs 

could be greatly enhanced through efforts to provide continuity and increased monitoring and 

performance assessment. Internal diversion initiatives should also provide for maximum diversion 

through aggressive design. Design recommendations include: 

• the replacement of standard desk-side garbage bins with recycling containers and mini-waste 

baskets, such as the ones used by the City of Toronto; 

• the prominent placement of centralized recycling bins with clear, consistent signage like the ones 

used by the City of Markham, and 

• the development and implementation of an on-going communications campaign. 

It is recommended that an internal staff person be dedicated to coordinating The City’s internal diversion 

programs. It is anticipated that an internal working group comprised of City departments/operations will 

be required to assist the coordinator in establishing the appropriate services levels for all of The City’s 

services and buildings and to confirm equipment needs (deskside containers, centralized containers, 

signage), and to act as a feedback mechanism to the coordinator for subsequent program refinements. 

21


The City’s Green Team, as well as Environmental Initiatives, could play a primary role in promoting these 

leadership initiatives. 

5.1.1.1.2 Resources Required and Diversion Potential 

The resources required for this program will be dependent on how broadly The City undertakes the 

initiatives outlined. For the purposes of budgeting, it has been assumed that the waste diversion program 

would apply to 500 employees with desks. Although there are capital and operating costs associated with 

this initiative, the reduction in waste disposal needs may reduce other operational costs. 

The diversion potential for the leadership initiative is unknown but is not expected to be significant 

on a system-wide basis; however, it may be significant from a municipal operations perspective. 

Leadership Initiative 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Green Procurement Policy $0 $0 0.5 for first two 

Internal Waste Diversion Program $9,000 $2,000 

years 

• Desk-side bins ($8 ea) 

0.1 on an ongoing 

• Communications materials 

basis 

5.1.1.2 Community Engagement 

Red Deer has the opportunity to use community engagement to build overall community awareness, 

support and participation in diversion initiatives. Community engagement techniques involve citizen 

action and involvement in addressing an issue, and ultimately changing norms at the community level. 

Tools for community engagement include: 

• Capitalizing on existing community engagement activities 

• Community Based Social Marketing 

• Branding 

• Social Media 

5.1.1.2.1 Capitalizing on Existing Community Engagement Activities 

Capitalizing on existing community engagement activities would take advantage of the networks 

and momentum of local community organizations like ReThink Red Deer, Red Deer River Naturalists, 

Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Association. For example, embracing and building 

upon ReThink Red Deer’s Garbage-Free February would leverage an existing program directed at 

reducing waste and capitalize on ReThink Red Deer’s momentum. 

Another example is the Annual Pumpkin Smash held by the Greater Victoria Compost Education Centre 

(GVCEC), a non-profit organization in Victoria, BC. This event is conducted in partnership with the local 

government, a local recycling business and a local grocery chain. GVCEC organizes an annual post- 

Halloween pumpkin collection and smash community event. It is intended to engage citizens on the issue 

of organic waste and composting in a “fun, family” setting, as well as to divert pumpkin waste. The annual 

invitation to “Do the Pumpkin Smash” is widely advertised and supported through a range of communitybased 

outreach networks. Collection points are provided in various locations on one weekend after 

Halloween. Over 13 tonnes of pumpkin waste was collected for composting in 2009. Other community 

engagement examples are provided in Appendix E. 

Although taking advantage of the capacities of existing organizations can reduce The City’s cost outlay 

for education programs, capitalizing on existing community engagement activities will require staff time to 

facilitate engagement and utilize existing networks. Internal expertise already exists within Environmental 

22



Initiatives, and previous successes including the Environmental Master Plan process offer 

potential models. 

5.1.1.2.2 Community-Based Social Marketing 

Community-based social marketing is an approach to program education and promotions that 

encourages high rates of effective participation and long-term behavior change. Proven social marketing 

techniques are incorporated into program education/promotion activities to effectively change behaviors. 

The community-based social marketing process centres on uncovering barriers that inhibit individuals 

from engaging in sustainable behaviours, identifying tools that have been effective in fostering and 

maintaining behaviour change, then piloting takes place on a small portion of the community followed 

by ongoing evaluation once the program has been implemented community-wide. 

The following information is from Doug McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith’s Fostering Sustainable 

Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing (1999). 

Uncovering barriers involves three steps: 

1) Literature review (e.g., articles, reports, websites and databases) – Assists with identifying issues 

to be explored further with residents. 

2) Focus groups – A focus group consists of six to eight residents who have been randomly selected 

and are paid to discuss issues that the literature review has identified as important. Focus groups 

are an essential step in enhancing the understanding of how community residents view the 

behavior to be promoted. 

3) Phone survey – A phone survey allows for the views of a randomly selected larger group of 

residents. Focus groups ensure that a more comprehensive survey is constructed and that 

questions contained in the survey will be readily understood by respondents. 

Behaviour change centres on five tools that help overcome barriers: 

1) Commitment – From good intentions to action. For instance, when distributing compost units, 

ask when the resident expects to begin to use the unit and inquire if someone can call shortly 

afterward to see if they are having any difficulties or ask households who have just been 

delivered a compost unit to place a sticker on the side of their recycling container indicating 

that they compost. 

2) Prompts – Remembering to act sustainably. For example, distribute grocery list pads that 

remind shoppers every time they look at their grocery list to shop for products that have recycled 

content, are recyclable or have less packaging. One can also place signs at the entrances to 

supermarkets reminding shoppers to bring their reusable shopping bags into the store and/or 

distribute car window stickers with the purchase of reusable shopping bags; the stickers can be 

placed on the window next to the car lock to remind people to bring their reusable bags into the 

store. 

3) Norms – Building community support. For instance, affix a decal to the recycling container 

indicating that "We Compost" or affix a decal to the recycling container indicating that the 

household buys recycled products. 

4) Communication – Creating effective messages. Several techniques can be used and are not 

limited to the following: 

– Ensure that the message is vivid, personal and concrete 

– Have the message delivered by an individual or organization who is credible with 

the audience 

– Make communications easy for residents to remember what to do and how and when to do it 

23


– When possible, use personal contact to deliver the message 

– Provide feedback to both the individual and community levels about the impact of sustainable 

behaviours 

5) Incentives – Enhancing motivation to act. For instance, invoke user fees to increase motivation 

to recycle, compost and source reduce or attach a sizable deposit on household hazardous 

waste to provide the motivation necessary for individuals to take leftover products to a depot 

for proper disposal. 

The above tools are powerful but they can be ineffective if significant external barriers exist. If the 

behavior is inconvenient, unpleasant, costly or time-consuming, no matter how well internal barriers are 

addressed the community-based social marketing strategy will be unsuccessful. Removing or minimizing 

external barriers is imperative. As an example: 

A common barrier to backyard composting is “It is too inconvenient to obtain a compost unit.” 

The City of Waterloo decided to deliver compost units door-to-door. In that pilot project, a door 

hanger was distributed to 300 homes informing residents that they had been selected to receive 

a free composting unit. Of the 300 homes, 253 (or 84%) agreed to accept compost units. In a 

follow-up survey, 77% of these households were found to be using their compost units. 

The City’s Composting at Home program is another excellent example of community-based social 

marketing. For other community-based social marketing examples see Appendix E. 

The effectiveness of individual programming options is highly dependent upon identifying successful 

social marketing techniques. However, the diversion results from the program option itself, rather than 

from social marketing. This technique should be included as part of the overall design of any program 

that requires behaviour change. 

Incorporation of this approach will require staff to have expertise in the principles of community-based 

social marketing, and therefore, staff training in community-based social marketing methods is required. 

The resulting increased effectiveness of programs is anticipated to more than compensate for this 

investment. 

5.1.1.2.3 Branding 

A key piece of effective messaging in waste diversion programs is branding. Ideally, an educational 

campaign should include an overall brand and look that provides continuity to the entire program, 

while also being consistent with the community culture. 

Figure 14: City of Red Deer logo 

24



Figure 15: Green Deer branding 

For example, linking the look and feel of Red Deer’s overall branding (as shown in its logo) to messaging 

for the waste reduction / diversion program would provide identity and continuity. The Green Deer 

campaign also offers an opportunity for building on existing branding through its slogan “Leave it better 

than you found it”, as well as its branding (see Figure 15) that was developed in 2011. 

Clarity and consistency of signage is also critical to its effectiveness. Effective recycling signage 

combines clear language with visuals. Words are not adequate – inclusion of photos is critical to 

effectively convey the message of what materials are acceptable or unacceptable. Examples of 

effective signage are shown below, with additional examples provided in Appendix E. 

Figure 16: Effective signage combining clear words with photos 

(Source: Town of Banff) 

25


It is also important to maintain signage and bins in good condition. Users will tend to treat infrastructure 

with greater respect if it is well maintained. 

Red Deer has seen the development of relatively consistent recycling signage for drop-off depots and 

multi-family collection programs that are serviced by Waste Management (see Figure 17). This signage 

could be improved further through more vivid visuals (including visuals of non-acceptable materials). 

Signage in commercial diversion programs is much less consistent, as is bin colour and design. 

26 

Figure 17: Single-stream recycling sign 

In addition to consistent signage, consistent bin design and colour is also important program branding. 

The accepted standard is black for garbage, blue for recyclables, and green for organics. Incorporating 

these standard colours into Red Deer’s waste diversion program will provide clear and consistent 

messages regarding the relative application of different program infrastructure. It is recommended that 

The City work with collection contractors to develop consistency associated with signage and bin colours 

related to the separation of waste streams. Discussions with contractors have indicated that they are 

positive about working with The City on any system improvements. 

An initial investment in signage design and renewing public infrastructure would also be required. 

5.1.1.2.4 Social Media 

Social media may be used as a tool to communicate and promote public awareness within waste 

reduction programming and waste collection services. A common application of social media within 

waste management are interactive websites and smart phone apps that can be used to find local waste 

management facilities or remind residents of collection days. 

For example, the City of Medicine Hat offers a free app that allows users to set up regular reminders for 

garbage and yard waste collection. Residents can view Medicine Hat’s collection schedules and waste 

management information at their fingertips, anytime they want. By using the “my-waste” platform, 

Medicine Hat’s app lets mobile device users view a full range of waste management information currently 

on the City’s website and the annual Waste Management Calendar. Residents can view collection set-out 

information, identify materials and locations for recycling drop-off and look up landfill disposal rates.



Figure 18: Medicine Hat my-waste App 

For other examples of the use of social media in waste management programs see Appendix E. 

The City’s website is currently undergoing updates to provide additional information, including 

environmental programs. Increasing the interactive nature and user-friendliness of the website 

during this process would result in increased usage and effectiveness. The results of the WMMP 

public consultation survey gave some insight into the acceptance of this type of education tool, 

with the commercial sector in particular showing strong support for social media applications, 

along with residents under age 45. 


In order to increase community engagement related to waste diversion, the following actions 

are recommended: 

• Develop a community engagement plan to promote waste reduction and diversion initiatives 

and leverage existing environmental networks. 

• Continue to build internal capacity in community-based social marketing, and integrate these 

approaches into all program designs and implementation. Environmental Initiatives already has 

social marketing expertise, which could provide a foundation for an expanded community-based 


• Utilize community-based social marketing for existing programs to improve participation and 

to address specific behaviour issues (e.g., acceptable recyclables, yard waste set-out rules). 

• Develop a Red Deer brand that provides a consistent program look and messaging throughout 

City waste reduction initiatives. 

• Initiate a cooperative design process between The City and contractors for recycling 

infrastructure to improve consistency in bin design, colours and signage. 

• Enhance The City’s website to provide more information related to The City’s waste reduction 

and waste management services, and incorporating more interactive features. 

• Consider the use of SmartPhone apps that provide interactive information to residents regarding 

local waste management programs and services. 

27



The resources required for community engagement will be dependent on the formats of community 

engagement selected by The City. The table below provides an initial cost and staff resource estimate. 

For the development of the app, it is assumed that existing software and app services already developed 

for this purpose (e.g., MyWaste app) will be used. 

Community engagement is intended to support existing waste diversion programs and services and as 

such there is no diversion directly associated with the activities described above. However, community 

engagement activities are considered essential to ensuring that investments in diversion programing are 

maximized and that behaviour change is sustained. 

Community Engagement Tools 

Capitalizing on existing community 

engagement activities 

• Program development and 

execution 

Community Based Social Marketing 

• Staff training 

• Program development and 

implementation 

Capital 

$ 

Operating $ 

FTE 

$0 $5,000 0.2 in Year 1 

$20,000 in year 1 

$2,500 in subsequent years 

$25,000 in year 1 


0.1 for 

subsequent 

years 

Branding $0 $0 Included in 

above 

Social Media 

• Website enhancement and 

social media engagement 

• Source and maintain app $0 

$10,000 in year 1 


$2,800 

1.0 

0.2 

5.1.1.3 Public Spaces Recycling 

Municipally operated public spaces such as civic centres, urban sidewalks and sports facilities are areas 

where recyclable waste materials, such as beverage containers and other food waste, are generated, but 

little diversion infrastructure often exists. The placement of collection containers for these materials not 

only provides a diversion option, but also offers an important public education opportunity and reinforces 

waste diversion habits established at home and in the workplace. Further, the visible presence of 

diversion containers in public spaces can make an important contribution to the impression of the 

city as an environmentally-conscious community and would support Council’s vision of being a waste 

diversion leader. 

The City of Red Deer currently has a number of recycling bins in public spaces, including bus stops (see 

Figure 19) and downtown streetscapes. However, inspection of these bins showed very poor recycling 

participation, with most filled with general garbage. 

28



Figure 19: Bus stop recycling station in Red Deer 

The City of Markham has sought to have recycling broadly available in public spaces, including on urban 

sidewalks, in parks and at community mail boxes, as shown in the photographs below. For additional 

public spaces recycling examples, see Appendix E. 

Figure 20: Markham Silver Box 

Public Space Recycling 

Container 

Figure 21: Markham Park 

Recycling Container 

Figure 22: Markham Super 

Mailbox Recycling Container 

29



In order to improve participation, a two-stepped approach is recommended: 

1. Pilot new and improved signage at existing public recycling bins. This will require the 

development of new signage, an assessment of current participation and contamination levels, 

and a monitoring program to determine the participation and contamination levels once the pilot 

has begun. As contamination of public recycling bins is a common problem, an advertising 

campaign is also recommended as part of the pilot project. This campaign will draw attention to 

the new signage and inform people on how to properly participate. Advertising could include bus 

stop and bench signage in areas where there are pilot bins, posters in civic buildings where the 

pilot bins can be found, and media releases. It is important to ensure that the public bins are set 

up to take the same types of recyclables and have the same sorting requirements as the 

residential recycling program. Establishing the pilot will need to be done in consultation with the 

department (and any associated contractor) responsible for servicing the public space waste bins. 

The length of the pilot should be at least one year long. 

2. If the pilot is deemed to be successful, all litter bins in public spaces should be replaced with 

multi-stream bins, and supported by ongoing promotional activities. Future changes to the 

residential recycling program should be reflected in the public spaces recycling program as well. 


The table below outlines the anticipated resource requirements for public space recycling. The number 

of bins for full-scale implementation has been estimated and would need to be confirmed when full scale 

implementation is pursued. 

The direct diversion potential for public spaces recycling is minimal, being estimated at 100 tonnes 

per year, but the presence of public space recycling offers overall educational value through reaffirming 

waste diversion behaviours promoted at home, work and school. 

Public Space Recycling Capital $ 

Pilot Project 

• Design and pilot new signage, 

advertising campaign 

• Assumes no additional budget for 

collection or processing/disposal required 

Full-scale Implementation 

• 50 litter/recycling stations @ $5,000 each 

• $100 per year/bin for maintenance 

• Assumes no additional budget for 

collection or processing/disposal required 

Operating 

$ 

$10,000 No 

additional 

operating 

costs 

$250,000 $5,000 0.05 

FTE 

0.1 in first year 

0.05 in 

subsequent 

years 

5.1.1.4 Zero Waste Public Events 

Public events like festivals, parades and concerts can be large generators of waste. As a means to 

encourage reduction and recycling of event-related waste, it is recommended that The City encourage 

“zero waste” public events. Some examples of how municipalities are currently encouraging waste 

minimization at public events are: 

• San Francisco requires organizers of special events to prepare and submit a recycling plan as 

part of getting an event permit. The City provides special event training which event planners 

must attend. 

30



Figure 23: Recycling Station at Carnival San Francisco 

• The Bow Valley Waste Management Commission provides recycling equipment and tracking 

services to area events. In 2012, a 73% diversion rate for area events was achieved. 

• The City of San Jose, California offers an Eco-Station Loan program for local events to enable 

access to recycling and composting collection. Eco-Stations come with corresponding colorcoded 

signs, lids and bags. 

Other examples of how municipalities are encouraging zero waste special events are provided in 

Appendix E. 


The following actions are recommended to encourage “zero waste” public events in Red Deer: 

• Prepare a “zero waste event” guide for event organizers that provides tips on how to minimize 

waste at events and identifies local waste management resources and services. This guide can 

be incorporated into the Green Festivals Guide that is currently under development by The City 

of Red Deer. 

• Require event organizers to prepare a waste management action plan including waste reduction 

and diversion elements as part of special events permits, using the Zero Waste Events guide as 

a tool. 

• Purchase a mobile “zero waste” station that can be lent to or rented by event organizers. 

This station could be a highly visible trailer (see below) that can serve to promote Red Deer’s 

environmental messages. 

Figure 24: Recycling trailer 

• Provide well-signed, colour-coded containers for recyclables, compostables (once composting 

capacity is available) and garbage to events. The City currently provides bins for empty beverage 

containers to community events on request. 

• City-hosted events, such as those at Bower Ponds, could be promoted as zero waste events and 

act as a testing ground for containers, signage and other zero waste initiatives. 

31



The table below outlines the anticipated resource requirements for encouraging zero waste public events. 

Staff time would be required to prepare guidelines and permitting requirements, and monitor compliance, 

as well as to coordinate the use of the recycle trailer and event collection containers. 

Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that zero waste events can achieve high diversion rates. It is 

unknown what the diversion potential is relative to the total amount of waste disposed in Red Deer, since 

special event waste is not tracked separately. 

Zero Waste Events 

Capital 

$ 

Operating $ 

Mandatory waste management action plans 0 0 0.05 

Zero Waste Event Guide 

• Writing and design of guide 

Mobile “Zero Waste” Station 

• 1 trailer with graphics/signage 

• Annual maintenance 

• Cost to deliver/retrieve trailer not include 

• Costs associated with recycling, composting 

and disposal of materials in the trailer not 

included 

Collection Containers for Events 

• 15 sets of 3 containers ($180 per set) 

• Signage 

• Recycling, composting and disposal 

of materials in containers are assumed to be 

the responsibility of the event organizer 

5.1.2 Residential Waste Reduction / Diversion 

5.1.2.1 Backyard Composting 

FTE 

$5,000 $0 Included in 

above 

$25,000 $1,000 Included in 

above 

$2,700 

$300 

$0 

Included in 

above 

Over one-third of residential waste is estimated to be organic waste – the single largest material 

component of the waste landfilled. As an on-site management option, backyard composting results in 

direct cost savings to the municipality through decreased amounts of material requiring collection, either 

as waste or organics for centralized composting. Therefore, promotion of on-site management methods 

is a positive action, from both an environmental, as well as budgetary aspect. 

Encouraging backyard composting has been recognized as one of the most cost-effective means 

of reducing waste and hence many municipalities have implemented backyard composting programs. 

The City of Red Deer launched a pilot Composting at Home program in 2012 to encourage residents to 

establish backyard composting as long-term habit. There are 250 homeowners registered for this pilot 

program, who will have their diversion practices tracked for a year. 

Promotion of backyard composting through initiatives like subsidized composter sales can increase this 

practice by residents. The City of Calgary, in partnership with Norseman Plastics and Clean Calgary, 

offered residents a one-day truckload backyard composter sale. On June 21, 2008, 6000 Earth Machine 

composters were sold at six locations throughout the city for a subsidized rate of $25 (GST included). The 

City continues to sell the composters online and also provides composting information on their website. 

For examples of successful backyard composting programs, see Appendix F. 

32




The City’s current backyard composting program is innovative and has the potential to encourage 

long-term behaviour change in favour of waste reduction. If the pilot is deemed a success, it should be 

continued to encourage backyard composting to become a norm for Red Deer households. Information 

regarding backyard composting should be posted on the website to support residents that are interested 

in backyard composting, but not able or interested in being a participant in the Composting At Home 

program. If the Composting At Home program is not continued, consideration should also be given to 

the provision of low-cost backyard composters to residents. 


For the purposes of budgeting, it was assumed that after 5 years the Composting At Home program 

would be reduced in scope due to backyard composting becoming a normative behaviour. 

The diversion potential for each backyard composter is Red Deer is estimated to be 125 kg per home 

per year; however, this estimate can be refined based on the results of the Composting At Home pilot. 

Assuming 2,000 backyard composting bins are in place as a result of the Composting At Home program, 

250 tonnes of organic waste can be diverted from landfilling each year that those bins are in use. 

Backyard Composting 

Composting At Home Program 

• Assumes that program and 

information material development 

is already complete 

On-line Information Regarding Backyard 

Composting 

• Using currently available 

information provided by other 

municipalities or composting 

advocacy organizations 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

$ $20,000 

for years 1 to 5. 

$5,000 

for subsequent years 

FTE 

0.1 for years 1 to 5 

0.05 for subsequent 

years 

$0 $ 0 Included in above 

5.1.2.2 Grasscycling and Xeriscaping 

Grasscycling is the concept of leaving grass clippings on the lawn while mowing, rather than bagging 

them for disposal. Xeriscaping focuses on using native vegetation and minimizing turf areas, thereby 

eliminating the need for supplemental watering. 

As yard waste represents a significant portion of the residential waste stream during the growing season, 

an effective grasscycling / xeriscaping program can have a considerable impact on waste reduction / 

diversion. The actual result will depend upon the effectiveness of education efforts, as well as the 

presence of complementary tools, such as incentives and bans. Case studies show that an investment 

in education to change residential attitudes and behavior regarding grasscycling and xeriscaping can 

provide long-term benefits, as once a homeowner discovers that grasscycling is the easiest and most 

effective way to manage a lawn, they are unlikely to go back to bagging clippings. 

Grasscycling and xeriscaping offer not only waste reduction benefits, but also can contribute to a water 

conservation strategy. An aggressive social marketing campaign is needed to produce the behaviour 

change required to see broad adoption of grasscycling and xeriscaping practices by Red Deer residents. 

Red Deer currently includes some limited promotion of xeriscaping as part of its Healthy Yards, Healthy 

Communities initiative. An excellent example of an effective grasscycling campaign is Montgomery 

County, Maryland that includes: 

33


• Requiring a $1 sticker on every container of grass set out for yard waste collection. The intent 

of the stickers is to remind homeowners that grasscycling is the easiest and best way to 

handle clippings. 

• Linking the grasscycling campaign with its campaign for composting and leaf recycling. 

The campaign to encourage awareness included: 

– paid radio and television ads 

– public service announcements (radio and television) 

– print ads 

– direct mailings 

– transit advertising 

– publicity events 

– movie theater ads 

– video production (17-minute video for cable-access, libraries, and rental stores) 

– workshops on composting and grasscycling 

– weekly hands-on demos at 35 grasscycling demonstration lawns 

– a school poster contest 

– information kiosks at retailers and community events 

• Web-based information 

Figure 25: Montgomery County 

Grasscycling Poster 

Figure 26: Montgomery County 

Grasscycling Magnet 

The County felt that the awareness campaign was an important investment in positive, long-term 

behavior modification. At the end of the campaign, the amount of grass set out at curb was reduced 

from 36,000 tonnes to 9,000 tonnes per year. 

Additional examples of grasscycling and xeriscaping programs can be found in Appendix F. 


A grasscycling and xeriscaping awareness campaign should also be developed for Red Deer. 

This campaign could be linked in with multiple existing and future environmental campaigns related 

to healthy yards, water conservation and backyard composting. 

34




As shown in the table below, an initial investment in developing the awareness campaign is required. 

It is assumed that Red Deer would be able to access and use information materials and designs already 

developed by other municipalities. As this awareness campaign is anticipated to be linked with other 

related environmental messaging, the amount budgeted for ongoing operation of the campaign is 

minimal. It is also assumed that this campaign would be undertaken by staff already engaged in 

environmental messaging, so no additional staff resources are allocated in the table below. 

The additional diversion associated with this campaign is assumed to be similar to that of backyard 

composting, at 250 tonnes per year. 

Grasscycling and Xeriscaping 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Awareness Campaign 

• Assumes that program and 

information material 

development is already 

complete 

$2,000 

for year 1 

$500 

for subsequent years 

0 

(included in staff 

time allocated to 

Composting 

At Home 

program) 

5.1.2.3 Expanded Residential Organics Collection 

As noted previously, organic wastes represent the largest portion of Red Deer’s residential waste stream. 

Therefore, there are significant opportunities to increase waste diversion through the implementation of 

an expanded composting collection program. 

Homes in Red Deer currently receive a weekly yard waste collection service from the second Monday in 

April until the second Friday in November. An estimated 2500 tonnes of yard waste are collected annually 

through the yard waste collection program. Yard waste can also be dropped off at the waste management 

centre. The collected yard waste is composted at the Waste Management Facility. 

The existing curbside yard waste collection program could be expanded to encompass a wider range 

of organic materials, including food waste and non-recyclable paper wastes (e.g., tissues, paper towels). 

Automated carts are considered to be the best choice for full organics collection due to the considerable 

weight of material that can result in worker injury concerns. An example of an automated curbside 

organics collection cart is shown in Figure 27. Utilization of this style of bin would require contractors 

to have a compatible collection vehicle. 

Figure 27: Curbside organics collection bin 

35


An expansion of the residential organics program to include food waste would require access to a 

composting facility capable of processing this material. This facility could be established by The City at 

the Waste Management Facility or alternate location, or provided through contract by the private sector. 

36 

Figure 28: Food waste collection bin and kitchen catcher 

Alternately, if The City desires to retain separate collection and processing of yard waste at its Waste 

Management Facility, a separate collection program and processing facility could be established for food 

waste. Programs that collect yard waste and food waste separately are common in Ontario, and utilize 

a smaller green bin that is collected on a weekly basis year-round (Figure 28). 

Public feedback to the concept of collecting expanded organics in carts was very positive, with 85% 

of respondents to the WMMP public consultation survey agreeing it is important to divert residential 

organics through composting. 

For examples of curbside organics collection programs see Appendix F. 


Due to the scale and capital costs associated with this program, a year-long pilot project is 

recommended. The pilot would allow The City to test the two organics collection models: combined 

yard and food waste, and separate yard waste and food waste collection over a four-season time frame. 

The pilot will require identification of a location to compost the food waste. Composting options include 

incorporating the materials into the yard waste composting operation at the Waste Management Facility 

or to contract with a private operator such as Stickland Farms. 

The pilot will assist in determining public receptivity to the food waste collection models and establish 

program metrics that can be used to design a full-scale program. Full-scale implementation will 

require the identification or construction of processing capacity to manage the anticipated volume 

of organic waste. 


Automated collection carts cost in the order of $60 each when purchased in volume, while kitchen 

catchers cost in the order of $5 each. The smaller food waste bins cost approximately $25, depending on 

make and style. The City could purchase carts for all households in the city, or provision of carts could be 

included in collection service contracts. Regardless, the addition of food waste collection will translate into 

additional costs that will need to be passed onto individual households through utility charges. 

To reduce the financial impact of adding food waste collection to curbside programs, many communities 

have opted for the following collection protocol which does not require any additional truck passes: 

• Week 1: collect organics and garbage 

• Week 2: collect organics and recycling



Organics processing costs vary considerably, depending on technology and provider chosen. If The City 

chooses to develop its own expanded organics facility, a significant capital investment would be required, 

as well as ongoing staffing and equipment costs. If organics processing were contracted out, a per-tonne 

fee would be charged. For the purposes of budgeting, a $30 per tonne tipping fee has been applied to the 

costs shown in the table below. This tipping fee assumes a low-tech approach to composting, such as 

windrowing, is used. 

Based on waste composition data and the quantity of residential waste currently disposed, an estimated 

2,500 to 3,500 tonnes of waste that is currently landfilled can be diverted to composting. 

Expanded Organics Collection 

Pilot Project 

• 2000 homes 

• Kitchen catcher and small food waste 

cart to 1000 homes @ $38 each 

• Kitchen catcher and larger organic waste 

cart to 1000 homes @ $73 each 

• Collection ($120/yr/home) x 2000 homes 

• Processing @ $30/tonne x 180 tonnes 

Full Scale Implementation 

• 26,000 homes 

• Budget assumes a kitchen catcher and 

larger organic waste cart is provided to 

all homes (25,000 homes @ $73 each) 

• Increase over current collection cost is 

estimated to be $24/yr (based on 

experience in other jurisdictions) 

• Assumes $30/t tipping fee 

• Avoided landfill costs (-$60/t x 2,500 t) 

Capital 

$ 

$38,000 

$73,000 

Operating 

$ 

$240,000 

$5,400 

FTE 

0.25 (for one 

year) 

$1,825,000 $549,000 0.5 (for two 

years) 

5.1.2.4 Biweekly Garbage Collection 

Biweekly garbage collection can serve as a reminder of the importance of diversion, but is designed to 

take advantage of waste diversion generated by curbside recycling and organics collection, rather than 

to produce diversion itself. That being said, the focus that biweekly collection puts on alternatives can 

certainly have an impact in terms of participation in reduction / diversion programs. 

Although there are also cart-based programs that have garbage one week and recyclables the next, 

biweekly garbage collection works best when combined with curbside organics collection (weekly 

or biweekly). For example, the City of Nanaimo, BC introduced bi-weekly garbage collection (with 

a one-can limit) when they added their food waste collection program. 

5.1.2.4.1 Recommendation 

When curbside collection of organics is implemented, the weekly collection of garbage is arguably 

unnecessary since the putrescible portion of the garbage has been removed. At this point, consider 

reducing garbage collection to biweekly, alternating with collection of organics and/or recyclables. This 

reinforces the emphasis on waste diversion, while also offering cost savings that can be used to offset 

increased costs for enhanced diversion programming. 

37


5.1.2.4.2 Resources Required and Diversion Estimate 

Rather than requiring additional budget, biweekly garbage collection offers potential program cost 

savings. These savings can then be utilized to offset the costs of enhancing curbside service to include 

a wider range of organics. Any staff resources required to implement biweekly garbage collection are 

assumed to be accounted by staff resources allocated 

The primary benefits of biweekly collection relate to reduction in fuel consumed and trucks and labour 

required. The anticipated reduction in operating costs related to providing biweekly collection is estimated 

at 40% of the fixed collection cost, based on the assumption that approximately 80% of the cost of 

standard curbside is represented by collection, and biweekly collection reduces this cost in half. 

Administration and landfill fees would remain constant and fixed. 

There is no additional diversion directly associated with this recommendation. 

5.1.2.5 Expanded Plastics Recycling 

Previous Customer Surveys identified the acceptance of a limited variety of plastics as an issue with 

residents. This was confirmed in the WMMP public consultation survey, where 94% supported expanding 

plastics recycling, and 82% agreed with facilitating expanded collection through replacing blue boxes with 

larger blue carts. In addition, observations and reports suggest that many homes are currently including 

a wider range of plastics in their blue boxes, either as a result of lack of understanding, or simply the 

desire to recycle materials beyond those officially accepted in the program. As some residents are not 

clear on what plastics to include in their blue box, and there is demand to recycle a broader range of 

plastics, a move to expand the current range of plastics accepted in the blue box program would be 

welcomed by the citizens of Red Deer and increase residential diversion rates. Container plastics and 

film are categories that are easy to communicate to residents, and generally have available markets, 

and therefore would be a logical expansion to the current program. However, successful implementation 

of expanded plastics collection will require negotiations with Waste Management to ensure the MRF is 

capable of handling all plastics, while still separating high value materials. A shown previously in Figure 5, 

audits at the MRF show that the relative volume of plastics is low compared to other materials, suggesting 

that the opportunity for increased plastics diversion exists. 


Confirm that Waste Management’s MRF is capable of handling all plastics, while still separating 

high value materials. If negotiations regarding the MRF’s capabilities and costs are satisfactory, expand 

the range of plastics accepted in the blue box to all mixed container plastics. The inclusion of film plastics 

(e.g., grocery bags) should also be considered, if Waste Management is able to process and market 

this material. 


Discussions with the contractor would be required to determine the cost impact, if any, to formally expand 

the range of plastics accepted in the residential recycling program. Alternatively, pricing for this expansion 

could be included in the next collection and processing contracts. The cost for adding more plastics to the 

program will ultimately be influenced by the plastic market and the length of the processing contract. For 

the purposes of budgeting, the current processing cost of $60 per tonne has been used. 

Based on waste audit information, there is just under 2,000 tonnes of plastic waste from the residential 

sector landfilled annually. Not all of this material is readily recyclable, so expanding the range of plastics 

to include all rigid plastic containers is anticipated to result in a diversion of 500 tonnes or more annually 

assuming that there is an associated promotion and education program. 

38

Expanded Plastics Collection 

Processing 

• 500 tonnes (in Year 1) @ $60/tonne 

• Tonnage is expected to increase to 

1,000 tonnes over 2-3 yrs 

Capital 

$ 



Operating 

$ 

FTE 

$30,000 0.1 (for one year) 

0 in subsequent 

years 

Promotion and Education $10,000 Included in 

community 

engagement budget 

5.1.2.6 User-Pay / Volume Limitations 

The City of Red Deer’s current volume limitation is a 5-bag limit. Observations indicate that the actual 

average units set out in Red Deer is approximately 2 bags, based on set-out surveys. Therefore, the bag 

limit is not likely resulting in any significant decrease in garbage volumes. To become meaningful, and 

potentially drive increased diversion to recycling and composting options, the unit limit would need to 

be reduced to two bags or less. This would need to be implemented in conjunction with a focused social 

marketing campaign to increase acceptance and capitalize on diversion alternatives. Ideally, such a 

change would be introduced at the same time as a new diversion opportunity such as expanding the 

range of plastics in the recycling program or introducing food waste collection. 

Over half (53%) of respondents to The City’s 2011 customer satisfaction survey would support a change 

to lower the five garbage container limit (an increase from 51% in 2010 and 48% in 2009). Of those 

supporting this change, 57% would support a limit of 3 units (a significant decrease from 64% in2010), 

23% support 2 units (a significant increase from 7% in 2010) and 20% would support 4 units (as 

compared to 27% in 2010). This was confirmed in the WMMP public consultation survey, where 77% 

agreed with reducing the bag limit. As is currently the case, residents could purchase tags for any 

containers of garbage beyond the limit. 

An alternate approach would be to transition to automated garbage collection using a cart-based 

system. This system can be set up on a subscription basis, where a choice of cart sizes is chosen by 

the householder, with corresponding variable rates (see Figure 29). This concept was also fielded in 

the WMMP public consultation survey, where 62% of residents agreed with their service charges being 

proportional to the size of garbage cart they select. The calculation of the variable rates must be done 

very carefully to provide the desired incentive for waste diversion, while still covering fixed costs 

associated with collection, which comprise the majority of the system costs. 

Figure 29: Variable subscription garbage carts 

39


In Airdrie, residents have a weekly two garbage unit limit. Garbage stickers for additional units are 

purchased for $3.00/sticker. One garbage sticker per unit is needed up to a maximum of five units 

per household. Other examples of programs incorporating user-pay and volume limits can be found 

in Appendix F. 


The previous two solid waste management plans have recommended reducing the 5-container limit as 

a means of encouraging greater participation in waste diversion programs. Many Canadian programs 

that offer recycling and yard waste collection have container limits of 3 or less. Some programs that offer 

recycling and expanded organics collection have a “one container every other week” limit. 

Until a variable rate cart-based system is established in Red Deer, a progressive reduction of the 

container limit should be pursued. Initially, the rate can be decreased to 3 containers per week; followed 

by a subsequent reduction down to 2 containers. Implementation of a container reduction could be 


This type of program change is ideal for support through a community-based marketing campaign. 

5.1.2.6.2 Resources Required and Diversion Estimates 

Reducing the container limit does not have any capital costs and may actually reduce operating costs. 

However, staff time will be required for a communication campaign with contractors and residents. 

Decreasing the can limit is estimated to have a diversion potential of 1200 tonnes, based on diverting 

approximately 15% of the available close to 4000 tonnes of recyclable materials (news, other paper, 

glass, metal) and 3700 tonnes of yard waste currently found in residential garbage. The actual diversion 

achieved could be higher depending on how much the can limit is reduced and the accompanying 

community-based social marketing campaign. 

Reduce Container Limit 

Decrease Container Limit 

• Promotion and education 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

0 $15,000 (year of 

implementation) 

FTE 

0.1 for the year when 

the first reduction in 

the limit is introduced 

5.1.2.7 Enhanced Multi-family Program 

Encouraging waste diversion in multi-family buildings is more challenging than single-family homes 

due to the anonymity of the users of the recycling bins (i.e., it is difficult to target problematic behaviours 

to specific suites) and the lack of a direct social marketing tool like the blue box. 

The City of Red Deer provides recycling collection services to multi-family buildings and properties and 

like many multi-family programs, the recycling containers observed at multi-family properties indicated 

low usage and high levels of contamination. In the WMMP public consultation survey, 86% of residents 

agree with enhancing recycling services at multi-family residences. 

Many municipalities have addressed the multi-family recycling challenge by designing a promotion and 

education program specifically for multi-family residents. The Capital Regional District (Victoria) provides 

free bin decals to all collection service providers to ensure that consistent information, and hard copy and 

downloadable posters and brochures for building managers In 2006, they distributed reusable recycling 

tote bags to all buildings with a recycling program at a cost of $3 each. 

(http://www.crd.bc.ca/waste/recycle/apartments.htm). Providing containers such as these offers an 

ongoing prompt to remind residents of the opportunity to recycle. For additional multi-family program 

examples see Appendix F. 

40




Figure 30: Capital Regional District Reusable Bag 

Using techniques successfully applied in other jurisdictions, the following actions are recommended: 

• Work with the recycling contractor to develop a social marketing program specific to multi-family 

residents that includes: 

– Offering site visits at the request of building owners and managers, 

– Providing well-designed and attractive in-suite “how to” sheets for each suite and posters for 

centralized areas for free to buildings 

• As a launch to the campaign, provide in-suite containers to store recyclables (one for every unit in 

every building) 


Staff time to work with contractors to develop enhanced multi-family programming is required. Resources 

for independent promotional tools will also need to be considered. Capital funds will also be required to 

provide any necessary infrastructure, such as in-suite and in-building collection containers. 

Although performance is highly variable based on program elements, enhanced multi-family programming 

is estimated to offer an increased diversion of 1,000 tonnes at minimum. 

Enhanced Multi-family 

Program 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Program Development 

• $3/unit for year 1 

• $1.50 per unit on 

an ongoing basis 

$0 $30,000 (year of 

implementation) 

$15,000 (subsequent 

years) 

0.5 for program development 

year 

0.1 for subsequent years 

In suite containers 

• $5 each (including 

distribution) 

• 9,600 units 

$48,000 $0 Included in above 

41


5.1.3 Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) Waste Reduction / Diversion 

5.1.3.1 Waste Diversion Assistance 

An estimated 63% of the waste landfilled in Red Deer is reported to be from the ICI sector. 

Consequently, this sector represents the largest opportunity for waste diversion. 

Interviews and audits conducted at local businesses indicate that there is a knowledge gap regarding 

the opportunities and options available to business to reduce and recycle waste. Many companies 

are interested in waste diversion, but lack the in-house expertise to set up cost-effective programs. 

The provision of a technical advisor to help organizations implement waste reduction programs 

would significantly enhance waste diversion in the ICI sector and would also serve to raise the profile of 

waste reduction among commercial operators. This program could be implemented in partnership with 

existing private service providers, who can play a very important role in encouraging diversion in the 

commercial sector. This concept received very strong support in the WMMP public consultation survey, 

with 96% of responding businesses supporting a program where The City would provide technical and 

information assistance to businesses interested in reducing waste. 

An excellent example of a technical assistance program is Metro Portland’s (Oregon) ‘Recycle at Work’ 

that provides free customized reduction, reuse and recycling assistance to businesses. On-site waste 

audits, recycling boxes, ready-to-print posters, factsheets and videos are available to interested 

businesses. 

Figure 31: Portland Recycle at Work 

Central Collection Box 

Figure 32: Portland Recycle at Work 

Desk-side Box 

Figure 33: Portland Container 

Recycling Poster 

Figure 34: Portland Mixed Paper 

Recycling Poster 

Other ICI waste diversion assistance examples can be found in Appendix G. 

42




Provide technical and information assistance to businesses and institutions that want to implement waste 

diversion programs. This program may include: 

• Web-based recycling directory; 

• A waste audit service; 

• Assisting businesses with developing a waste diversion plan; 

• Awareness campaigns targeting specific commercial generators 

(e.g., retailers, restaurants, garages); 

• Working with local business associations to provide education and outreach in the 

commercial sector; 

• Developing tools and information specific to different types of businesses (office, retail, 

restaurant, etc.). 


The table below provides a budget estimate for an ICI Waste Diversion Assistance program. Expenses 

are related to the development of promotion and education materials and the production of those 

materials. Examples of materials include: posters and desk-side containers that can be given to 

ICI locations upon request. The estimated labour commitment is one full-time equivalent position 

to coordinate the program and liaise with businesses on an ongoing basis. 

Based on the estimated amount of recyclable material disposed of by the ICI sector in Red Deer, there is 

the potential to divert 2,500 tonnes 1 by encouraging more diversion by local businesses and institutions. 

ICI Waste Diversion 

Assistance Program 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Program Development and 

On-going Technical Support 

$0 $25,000 (1 st year) 

$15,000 (subsequent years) 

1.0 

5.1.3.2 ICI Recognition 

Public acknowledgement of businesses and institutions that achieve significant waste reduction goals 

serves to encourage similar programs within other organizations, while also reinforcing the positive 

behaviours associated with these accomplishments, and helping to raise the public profile of participating 

businesses. This approach also received strong report from businesses participating in the WMMP public 

consultation survey, with 82% of those surveyed agreeing with the development of such a program. 

As an example of a recognition program, CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling 

and Recovery; formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board) coordinates the Waste 

Reduction Awards Program (WRAP) which provides the opportunity for California businesses to gain 

public recognition for their outstanding efforts to reduce waste. Businesses do not compete against 

each other as each business is judged independently based on individual accomplishments. Successful 

applicants receive an award certificate from the State of California, along with a camera-ready WRAP 

WINNER logo and window decal. The logo can be used on products, advertising and business websites 

to publicize waste reduction efforts. In addition, CalRecycle publicizes WRAP winners via local and 

statewide press releases and are listed on the CalRecycle WRAP website. 

Additional ICI waste diversion promotion program examples are in Appendix G. 

1 2500 tonnes is based on an estimate that one-third of ICI waste landfilled (16,000 tonnes) is recyclable and that 

roughly 15% of that material (2500 tonnes) can be diverted through the diversion assistance program. 

43



The City should acknowledge businesses that are high performers in the areas of waste reduction and 

diversion through public recognition and certificate/ awards programs. A recognition program of this 

nature could be done in conjunction with the ICI Waste Diversion Assistance program. 

A recognition program should be implemented as a social marketing tool to encourage waste 

minimization within the ICI sector. The recognition program could be part of the ICI technical assistance 

service and serve to encourage businesses to implement new waste reduction measures, perhaps 

recognizing businesses that have completed their “waste reduction action plan.” 

A recognition program could be done in partnership with organizations such as local media and the 

Chamber of Commerce. 


Staff resources for the recognition program are incorporated into the ICI Waste Diversion Assistance 

program. Direct expenses associated with this program are expected to be minimal and are associated 

with the production of window decals and awards. 

This program provides support to the ICI waste diversion assistance program and disposal bans, and 

therefore no diversion is attributed to it. 

ICI Recognition Program 


• Program design 

• Advertising 

• Window decals 

• Awards 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

$0 $10,000 (1 st year) 

$5,000 (subsequent years) 

FTE 

Included in 

ICI waste 

diversion 

assistance 

staffing 

requirements 

5.1.3.3 ICI Food Waste Diversion 

Organic waste, specifically food waste, represents a significant diversion opportunity within the ICI waste 

stream. Currently there are no collection services for food waste serving the ICI sector in Red Deer. In the 

WMMP stakeholder consultation survey, 84% of businesses supported piloting a composting program in 

the commercial sector, including 100% of the food sector, and 88% of the retail sector. 

Seattle is an example of an approach to the collection of food waste that could be applicable to Red Deer. 

The City of Seattle offers a voluntary commercial food scraps collection program for all businesses at 

rates that are 32% lower than garbage rates. As a result, the food scrap collection service saves money 

for businesses that generate significant amounts of food waste, such as restaurants, grocery stores, 

bakeries, hotels, schools and flower shops. Seattle has contracted a waste hauler to provide compost 

collection containers and collection service. The program is part of Seattle’s larger Resource Venture 

Program which provides free technical assistance, training and advice on how to collect food waste and 

compost within a business location. The program also encourages businesses to donate packaged food 

and food that has not been served to customers to be donated to a local food bank. Other ICI food waste 

collection examples can be found in Appendix G. 


The opportunities for diversion of food waste, particularly from restaurants and grocery stores, include 

the Seattle model of providing the collection service, or alternatively, The City could promote food waste 

collection by private sector contractors. 

44



It is recommended that commercial food waste diversion be initiated through a pilot to identify specific 

opportunities and barriers to success that can be incorporated into a full program design. The pilot project 

will include the development of promotion and education materials and include the training of staff at 

participating businesses to ensure effective participation. 

The results of the pilot project would assist in determining the role that The City would play in a full-scale 

program. The private sector has indicated a desire to move forward with commercial organics collection, 

which provides an opportunity for The City to act more as a facilitator for a full-scale program, rather than 

being the service provider. 

A barrier to the setup of commercial organics collection is the need to clarify the bylaw with regards to 

whether organics are (or are not) part of the exemption provided to recyclables, and therefore can be 

captured under alternate collection programs by service providers. It is recommended that clarity be 

sought on this issue and the results shared with collection service providers. 

As with residential organics, local organics processing capacity will be required to receive materials that 

are collected through these programs. 

It is also recommended that The City provide support to ICI locations that want to implement on-site 

composting. This can be done through the ICI waste diversion assistance program. 


Introducing a pilot to demonstrate viability of commercial organics diversion will require additional 

staffing resources. The estimated cost to undertake the pilot and provide support to a full-scale program 

is provided in the following table. This budget assumes that the private collection companies move 

forward on commercial organics collection, allowing City resources to be minimized. However, it is 

anticipated that The City will provide on-going support through the previously outlined Waste Diversion 

Assistance role and undertaking social marketing and other related promotion and education activities 

targeting ICI waste generators. 

Assuming that effective promotion, education and regulatory measures (e.g., disposal bans) are put in 

place to support the implementation of ICI food waste collection, the estimated diversion potential for this 

program is 3500 tonnes. 

ICI Food Waste Diversion 

Pilot Project 

• 10 participating businesses 

• Collection bins (wheeled totes). 

Average of 4 bins required per site 

• Tipping fees (@$30/t) 

• Promotion and education materials 



Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

$2,500 $14,000 Included in ICI waste 

diversion assistance 

staffing requirements 

$5,000 As above 

5.1.3.4 Enhanced ICI Recycling Collection 

Private recycling collection services are currently available to Red Deer’s commercial sector. However, 

interviews with business operators suggest that the range of commercially available options is not 

well known or understood, and consequently, observations have shown that diversion options are 

underutilized. As with organics, by working with private service providers, The City can play largely 

a facilitation role in enhancing commercial recycling. 

45


However, specific sectors of the commercial sector, such as the downtown business area, have specific 

barriers that present challenges to effective participation in diversion programs. The development of 

targeted programs for these areas that may not have ready access to recycling infrastructure would 

serve to increase diversion. For example, introduction of a curbside-style recycling service for businesses 

currently receiving curbside garbage collection due to space limitations would provide additional diversion 

alternatives to these areas. 

A good example of an alternative collection system to service businesses with space limitations is an 

approach used by the City of Toronto. The Yellow Bag Program started in 2002 to provide Toronto’s 

commercial customers to with better access to collection services. Generally commercial establishments 

of less than four floors and less than 500 square meters ground space, qualify for this program. Eligible 

customers place garbage in special yellow bags for pick-up. Bags are available at Toronto retail locations 

for $3.10 each. This covers the cost of collection and disposal of garbage. 

Figure 35: Toronto Yellow Bag Collection Program 

The City collects recyclable materials and organics from businesses at no extra cost; it is included in the 

$3.10 per bag garbage collection fee. Garbage, food waste and recyclables (e.g., metal, glass and plastic 

bottles, jars, tubs, milk/juice cartons, cardboard, office paper, magazines, newspaper, telephone books) 

are collected twice a week at night in high commercial areas and weekly for other commercial 

businesses. Organics are collected in 35 gal green carts purchased from The City for $62.15 (including 

tax) while it is recommended that recyclables are collected in 95 gal blue carts purchased from The City 

for $96.05 (including tax). Commercial recyclables are also accepted in blue boxes and clear plastic bags. 

It is up to the business to decide how many carts meet their collection needs. 

For other examples of alternate commercial recycling services, see Appendix G. 


In order to address specific barriers to waste diversion in the commercial sector, The City should work 

with service contractors and key stakeholders (like the Downtown Business Association) to design 

and implement alternate collection options in areas that present challenges to effective participation 

in diversion programs. Additionally, The City should consider offering a curbside-style recycling service, 

potentially on a subscription basis, for businesses currently receiving only curbside garbage collection 

due to space limitations. Similarly, consideration should be given to adding applicable municipal buildings 

(like Collicutt Centre) to the existing multi-family recycling program. 


City resources to develop enhanced commercial recycling collection will be minimal as the collection 

services is intended to be provided (and invoiced) by private sector collection companies. However, 

46



facilitating the improvements to the collection system will require some staff time for working with the 

collection companies and local businesses in identifying and implementing alternative collection systems. 

A small dedicated budget for promotion and education has been included in the budget. 

It is difficult to estimate the diversion potential specific to this recommendation as the diversion results will 

depend on the collection systems implemented and the presence of support mechanisms like the waste 

diversion assistance program and disposal bans. Therefore, the estimated diversion potential allocated to 

ICI Waste Diversion Assistance is assumed to include any potential diversion associated with enhanced 


Enhanced ICI Recycling Collection 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Promotion and education 

$2,500 (for 

first 2 years) 

Include in ICI waste 

diversion assistance 

staffing requirements 

5.1.3.5 Expanded C&D Diversion Opportunities 

Discussions with builders and developers have indicated that the lack of local diversion opportunities for 

C&D materials is the main barrier to diversion. 

One of the largest components of C&D waste is wood, as shown in the photo below. Expanding the pallet 

recycling program to include clean wood waste such as lumber off-cuts could significantly increase the 

diversion of C&D waste. Aggregates, including old concrete, also offer an additional diversion opportunity 

particularly since there are local private recycling options for these materials. 

Figure 36: Construction and Demolition Waste Disposed at the Waste Management Facility 

47



There are two recommendations associated with improving the diversion of C&D waste: 

• Expand the pallet recycling program to include all clean (uncoated) wood waste. This 

recommendation may require an expansion or reconfiguration of the existing wood waste 

recycling area. Additionally, this program would require support through promotion and 

education activities, variable tipping fees (lower fees on source-separated clean wood waste) 

or disposal bans. 

• Assess the potential benefits of adding aggregate diversion opportunities at the Waste 



It is assumed that some capital will be required to establish additional storage and processing areas at 

the Waste Management Facility and that 0.25 of an FTE will be required for one year to establish this 

program and promote it within the C&D industry. 

For the aggregate diversion assessment, it was assumed that this would be contracted out to reduce the 

burden on staff. 

The estimated diversion potential associated with this recommendation is 1,000 tonnes. 

Expanded C&D Recycling Opportunities 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Expand wood waste recycling 

• Wood waste recycling pad 

improvements 

• Additional grinding costs 

(@$120/tonne) 

$60,000 

$120,000 

0.25 for one year 

Assess aggregate diversion potential 

• Contracted out research project 

$5,000 0 

5.1.4 Infrastructure Enhancements 

5.1.4.1 Automated Cart-Based Residential Collection 

Automated collection incorporates equipment that picks up specially-designed garbage carts from 

residential streets, and dumps them into the holding area of the truck without the driver ever having to 

leave the vehicle. This system is becoming more common and preferred by contractors as it provides 

increased efficiencies, offers a wider range of labour options, and results in lower worker injuries. Cart 

programs can allow for a range of cart sizes so that residents pay for the volume that they generate, 

providing a financial incentive to participate in waste reduction and diversion programs. Through its 

contractor, The City of Red Deer currently provides cart-based recycling collection at some multifamily 

buildings. 

Carts can be used for the collection of garbage, recycling and organics. Port Coquitlam in BC has a 

3-cart system for recycling, yard waste and garbage that started in 2004. Carts have colour-coded lids, 

the blue lid is for recycling, green lid for green waste and grey lid for garbage, as shown in the photo 

below. In July 2008, kitchen waste was added to the green lid cart. 

48



Figure 37: Port Coquitlam Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste Carts 

Collection is provided biweekly for single-stream recycling, organic waste and garbage. One week 

recyclables are collected, and the next week garbage and organics are collected. The recycling program 

accepts newspaper, boxboard, magazines, telephone books, plastics (#1-#5), tins cans, milk jugs and 

paper. Glass is not part of the curbside program. Residents are requested to take glass beverage 

containers for refunds and or to use The City’s Glass Recycling Depots for non-refundable 

glass containers. 

Different size carts are available for each of the waste streams. The annual fees for carts are listed below. 

Cart Type 

120 L 

Cart 

240 L 

Cart 

360 L 

Cart 

Extra 

240 L 

Cart 

Extra 

360 L 

Cart 

Recycling N/A $0 $10 $20 $30 

Green/Food Waste N/A $65.28 $75.28 $20 $30 

Garbage $81.02 $111.02 $141.02 $60 $90 

For other examples of automated garbage collection, see Appendix H. 


Cart-based collection was identified as an item of particular interest in the April 2012 Council workshop. 

Based on this and the increasing popularity of these programs in Canada, it is recommended that 

The City investigate the possibility of establishing an automated cart-based collection program for singlefamily 

homes that would include cart-based collection of garbage and recyclables. Cart-based organics 

collection would then be added upon successful completion of the pilot. 

A two-step approach is prosed, the first step being a pilot project and the second being full 

implementation, assuming the pilot proves to be successful. 

The pilot project is intended to assist The City in determining: 

• Appropriate bin sizing 

• Required collection frequency 

• Acceptance by residents 

• Performance capabilities 

(e.g., cost, technical challenges, quantities collected in each stream, diversion). 

49



Moving to cart-based collection is expected to take significant staff resources to implement due to the 

tendering and distribution of the carts and the associated promotion and education campaign. However, 

once implemented, current staff allocation for contract management is anticipated. 

Additional diversion is expected due to the new cart system reinvigorating residents’ enthusiasm for the 

recycling program, however this additional diversion is assumed to be captured within other program 

elements, such as the expansion of plastics. Cost of processing the additional recyclables is expected 

to be offset by avoided tipping fees at the WMF. In addition, the extra capacity of the recycling carts over 

blue box allows for bi-weekly collection of recyclables, and the associated cost savings. 

The capital costs for the carts should be offset by operational savings provided by the efficiencies 

achieved by automated collection. It is anticipated that long-term cost implications will show savings over 

standard manual collection. 

Cart Based Collection 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Pilot Program 

• $60 per cart (including delivery) 

• 500 carts for garbage; 500 carts for 

recycling 

• Promotion and education ($3000) 

$30,000 

(garbage); 

$30,000 

(recycling) 

$3000 

0.25 for one 

year 


• $60 per cart (including delivery) 

• 25,500 carts for garbage; 25,500 

carts for recycling 

• Promotion and education ($50,000) 

• Garbage: savings of 

$1.80/month/home over current 

costs due to automation and biweekly 

collection x 26,000 homes 

• Recycling: savings of 

$2.50/month/home due to 

automation and bi-weekly x 28,000 

stops less increase in processing 

$1,530,000 

(garbage 

carts); 

$1,530,000 

(recycling 

carts) 

$50,000 (for 

promotion/education in 

first year) 

-$562,000 (estimated 

cost savings over 

current garbage 

collection contract) 

-$830,000 (estimated 

cost savings over 

current recyclables 

collection contract) 

1.0 for first 

year 

5.1.4.2 Organics Processing Facility 

Depending on the outcome of the organics collection pilot, The City may need to establish additional 

composting capacity. Food waste in particular will require greater consideration of the appropriate 

composting technology and location for a facility to manage this type of organic waste as food waste 

can be more challenging to manage than yard and garden waste. 

Options for establishing composting capacity include: building and operating a City-owned facility, 

contracting with a private composting company, or establishing a public-private partnership. The City’s 

current yard waste operation is one form of public-private partnership, where a private company operates 

the yard waste composting facility at the WMF (i.e., on public land). 


If it is determined, based on the outcome of the food waste collection pilot, that a composting facility 

is required to process the volume of food waste that would result from a full-scale residential collection 

50



program and/or a program that diverted ICI food waste, then a composting feasibility study is 

recommended as the next step. This study would assess: 

• The types and quantities of organic waste feedstocks available to a composting facility from the 

various sources in Red Deer (residential, ICI, agricultural) 

• Technology options 

• Space and service requirements 

• Ownership and operation models 

• Capital and operating costs 

• Implementation requirements 

The outcome of the study, along with the results of the collection pilot, would provide Red Deer 

with the information required to determine if it would like to move forward with a full-scale organics 

diversion program. 


The cost for a detailed composting feasibility study is estimated to be $30,000–$50,000. Because this 

study would be undertaken by consultants, no additional staff resources have been allocated to this task. 

This study will result in no additional diversion, however the development of organics processing capacity 

will ultimately be required to meet the targets set out in this WMMP. 

5.1.5 Regulatory Options 

5.1.5.1 Differential Tipping Fees 

Differential tipping fees can be used to encourage the separation of materials for recycling or composting. 

Differential tipping fees can also reflect the cost to manage a specific waste stream; for instance, 

odourous materials that require immediate burial are often charged a higher tipping fee to recognize 

the cost of the staff and equipment required. The City of Red Deer current applies this approach to 

encourage recycling and reuse by offering free drop off of household recyclables, toilets and household 

hazardous waste. 76% of businesses responding to the WMMP stakeholder consultation survey agreed 

with the concept of differential tipping fees. 

The Bow Valley Waste Management Commission uses differential tipping fees to support the sourceseparation 

of recyclable materials in the construction/demolition waste stream. The Commission 

implemented a differential rate fee for C&D loads received at the main face of the landfill: mixed waste 

loads that contain recyclable materials are charged $190 per tonne, whereas loads containing no 

recyclables are charged $100 per tonne. 

Another example is Cowichan Valley Regional District in BC that has the following variable tipping fees: 

Material 

Tipping Fee 

($/tonne) 

Garbage 140 

Garbage containing recyclables 280 

Recyclables 

Yard waste 

free 

free 

ICI food waste 100 

Drywall (shipped away for recycling) 190 

Scrap lumber and wood waste 85 

51


Experience in other jurisdictions has shown that to incent source separation, the tipping fee differential 

must be significant enough to warrant the extra effort or additional collection service. Differential tipping 

fees can also be used in combination with disposal bans. In the Cowichan Valley, recyclables, yard 

waste, ICI food waste and drywall are banned from disposal. Additional examples of communities utilizing 

differential tipping fees can be found in Appendix I. 


The following recyclable/compostable waste streams with existing diversion options should be considered 

for reduced tipping fees to encourage source-separation and diversion at the WMF: 

• Asphalt shingles 

• Clean wood waste (unpainted, uncoated structural wood), including wood shingles 

• Drywall 

• Yard waste 

Additional materials can be added to this list of “discounted” materials as diversion options are identified. 

Waste streams that should be considered for increased (surcharged) tipping fees include: 

• Mixed waste containing significant volume of readily divertible materials 

(cardboard, paper, metal, yard waste) 

• Mixed loads of asphalt and wood roofing shingles 

• Mixed waste containing significant volume of clean wood waste 

• Mixed waste containing of significant volume of clean drywall 

The setting of differential tipping fees should be considered in tandem with annual budgeting with an aim 

to ensure that WMF operating costs can be adequately funded through tipping fee revenue. 


Staff time will be required on an annual basis to establish differential tipping fees that ensure that WMF 

costs are covered, but incent diversion. A budget of $10,000 has been allocated for the first year to hire 

a consultant to assist in developing the initial fee structure and to provide funding for associated 

promotional activities. 

The scale house software would need to be modified to incorporate differential tipping fees and some 

training of scale house staff would be required. No budget has been allocated to this activity. 

As economic instruments like differential tipping fees typically have a significant effect on the practices of 

ICI and CD waste generators and haulers, it is estimated that 5,000 tonnes can be diverted, depending 

on the amount of differential and associated promotion. 

Differential Tipping Fees 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

Establishing and Promoting Initial Fee Structure $10,000 0.1 for one year 

Annual review of fee structure $0 0 (included in regular 

budgeting process) 

52



5.1.5.2 Disposal Bans 

With disposal bans, specified materials are prohibited from being disposed as garbage. This regulatory 

approach is enforced at the disposal facility. This is a common policy approach to encourage recycling 

by businesses and the construction/demolition industry without having to engage in the cost of providing 

a collection program. Bans are only put in place when recycling infrastructure is available. Bans received 

less support from the commercial sector in the WMMP consultation survey than differential tipping fees, 

but still garnered 64% agreement. 

For example, Regional District of Nanaimo in BC implemented a disposal ban on ICI organic waste in 

2005 that affected roughly 800 businesses and institutions. The bylaw, which is enforced at their landfill 

and transfer station, bans all food and yard waste. If a load of waste arriving at their disposal facilities 

contains an evident volume of organic waste, it is subject to a doubling of the tipping fee on the whole 

load. An estimated 6,000 tonnes of commercial organics is diverted annually through this program. The 

Regional District has also banned gypsum (drywall), wood waste, recyclable cardboard, paper, metal, 

household plastic containers, and tires from disposal. 

Commonly banned materials include: cardboard, paper, metal, yard waste and products/packaging 

covered by a provincial stewardship program. 


Because disposal bans are an effective and low-cost policy mechanism to drive diversion, implementation 

of disposal bans is recommended for waste materials that have an existing collection and processing 

infrastructure in place. 

In the short-term, disposal bans (enforced at the WMF) should be considered for cardboard and other 

recyclable paper fibres, metal, yard waste, concrete, asphalt, asphalt shingles and materials covered 

under a provincial stewardship program. 

Disposal bans on recyclable plastics should also be considered as part of expanding the range of plastics 

collected in the residential recycling program. 

Once organics processing capacity for food waste and collection programs are in place, a disposal ban 

on all food waste should also be considered. Similarly, a disposal ban on clean wood waste should be 

considered as a mechanism to support expanded wood waste recycling activities at the WMF. 


Staff time would be required to modify the bylaw regulating disposal and to monitor compliance. As with 

other regulatory approaches, an aggressive education / promotion program should precede introduction 

of landfill bans. It is anticipated that the development and implementation of disposal bans would be done 

by staff hired to coordinate ICI waste diversion and to implement promotion and education initiatives (new 

staff resources allocated to other initiatives discussed earlier in the WMMP). Enforcement of the disposal 

bans would be done by existing WMF facility staff. Training on enforcement procedures would 

be required. 

The diversion potential for disposal bans comes primarily from improved ICI waste diversion and is 

estimated to be 5,000 tonnes if bans are applied to all readily recyclable materials. 2 

2 Assumes that one-third of ICI waste currently landfilled is recyclable (16,000 tonnes) and that disposal bans 

would increase ICI diversion up to 50% (2,500 tonnes allocated to ICI waste diversion technical assistance 

and 5,000 tonnes allocated to disposal bans). 

53


Disposal Bans 

Disposal Bans 

• Bylaw amendments 


• Training of enforcement staff 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

$0 Included in ICI 

waste diversion 

promotion 

budget 

FTE 

Included in staff 

resources for ICI waste 

diversion and 

community based 

social marketing 

5.1.5.3 Residential Mandatory Recycling / Source Separation 

To maximize participation and diversion, mandatory approaches can be applied to residential waste 

collection services. A common approach is to not collect garbage that contains materials that have 

diversion options. For example, the City of Nanaimo in BC will tag and leave behind any containers of 

garbage that are identified as containing blue box recyclables or yard waste. Additional examples of 

mandatory approaches can be seen in Appendix I. 

Residential requirements to recycle are commonly applied to: residential recyclables, yard waste and 

products/packaging covered by a provincial stewardship program. 


Although effective, mandatory requirements are often viewed as punitive by residents and are only 

recommended if residential program performance is low and not meeting expectations. Promotion and 

education and financial incentives such as pay-as-you-throw garbage collection should be employed prior 

to consideration of implementation of mandatory recycling requirements. 


If implemented, mandatory requirements are enforced by the garbage collection contractors. Spot checks 

or audits can be done on occasion by City staff to confirm that contractors are following through with the 

mandatory requirements. No new budget or staff resources have been identified for this recommendation. 

Estimated diversion that would result from mandatory residential diversion is 2500 tonnes. 

5.1.5.4 ICI Mandatory Recycling / Source Separation 

Through this regulatory approach, businesses would be required through a bylaw to participate in 

recycling and/or divert designated materials through a recycling program. Many businesses report that 

although they would like to set up a recycling program, it will not be a priority for them until they “have 

to do it.” Although aggressive, this type of regulation can be highly successful in terms of diversion, 

and provides a level playing field for businesses. Similar to residential recycling, it is important that 

prescriptive approaches such as this are implemented only when accessible diversion alternatives exist, 

and aggressive education/ promotion programs have been in place. 

The following are examples of the mandatory approaches that could be employed in the ICI sector: 

1. Mandate all ICI buildings to implement a recycling collection service by a defined date. Under this 

approach, each ICI building would contract recycling services to meet their specific needs. This 

approach is used in the Province of Ontario. 

2. Provide recycling collection services to ICI buildings as a City service. Participation in the 

program would be mandatory for all ICI buildings; however exemptions for buildings with internal 

recycling systems or existing recycling contracts could be made. Programs of this nature are in 

place in Penticton, BC and Blowing Rock, North Carolina. 

54



3. A combination of the above two approaches: 

– Small ICI buildings that can be serviced by the same collection vehicle that collects 

recyclables from the multi-family sector are included in the curbside program. 

– Larger ICI buildings that cannot be serviced by the curbside program would be required 

to contract recycling services directly with a collection company. 

Additional ICI mandatory recycling and source separation approaches can be found in Appendix I. 


Like disposal bans, regulatory approaches can be highly effective at establishing diversion programs 

in the ICI sector. Although effective, mandatory requirements can be viewed as excessive are only 

recommended if ICI diversion performance is low and not meeting expectations. The effectiveness of 

an ICI-targeted promotion and education program, combined with technical support, plus the influence 

of disposal bans on ICI generators, should be reviewed in advance of implementing mandatory 

recycling requirements. 


The amount of staff and financial resources required is dependent on the approach to mandatory 

recycling selected and therefore has not been estimated for inclusion in the WMMP implementation 

budget (Table 8). However, it is assumed that most of the preparation and execution of a mandatory 

approach would be undertaken by a staff person dedicated to ICI waste diversion (identified previously 

to support the ICI waste diversion recommendations). 

A mandatory approach to ICI waste diversion would be intended to maximize diversion potential and 

therefore an additional estimated 5000 tonnes of diversion is allocated to this approach. 

5.1.6 Residuals Management 

Residual municipal, solid waste material generated within the City of Red Deer and outlying areas is 

currently disposed of at The City of Red Deer Waste Management Facility (WMF). The WMF, which 

operates under Alberta Environment approval No. 154918-01-00. 

A high level, lifecycle cost analysis (LCA) was undertaken for the purpose of assessing the long-term 

sustainability of the current tipping fee structure considering long-term liabilities, and operating, 

maintenance, capital and post-closure costs associated with the current Phase 1 and future 

Phase 2 development. Based upon the outcome of this financial analysis, summarized in Appendix L, 

the WMF has approximately 6.6 million cubic metres of airspace remaining in the Phase 1 and 2 areas 

based upon the preliminary design report generated by Stantec (1998), which equated to approximately 

34 years of site life. 

It is understood that this remaining permitted airspace capacity represents a significant asset to The City 

of Red Deer, and should be managed in such a manner as to both optimize the consumption this 

airspace, while ensuring that adequate revenues are generated to cover both operating costs and postclosure 

liabilities. 

The following section presents recommendations to ensure that these objectives are met. 

5.1.6.1 Site Development 

Key to the efficient development of a landfill facility is the preparation and implementation of an integrated 

design and operation’s plan (D&O Plan). This plan differs from a traditional fill plan in that it recognizes 

that a landfill is composed of many integrated components (e.g., leachate management, storm water 

management, vector control, landfill gas management, etc.) and that the alteration of any one of these 

elements will impact the other elements as well. In addition, an integrated D&O Plan should identify all 

key infrastructure (e.g., lateral expansion, leachate management systems, storm water control, etc.) 

55


associated with the ongoing site development, as well as staged progressive closure of the landfill. This 

information can then be used to not only facilitate the ongoing development of the landfill, but optimize 

airspace consumption, identify timelines for capital expenditures, and provide a long-term strategy to 

address stormwater management, thereby reducing leachate generation potential. 

As such, the preparation and implementation of an integrated D&O plan is recommended to ensure 

the efficient use of airspace, while mitigating the potential environmental risk associated with ongoing 

landfill operations. 

5.1.6.2 Airspace Consumption 

As indicated above, the remaining landfill airspace is considered to be a valuable municipal asset by 

which to manage solid waste residuals. As such, it is important to monitor the efficient use of airspace 

by calculating the apparent density of waste placed on an annual basis. 

The apparent waste density is not a true density, but is a relationship that represents the mass of waste 

that can be disposed in each cubic metre of landfill air space. The apparent waste density is a more 

accurate measure of the efficiency of landfilling since soil (used for daily and interim cover) is excluded 

from the ratio. The apparent waste density is based on the comparison of the tonnage landfilled versus 

the air space consumed. Soil used as daily cover is excluded from consideration since an increase in 

soil usage can increase the true density and provide a skewed representation of landfilling efficiency. 

Efficient landfill compaction techniques, employed at well-operated landfills, can typically attain an 

apparent waste density between 0.6 to 1.0 tonnes of waste per cubic metre of air space consumed, 

depending on the size of the landfill. 

Based upon the most recent airspace consumption analysis conducted at the site (Stantec, 2010) the 

calculated apparent density achieved by the operator has ranged from 0.46 to 0.69 tonnes per cubic 

meter since 2001. The average calculated apparent density over this time is 0.63 tonnes per cubic meter, 

with a median value of approximately 0.65 tonnes per cubic meter. Hence, for the purpose of estimating 

remaining site life, a value of 0.65 tonnes per cubic meter was adopted. However, based upon the annual 

tonnage of residual waste landfilled (approximately 90,000 tonnes per year) and the equipment utilized on 

site, an apparent density of 0.7 tonnes per cubic meter or greater should be achievable. 

It is recommended that the annual airspace consumption analysis be refined to incorporate site-specific 

topographical aerial surveys be conducted in either the spring or fall (at the same time each year) to 

facilitate the calculation of annual airspace consumption, apparent density, and updated remaining site 

life. This aerial survey methodology will permit staff to closely monitor and verify fill progress and airspace 

consumption. This exercise will ultimately assist in the preservation of airspace, while providing the ability 

to update post-closure liabilities annually. In general, the total cost of this exercise, throughout of the 

lifespan of the site, will be minimal relative to the potential increased efficiency in airspace consumption. 

5.1.6.3 Operational Considerations 

In addition to the preparation and implementation of an integrated D&O Plan, there are several 

operational considerations which can impact the efficient use of airspace which should be given 

consideration. Efficient landfill operation can be described as optimizing the use of available airspace, 

which is primarily achieved by reducing the amount of cover material used. This can be implemented 

through the enhancement of a combination of design and operational factors such as: 

1. Reduce the size of cells and the working area; 

2. Maximize lift thickness; 

3. Maximize interim and final slopes; 

4. Stage filling to achieve final contours as soon as possible; and 

5. Utilize alternative daily covers. 

56



These factors can improve compaction efficiency and minimize the amount of cover soil required, 

maximizing the airspace available for waste disposal. Items # 1 through 4 are key objectives of the 

operations element of the aforementioned integrated D&O Plan. In addition, the implementation of 

alternative daily cover, when viable due to seasonal factors, should be considered. 

Alternative daily cover (i.e., tarps) could be used on a daily basis, weather permitting, six days per week, 

with soil being used for daily cover on the seventh day. The advantage of implementing an alternative 

daily cover system is the significant reduction of airspace consumed by soil which would otherwise be 

used as daily cover, thereby increasing the apparent density of the waste in place. 

In addition implementing operational procedures to increase efficiency of airspace consumption, the 

terms of reference of the landfill operations contract can also be written to reduce any potential overuse 

of daily cover. Operations contracts can be written so that the contractor is paid by the mass of waste 

landfilled and not paid for the hauling and placement of daily cover and intermediate cover material. 

Furthermore, the operations contract can also limit, under normal operating conditions, the size of the 

active face, minimum/maximum outer final slopes, lift thickness, and the quantity of soil which is used 

for daily and intermediate cover. 


The following recommendations are presented with respect to ongoing municipal solid waste residuals 

at The City of Red Deer Waste Management Facility: 

• An integrated Design and Operations Plan should be prepared and implemented for the site, 

with provisions for minor updates every five years to reflect actual conditions. 

• In association with the integrated Design and Operations Plan, a long-term capital cost plan 

should be developed which provides both capital costs of all landfill related infrastructure projects, 

and progressive closure costs. 

• Annual topographical plans, generated from aerial survey data, should be implemented. 

Based on the annual topographical plan, an annual airspace consumption analysis should be 

undertaken to determine the efficiency of airspace consumption (apparent density) and update 

the remaining site life. 

• Seasonal use of alternative daily cover should be considered for implementation at the site. 

• The terms of reference of the operations contract should be reviewed to ensure that it contains 

appropriate performance criteria which will maximize operational efficiencies. 

5.1.6.3.2 Resources Required 

Estimated financial resources associated with operational recommendations for residuals management 

at the Waste Management Facility are outlined below. 

Residuals Management 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

• Design and Operations 

Plan 

$75,000 (upfront 

consulting fees); $10,000 

every subsequent 5 years 

for updates 

Assumed to require only 

general internal oversight 

and management 

(estimated 0.02 FTE). 

• Long-term capital cost 

plan 

$5000 (contingent on 

completion of D&O plan) 

• Annual topographical 

plan; airspace 

consumption analysis 

$5000 (topo plan); $5000 

(airspace analysis) 

57



Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

• Seasonal alternative 

daily cover 

$30,000 

(infrastructure 

required) 

• Review operations 

contract RFP 

Assumed to be part of 

internal contracts 

management (estimated 

0.05 FTE) 

5.1.7 Monitoring and Reporting 

Monitoring program results is dependent upon accurate and comprehensive information. Therefore, 

a system of ongoing measurement of waste diversion and disposal is an important element of the waste 

management program going forward. Although extensive data is recorded at the Waste Management 

Facility through Geoware, there is limited information regarding the relative breakdown of certain portions 

of the waste stream, such as multi-family residential waste, largely due to loads containing mixed waste 

from multiple sectors. Additional research and tracking is required if further details are desired around 

the relative contributions and constituents of various waste sectors. 

In addition, tracking environmental benefits associated with diversion programs is an important element 

to integrate into the monitoring and reporting system. 

5.1.7.1 Recommendation 

To provide the level of information required for accurate assessment of program performance, The City 

should implement a comprehensive reporting system that provides the level of material breakdown to 

evaluate performance in different sectors. Additional activities that would support the enhanced 

information system include the following: 

• on-site and load audits to assess breakout of waste from various sectors 

• surveys at recycling depots to determine relative usage by commercial vs residential sectors, 

as well as residents from outside Red Deer 

• accurate assessment, and subtraction, of residuals rate associated with various levels of 

recycling to provide more robust diversion reporting 

It is also suggested that The City request reporting of diversion amounts from the commercial sector, 

including businesses that direct ship materials out of the city, in order to being to track performance 

of ICI diversion programs. Reporting of total collection volumes from contractors would also assist the 

tracking of total waste handled in Red Deer. 

It is anticipated that the reporting system will incorporate all waste measurements into one 

comprehensive database that facilitates easy data entry, as well as flexible reporting functions that 

include primary metrics such as generation and diversion rates, as well as environmental benefits 

calculations. It is recommended that this development be undertaken with the assistance of a database 

expert in consultation with Geoware representatives. 

5.1.7.2 Resources Required 

Financial resources will be required to develop an enhanced database system. The extent of external IT 

consultation required will be dependent upon the capabilities of the existing data management software, 

and its ability to interface with City systems. 

58



Monitoring and Reporting 

Capital 

$ 

Operating 

$ 

FTE 

• Develop comprehensive 

reporting system 

$0 

(assume to 

be possible 

with 

existing 

software) 

$25,000 (estimated 

external consultant / 

IT expertise costs) 

Assumed to require only 

general internal oversight 

and management 

(estimated 0.05 FTE). 

59


6 Summary of Recommendations 

The following recommendations are a compilation of those contained in the previously outlined 

Waste Management Strategy, organized by strategy element. 

Option Type 

Education / 


Approaches 

Option 


• Review and update internal procurement policy to encourage reduction, 

reuse and recycled content. 

• Develop a consistent comprehensive waste diversion program for all public 

buildings and operations. 


• Develop a community engagement plan to promote waste reduction 

and diversion initiatives and leverage existing environmental networks. 


• Continue to build internal capacity in community-based social marketing, 

and integrate these approaches into all program designs 

and implementation. 

• Expand marketing efforts for existing programming to improve participation 

and address specific behaviour issues. 

• Initiate a cooperative design process between The City and contractors for 

recycling infrastructure to improve consistency in bin design, colours and 

signage. 

Branding 

• Develop a Red Deer brand that provides a consistent program look and 

messaging throughout City waste reduction initiatives. 

Social Media 

• Investigate SmartPhone apps that can help to remind residents of waste 

management services and diversion opportunities. 

• Enhance The City’s website to provide more information related to 

The City’s waste reduction and waste management services, and 

incorporating more interactive features. 


• Pilot new and improved signage at existing public recycling bins, including 

assessment of participation and contamination levels, as well as an 

advertising campaign. 

• If the pilot is successful, all litter bins in public spaces should be replaced 

with multi-stream bins, and supported by ongoing promotional activities. 


• Prepare a “zero waste event” guide for event organizers that provides tips 

on how to minimize waste at events and identifies local waste management 

resources and services. 

• Require event organizers to prepare a waste management action plan 

including waste reduction and diversion elements as part of special 

events permits. 

• Provide highly visible garbage and recycling containers to public events 

that are consistent (colours, signage) with other public space and municipal 

recycling initiatives. 

60



Option Type 



Diversion 

Option 


• Build upon the Composting at Home program through enhanced education 

and initiatives like subsidized composter sales to promote backyard 

composting throughout residential areas of Red Deer. 


• Develop a grasscycling and xeriscaping awareness campaign linked to 

existing and future environmental campaigns related to healthy yards, 

water conservation and backyard composting. 


• Implement a year-long pilot of expanded residential organics collection 

to include food waste and soiled paper, testing combined yard and food 

waste, as well as separated collection over four seasons. 

• Utilizing results from the pilot, if deemed successful, implement communitywide 

residential organics collection. 


• Combine pilot of bi-weekly garbage and recyclables collection with 

expanded organics pilot. 

Enhanced Curbside Recycling 

• Enter into negotiations with the MRF’s operator to determine capabilities 

regarding collection of an expanded range of plastics. If positive, expand 

materials accepted in the blue box to all mixed container plastics and film. 

• Implement a pilot residential blue cart collection program. 

• Due to the larger volume that can be accommodated in a cart, If automated 

carts are expanded for use at all homes, bi-weekly collection of recycling 

should be considered. 


• An initial reduction of the can limit from its current rate down to 3 containers 

per week should be considered, followed by a subsequent reduction down 

to 2 containers. Implementation of a container reduction could be 



• Work with the recycling contractor to develop a targeted multi-family 


• As a launch to the campaign, provide in-suite recycling containers. 

61


Option Type 

Industrial, 





Enhancements 


Option 


• Provide technical and information assistance to businesses and institutions 

that want to implement waste diversion programs. 


• Develop a recognition program for businesses achieving high standards 

in waste diversion. 


• Initiate a pilot ICI food waste collection program, including promotion 

and education materials and training of staff at participating businesses, 

to identify specific opportunities and barriers to success. 

• Incorporating results from the pilot, introduce a community-wide promotion 

of ICI food waste collection service options. 

• Clarify the Utility Bylaw’s application to commercial organics 


• Support ICI locations that want to implement on-site composting. 


• Work with contractors to design and implement alternate collection options 

for businesses in areas that present challenges to effective participation 

in diversion programs. 

• Consider providing municipal buildings with recycling services as an add-on 

to the multi-family recycling program 


• Expand the pallet recycling program to include all clean (uncoated) 

wood waste. 

• Assess the potential benefits of adding aggregate diversion opportunities at 

the Waste Management Facility. 

Automated cart-based garbage collection 

• Implement a pilot automated garbage collection program. 

• If the pilot is deemed successful, expand automated garbage collection 

community-wide. 

• If automated collection is implemented full-scale, consider offering 

residents variable can sizes to further enhance the user pay concept and 

create a financial incentive to maximize diversion. 


• Identify composting capacity capable of handling material from organics 

collection pilots. 

• If a composting facility is deemed to be required to process residential 

and ICI food waste, conduct a composting feasibility study to determine 

technology, size and location of suitable processing facility. 


• Create a financial incentive for diverting recyclable and compostable 

materials through a system of differential tipping fees at the Waste 


Disposal bans 

• Consider implementation of disposal bans for waste materials that have an 

existing collection and processing infrastructure in place. 

62



Option Type 

Residuals 



Reporting 

Option 


• If promotion and education and financial incentives such as pay-as-youthrow 

garbage collection do not provide the desired level of residential 

program performance, implement curbside collection bans for all organics 

and recyclables that are part of both programs. 


• Once adequate alternatives exist for ICI organics and recyclables, if ICI 

diversion expectations are not met, require all businesses to participate in 

diversion programs. 


• Prepare and implement an integrated Design and Operations Plan for the 

landfill site, with provisions for minor updates every five years. 

• Develop a long-term capital cost plan which provides capital costs of all 

landfill related infrastructure projects and progressive closure costs. 


• Implement annual topographical plans generated from aerial survey data. 

Based on the annual topographical plan, undertake an annual airspace 

consumption analysis. 


• Consider seasonal use of alternative daily cover at the site. 

• Review the terms of reference of the operations contract to ensure that 

it contains appropriate performance criteria. 

• Implement a comprehensive reporting system that provides the level 

of material breakdown to evaluate performance in different sectors. 

• Conduct on-site and load audits to assess breakout of waste from 

various sectors. 

• Carry out surveys at recycling depots to determine relative usage by 

commercial vs. residential sectors, as well as residents from outside 

Red Deer. 

• Request reporting of diversion amounts from the commercial sector, 

including businesses that direct ship materials out of the city, as well 

as total collection volumes from contractors. 

• Incorporate environmental benefits calculations into the reporting system. 

63


7 Prioritization 

7.1 Ranking of Program Elements 

Figure 38 shows a graphical representation of the relative ranking of program elements within the 

Waste Management Strategy, using diversion and cost as primary indicators, supported by ease of 

implementation of various options. Although all program elements are recommended, this provides a 

foundation for decisions that will need to be made if budget does not allow for full implementation of all 

components. It is important to note that some elements, such as Community-Based Social Marketing 

and Government Leadership, are considered to be fundamental to the successful implementation of the 

strategy as a whole. 

As can be seen in Figure 38, the options that offer the greatest diversion at the lowest cost are located 

in the top left quadrant. Some of these elements (mandatory recycling, disposal bans) are anticipated to 

encounter public resistance, and therefore have been recommended only as alternatives implemented 

after more readily accepted options have been fully implemented and failed to reach diversion goals. 

However, there are options in this high-performing quadrant that are predicted to be relatively easy to 

implement, including Waste Diversion Assistance and Differential Tipping Fees. Therefore, these options 

are recommended for early adoption in the strategy. 

Also evident in the figure is the observation that a significant number of options are located in the 

quadrant representing low-cost, but low-diversion options. Many of these elements are also predicted to 

be relatively easy to implement. Therefore, despite their lower diversion potential, these options are worth 

implementing because of their likelihood of community support, as well as the supportive role they can 

play within the overall strategy. At the same time, options with low diversion, but higher cost may be 

considered for a delayed implementation in the event that budget limitations prevent full implementation 

of all components. 

64



Figure 38: Ranking of Program Elements 

65


8 Public Consultation 

Public consultation on the draft WMMP was conducted at numerous locations and events around the 

City of Red Deer throughout January to March of 2013. Direct contact was made with approximately 

850 Red Deer residents and businesses, and 909 residential surveys and 51 ICI surveys were completed 

(including in-person, mail-in and online surveys). 

Overall, the City of Red Deer's residents and ICI sector are generally in support of the proactive 

changes proposed within the Waste Management Master Plan. In particular, both residential and ICI 

sectors strongly support the key elements in Council’s vision to reduce waste to landfill and become a 

leader in sustainable waste management (see charts below). Improving diversion through composting 

and enhanced recycling are also issues the majority of survey respondents agree with pursuing, as 

shown in the following tables. A full report of the public consultation process, including all additional 

comments received, is included in Appendix N. 

Residential Survey Results 

Figure 39: It is important that we 

reduce the amount of waste 

sent to the landfill. 

Figure 40: It is important that 

Red Deer becomes a leader 

in sustainable waste management. 

The following table presents the results of the additional residential survey questions. The difference in 

the results to total 100% were responses that were either unsure, or chose not to answer. 

66

Table 5: Residential Survey Results 



Statement Agreed Disagreed 

I would support putting garbage out in a wheeled plastic cart 

provided by The City, and being charged according to the size of 

the cart I select. 

It is important to consider programs to compost residential 

organics. 

I support the expansion of the blue box program to include 

additional types of plastic. 

62% 25% 

85% 9% 

94% 3% 

I would support replacing blue boxes with larger blue carts. 82% 13% 

I would support a reduction of the current five garbage bag limit to 

three bags or fewer. 

77% 17% 

I support enhanced recycling services to multi-family residences. 86% 4% 

Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) Survey Results 

Figure 41: Support for Reducing Waste 

Sent to the Landfill 

Figure 42: Support for Red Deer 

Being a Waste Management Leader 

The following table presents the results of the additional ICI survey questions. Responses that were either 

unsure, or chose not to answer are not included. 

67


Table 6: ICI Survey Results 

Statement Agreed Disagreed 

The City Should Provide Technical & Information Assistance to 

Companies Interested in Reducing Waste. 

The City should develop a recognition program for businesses that 

achieve high rates of waste diversion. 

The City should undertake a pilot program to assess the feasibility 

of a commercial organics collection program to compost food 

waste from businesses such as grocery stores and restaurants. 

A system of differential fees should be established at the Waste 

Management Facility to create a financial incentive to divert 

specific materials to recycling or composting. 

Materials with established recycling programs should be banned 

from disposal at the Waste Management Facility. 

96% 0% 

82% 14% 

84% 2% 

76% 6% 

64% 20% 

Making Red Deer a leader in sustainable waste management received agreement from 86% of the 

residential respondents and 93% of the ICI sector survey participants. Reducing the amount of waste 

sent to landfill received even higher support with 96% of respondents in both sectors agreeing to 

this statement. 

Television advertisements and public open houses were deemed the least effective method of 

communication by both Red Deer residents and the ICI sector, however were still believed to be effective 

by some respondents. The highest ranked methods of communication based on residents’ responses 

were direct mail and The City’s website, while the ICI sector prefers information to be delivered by 

The City’s website and social media applications. 

Public consultations confirmed that the top issues residents associate with the waste management 

system are addressed within the WMMP, and that there are no additional overarching issues that would 

suggest significant changes need to be made to the proposed Waste Management Master Plan prior 

to phased implementation. However, the feedback received during the extensive consultations is very 

important to incorporate into future plans, raising issues that will need to be carefully considered in 

the design and implementation of program pilots, and ultimately the program design. Recognizing the 

comments and suggestions received during the consultations will serve to pre-empt potential stumbling 

blocks, identifying issues that can be properly addressed and incorporated into the pilot process, 

facilitating effective and focused pilot programs. Considering the pilot phase also involves a considerable 

degree of public consultation, integrating the two elements (initial consultation and pilot) is a logical 

approach that will result in the best utilization of resources, and ultimate the most success. 

68



9 Implementation Schedule 

Table 7 outlines the proposed implementation schedule for new programs and initiatives. Timing of specific elements is based on priority as 

determined by need and opportunity, as well as relationship of program components. Based on this schedule, all programs and initiatives would 

be implemented by the end of 2022, although it is recognized that the realities of implementation may result in the acceleration or delay of 

specific elements. 

Table 7: Implementation Plan 

Promotion and Education 

Government Leadership 

Community Engagement 

Community Based Social Marketing & Branding 

Social Media 

Website enhancement and social media engagement 

Public Spaces Recycling 

Zero Waste Public Events 

Residential Waste Reduction 


Grasscycling/Xeriscaping 

Expanded organics collection 



Develop apps 

Pilot Project 


Pilot Project 


Expanded plastics collection 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

69


Pilot carts 

Full scale implementation of carts & biweekly recycling 

Reduce Container Limit 


ICI Waste Reduction 





Expand C&D diversion opportunities 

Demonstration project 

On-going promotion 

Expand wood waste recycling 

Assess benefit of aggregate diversion 

Infrastructure Enhancements 

Automated garbage collection 




Pilot 

Full-scale 

Feasibility Study 

Identify or establish composting capacity 

Residential mandatory recycling / 

source separation 


Disposal bans 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

70



2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 


Design and Operations Plan 

Long-term capital cost plan 

Annual topographical plan; 

airspace consumption analysis 

Seasonal alternative daily cover 

Review operations contract 

Monitoring and Reporting 

Develop comprehensive reporting system 

research and design 

implementation and operation 

71


10 Financial and Staffing Implications 

10.1 Estimated Expenditures 

Table 8 shows the estimated annual municipal expenditure (in 2013 dollars) from 2013 to 2023 for 

the programs and initiatives listed in this plan, with capital costs amortized over a period of ten years. 

The most significant proposed new expenditures are: 

• $356,000 in 2015 for a residential organics collection pilot project that includes $111,000 

for the capital cost of carts; 

• $1.8 million in capital costs for a full-scale cart-based organics collection program and 

$549,000 per year for operational costs; 

• $1.7 million in capital costs for a cart-based recycling collection program. This program is 

estimated to result in an annual savings of $831,000 in operating costs due to the ability to have 

recycling collected every-other-week; 

• $1.6 million in capital costs for a cart-based garbage collection program. This program is 

estimated to result in an annual savings of $390,000 in operating costs due to collection 

efficiencies realized through automated collection. 

10.2 Human Resources 

Table 8 also provides an estimate of the human resource requirements on an annual basis to implement 

each program and initiative. Assuming that the existing staff complement at The City of Red Deer is fully 

utilized, the implementation of this plan will require additional human resources varying from 2.2 to 3.2 

full-time equivalent employees (FTE) per year, depending on the year a program or initiative is 

implemented. As can be seen, human resource needs are higher in the early years of plan 

implementation due the effort required to design and implement a new program. 

It is anticipated that to effectively implement the WMMP, dedicated staff will be required in three 

general areas: 


• Residential services and programs 

• Industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) programs 

To meet the human resource requirements listed in the WMMP, the following options are available: 

• Hire new staff dedicated to the roles listed above 

• Hire contractors to undertake specific activities (noting that contracting requires contract 

management by City staff) 

• Hire consultants (most applicable to design of new programs and studies) 

• A combination of any of the above. 

72



Promotion and Education 

Table 8: Implementation Budget and Schedule 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE 

Government Leadership $9,000 0.50 $2,000 0.50 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 $2,000 0.10 

Community Engagement $5,000 0.20 $5,000 0.10 $5,000 0.10 $5,000 0.10 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 

Community Based Social Marketing 

& Branding 

Program development and 

implementation 

0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 

Training $20,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 

$25,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 

Social Media 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 

Website enhancement and social 

media engagement 

$10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

Develop apps $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 

Public Spaces Recycling 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 

Pilot project $10,000 

Full-scale implementation $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 

Zero Waste Public Events 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 

Green festivals guide $5,000 

Mobile Zero Waste Station $25,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 

Collection Containers for Events $3,000 

Residential Waste Reduction 

Backyard composting $20,000 0.10 $20,000 0.10 $20,000 0.10 $20,000 0.10 $20,000 0.10 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 $5,000 0.05 

Grasscycling/Xeriscaping $2,000 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 

Expanded organics collection 

Pilot project $356,400 0.25 

Full-scale implementation $182,500 0.25 $731,500 0.25 $731,500 $731,500 $731,500 $731,500 $731,500 


Expanded plastics collection 0.10 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 

Full scale implementation of carts & 

biweekly recycling 

Reduce Container Limit $15,000 0.20 

Multi-family programming 

ICI Waste Reduction 

Pilot carts $30,000 0.25 

$168,000 0.25 ($663,000) 0.25 ($663,000) ($663,000) ($663,000) ($663,000) 

Program development $30,000 0.50 $30,000 0.10 $15,000 0.10 $15,000 0.10 $15,000 0.10 $15,000 0.10 $15,000 0.10 $15,000 0.10 $15,000 0.10 

In suite containers $9,600 $9,600 $9,600 $9,600 $9,600 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 

73


2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

$ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE 

ICI Waste diversion assistance $25,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 $15,000 1.00 

ICI recognition program $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 


Demonstration project $16,500 

On-going promotion $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

Enhanced ICI recycling collection $2,500 $2,500 

Expand C&D diversion 

opportunities 

Expand wood waste recycling $60,000 0.05 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 

Assess benefit of aggregate diversion $5,000 

Infrastructure Enhancements 

Automated garbage collection 

Full-scale implementation & bi-weekly 

collection 


Pilot project $33,000 0.25 

Feasibility Study $40,000 

Establish composting capacity 


Differential tipping fees $10,000 0.10 

Disposal bans 

Residential mandatory recycling / 

source separation 

ICI mandatory recycling / source 

separation 


$158,000 0.50 ($406,600) 0.25 ($406,600) ($406,600) ($406,600) ($406,600) 

to be determined 

Design and Operations Plan $75,000 $10,000 

Long-term capital cost plan $5,000 $5,000 

Annual topographical plan; 

airspace consumption analysis 

Seasonal alternative daily cover $30,000 

Review operations contract 

Monitoring / Reporting 

Develop comprehensive reporting 

system 



$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

$25,000 0.10 

Total Costs $164,000 3.00 $249,800 2.50 $546,200 2.90 $333,900 2.70 $464,400 2.45 $1,300,900 3.15 ($74,200) 2.75 ($99,200) 2.20 ($79,000) 2.20 ($74,000) 2.20 ($74,000) 2.20 

74



11 Estimated Diversion 

Table 9 presents the estimated diversion that can be achieved through implementation of the strategy 

described in Section 5. The diversion estimates are cumulative, and are based on 2011 tonnes disposed 

and were estimated using composition of waste disposed in the residential and ICI sectors, as well as 

diversion performance being achieved in communities with similar programs. Many of the initiatives 

described in the strategy, such as community engagement and community-based social marketing are 

not listed in the diversion table below, but are considered critical support mechanisms to achieve success 

in the programs listed in the table. 

System Component 

Table 9: Estimated Diversion 

Estimated New 

Diversion (tonnes) 

Expand Public Space Recycling 100 

Backyard Composting / Grasscycling 500 

Expanded Residential Organics Collection 2,500 

Expanded Plastics Recycling 500 

User Pay / Volume Limitations 1,200 

Enhanced Multi-Family Recycling Program 1,000 

Waste Diversion Assistance for the Commercial Sector 2,500 

ICI Food Waste Diversion 3,500 

Expansion of C&D Diversion Opportunities 1,000 

Differential Tipping Fees 5,000 

Disposal Bans 5,000 

Mandatory Residential Diversion 2,500 

Mandatory ICI Diversion 5,000 

Total Estimated Diversion 30,300 

Figure 43 below provides a visual representation of how the various program elements build diversion 

throughout the implementation of the strategy. The figure also shows the corresponding reduction in 

waste generation rate, with proposed waste targets (see also Table 12) highlighted, with an ultimate 

target of 500 kg/capita in 2022. 

75


Figure 43: Estimated Diversion – Implementation of Strategy 

76



12 Targets 

As noted in Section 2.2, The City’s Environmental Master Plan sets out specific targets to drive the 

implementation of the Plan. The EMP’s targets are shown in the following table: 

Table 10: Environmental Master Plan Targets 

Timeline Residential Solid Waste Targets Waste Diversion Targets* 

2009 baseline 183 kg / capita / year Currently 10% diversion per year 

per tonne of waste landfilled 




*Diversion is the percentage of waste diverted per year per tonne of waste landfilled 

The EMP uses two metric to assess progress towards targets: 

1. The tonnes of residential waste collected from the single-family collection program. This data can 

be easily tracked and accessed through the Waste Management Facility scalehouse software. 

2. The tonnes of waste diverted through municipal programs relative to the amount of waste 

generated. The table below lists the municipal programs used to measure diversion and the 

2011 tonnes attributed to each program (as reported by City staff). 

Diversion 

Table 11: Current Diversion Amounts 

2011 Tonnes 

Residential yard waste collection 2500 

Residential blue box collection 4522 

Multi-family recycling collection 465 

Recycling depots 517 

Self-haul yard waste 1900 

HHW depot 97 

Pallet diversion 584 

E-waste 297 

Scrap metal 659 

Tires 60 

Shingles 1139 

Drywall 263 

Take It or Leave It Building 4 

77


The following are proposed revised targets based on the diversion strategy presented in this Plan. The 

modified targets retain the concept of residential versus overall targets, but presents alternate metrics. 

Residential waste is proposed to be measured on a per residential curbside account, rather than per 

capita to compensate for changes in residential demographics that may see increased numbers of 

residents living in multi-family residences, or other such community changes. The new targets also 

represent a reduction of approximately 35% by 2022, which is a slightly lower ultimate, but accelerated 

target beyond that in the EMP. 

Because of the inherent measurement challenges associated with diversion rate targets, as well as The 

City’s lack of information regarding rates of ICI diversion, a per-capita disposal rate has been presented 

as the overall waste system target metric. The ultimate target of 500 kg per capita represents a reduction 

of approximately 40% from current disposal amounts. 

Table 12: Proposed Waste Targets 

Baseline 

Targets 

Metric 2009 2011 2016 2020 2023 

Annual kg of garbage per residential curbside 

program account 

620 610 550 450 400 

Overall per-capita disposal rate (kg/ capita) 812 700 600 500 

78



13 Summary 

The 2013 Waste Management Master Plan builds on the Environmental Master Plan, previous WMMPs 

and Council’s vision of reducing waste through reduction and diversion initiatives to provide a 10-year 

plan that will reduce the per-capita disposal rate in Alberta from a baseline of 812 kg per capita in 2011 

to 500 kg per capita in 2023. This will be accomplished through additional programs including: 

• Community elements such as government leadership, social marketing, zero waste public events 

and public spaces recycling 

• Enhancements to residential programming including curbside organics collection, expanded 

curbside recycling, healthy yards initiatives (backyard composting, grasscycling and xeriscaping), 

bi-weekly waste collection, automated cart-based collection and enhanced multi-family recycling 

• Industrial, commercial and institutional initiatives such as waste diversion assistance, 

business recognition, food waste diversion, enhanced recycling and construction / demolition 

waste diversion. 

• Incentives and regulatory mechanisms including differential tipping fees and disposal bans 

The plan will be implemented on a foundation of public consultation and program pilots to encourage high 

levels of support, engagement, and ultimately success. 

79

APPENDICES 

Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) – Appendix 

The City of Red Deer

Appendix A: 

Previous Waste Management Master Plans 

The City of Red Deer prepared its first Solid Waste Master Plan (SWMP) in 1992. The Plan was reviewed 

and updated in 1998 and 2005. This appendix provides an overview of the recommendations included in 

the previous SWMPs and implementation status of those recommendations. 

1 1992 Solid Waste Management Master Plan 

The first SWMP was prepared in response to the community’s increasing concern about the environment. 

Council directed staff to prepare a plan that investigated and formulated policy on the City’s waste 

management issues. The objectives of the 1992 Plan were to reduce reliance on landfilling through a 

solid waste management system that incorporates reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery, and to assist 

the Province in achieving its goal of 50% waste reduction by the year 2000. 

At the time the Plan was developed, the key features of the City’s solid waste management system were: 

• Residential and commercial garbage collection is provided by the City’s contractor 

• All residential homes, including multi-family buildings, receive recycling collection services 

through the City 

• The City’s landfill also receives waste from the County of Red Deer and the towns of Penhold and 

Sylvan lake. 

The table below summarizes the recommendations in the 1992 SWMP. City staff reported in the 1998 

Plan that the majority of the recommendations were implemented and, as a result, a 20% reduction in 

waste per capita was achieved. 

1. Expand Landfill Capacity 40+ years 

1992 Summary of SWMP Phases 1 and 2 (1992-1996) 

2. Revise Garbage Utility Bylaw to limit units to 5 per household per week 

3. Apply for approval for the development of a dry waste site 

4. Request clarification from the Province re. mandatory diversion of waste tires 

5. Ban the disposal of large metal appliances in the landfill 

6. Salvaging operations should be considered on a case by case basis; health, safety and cost 

considered 

7. A general promotion and education program should be developed 

8. Environmental Award of Merit program should be established for businesses 

9. Efforts to divert liquid waste from landfill site should continue with goal of permitting no liquid waste 

disposal at site 

10. Investigate alternatives to landfill disposal of an alum calcium carbonate generated by the plant 

11. Design and pilot a yard waste collection and composting program 

12. Increase the landfill tipping fees to $25 (effective March 1, 1993) 

Page 1 of 4

Appendix A 

Previous Solid Waste Master Plans 

13. Conduct commercial waste audits to assist businesses to implement 3Rs programs 

14. Identify commercial generators of OCC and actively encourage them to implement recycling 

programs 

15. Request Regional Planning Commission update the future use plan for existing landfill site 

16. Examine City purchasing practices to identify opportunities to increase use of recycled content 

products 

17. Reviews ways to facilitate proper disposal of hazardous waste by businesses and citizens 

18. Request the City Solicitor to investigate the introduction of a bylaw to address issue of unsolicited 

mail 

19. Request the Federal and provincial governments play a role in facilitating waste reduction 

20. Expand yard waste collection to full scale program based on results of pilot 

21. Reassess pay by volume concept and consider for new contract tender 

22. Evaluate the benefit of increasing Landfill tipping fees to divert more waste 

23. In 1996, update the plan and review if blue box should continue or regional drop off depot should be 

implemented 

24. In 1996, local market conditions should be reviewed to determine if city should tender a new contract 

that includes residential waste OR residential and commercial waste 

1992 SWMP Phase 3 (Long Term) 

1. Revise Waste Management Plan every five years 

2. Continue to work towards the Provincial 50% waste diversion goal 

1.1 1998 Solid Waste Management Master Plan 

The goal for the 1998 SWMP was to determine what parts of the solid waste system could be improved 

and whether further waste reduction could be achieved. The table below summarizes the 

recommendations in the Plan. All of the recommendations were implemented. 

1998 Summary of SWMP 

1. Promote backyard composting 

2. Monitor yard waste collection and determine if identification of containers is a significant problem, and 

if so, look at alternatives to make containers easier to identify 

3. Public Works will continue to promote yard waste diversion 

4. Investigate feasibility of a pilot program to add food waste to yard waste program. Contact Olds 

College on this initiative. 

5. Adopt a 5 bag/can limit per residence in combination with a sticker system for additional bags and 

consideration of lowering the limit in the future. 

6. Conduct commercial audits for business to assist in reduction 

7. To increase diversion contact Red Deer Chamber to determine willingness to play a role in assisting 

promotion to businesses 

8. Make businesses aware of City’s’ recycling market directory 


Appendix A 


1998 Summary of SWMP 

9. Investigate recycling options for commercial businesses 

10. Consider waste generated by multi-family residences as a separate waste stream and investigate 

opportunities for diversion 

11. Identify loads of OCC at the landfill and follow up to inform generators of markets 

12. Look for options for disposal of concrete and rubble at least two years prior to filling the existing site 

13. Continue with HHW round up event once per year and consider a permanent depot in conjunction 

with the new waste management facility 

14. Do not consider automated residential collection at this time 

15. Implement a flat rate fee for small vehicles at the new waste management facility 

16. Design of new landfill such that methane gas could be recovered in the future if economically viable 

17. Continue to work to incorporate the native wetland area as a significant component of new waste 

management facility and consider incorporating an interpretive walking trail through wetland as a 

component of the educational program for the new facility 

1.2 2005 Solid Waste Management Master Plan 

The goal for the 2005 SWMP was to obtain confirmation of the strategic direction of waste management 

programming. The ideas considered during this planning process were evaluated through the following 

set of criteria: 

• Compatibility with the City’s existing plans 

• Environmental benefit 

• Implementation cost 

• Implementation effort 

• Public perception 

• Successful implementation in Alberta or Canada. 

The table below summarizes the recommendations in the 2005 Plan, as well as the implementation status 

of each recommendation. 

Ideas recommended for further investigation 

by 2007 

Lower 5 unit set out limit for waste collection 

Recycle e-waste materials not in the ERA program 

Promote grasscycling/backyard composting 

Provide a second drop-off depot for recyclables 

Implementation Status 

Incomplete 

Complete 

In 2012, the City is implementing an intensive 

backyard composting initiative for 250 participants 

with the intention of creating long-term behaviour 

change. Grasscycling education has not been 

implemented. 

Complete. There is one drop off at the Waste 

Management Facility and another located at BFI’s 

MRF. 


Appendix A 


Ideas recommended for further investigation 

by 2007 

Make recycling directory available online 

Investigate the provision of a waste oil drop-off at 

the waste management facility (WMF) 

Provide school recycling program 

Investigate the economics of recycling more wood 

Provide non-contaminated liquid waste facility from 

car wash sumps, catch basin sumps and hydrovac 

operations at the WMF 

Ideas Recommended for further investigation 

by 2010 

Study the need for Red Deer to host online swap 

and shop service. 

Provide on-street recycling containers 

Consider providing a second e-waste drop off depot 

in Red Deer 

Facilitate commercial waste exchange 

Prepare educational video of waste management 

section programs 

Provide a location to recycle printer cartridges 

Build interpretive trail at WMF 

Recycle fluorescent light bulbs at the WMF 

Recycle pesticide containers 

Support Green Deer litter control program 

Prepare waste management section mascot 

Recycle concrete and asphalt 


Incomplete. However, there is a telephone hotline 

(the Blue Line) for resident’s waste management 

related questions. 

Determined to be unnecessary due to other 

available Red Deer drop-off sites. 

The City implemented recycling collection service 

for schools on request. 

Wood pallets continue to be collected and ground at 

the Waste Management Facility for on-site use. 

Decanting pad has been built but service has not 

been implemented – need plan to utilize. Car wash 

sumps need to be handled separately. 


The City holds “Kick it to the Curb” events to 

encourage resident to giveaway reusable goods. 

Many on-line swap/reuse services currently exist 

making it unnecessary for Red Deer to host an online 

swap service. 

There is a small number of recycling containers 

located on downtown streets. Broader 

implementation was not pursued due to low 

diversion and high contamination potential. 

The volume of e-waste disposed has not yet 

warranted a second e-waste location. 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

There are several return-to-retail and mail-back, 

making it unnecessary for Red Deer to provide a 

collection service. 

Incomplete 

Complete. Collected as part of HHW. 

Pesticide container collection site (part of Clean 

Farms stewardship program) has not been added at 

Waste Management Facility. 

Complete 

Incomplete 

There are private recycling facilities in Red Deer 

that manage these materials. Space exists at WMF, 

but has not been utilized. 


Appendix B: 

Existing Solid Waste Management System in Red Deer 

1 Introduction 

Red Deer has a solid waste management system with a broad range of recycling, reuse and composting 

options, facilities for the disposal of household hazardous waste and a modern landfill for the safe 

disposal of municipal solid waste. This appendix describes each of the components of the existing solid 

waste management system in Red Deer including: 

i. Promotion and education; 

ii. Reduction and reuse; 

iii. Collection; 

iv. Recycling Facilities 

v. Composting Facilities 

vi. Construction and Demolition Waste Management 

vii. The Waste Management Facility. 

1.1 Promotion and Education 

The City of Red Deer’s Environmental Services department has developed an educational interpretive 

centre on the Waste Management Facility site designed to educate visitors about landfills, waste 

composition and waste reduction. The information provided at the centre is designed to fit Alberta 

Education’s grade four science curriculum, “Waste and Our World”. The interpretive center is annually 

toured by approximately 1,400 local students. 

Figure 1: Educational Interpretive Centre 

The City also provides a number of education and awareness programs to educate the public about the 

existing waste management programs including the “Blue Line”, a dedicated phone line for resident 

inquiries related to waste management programs, utility bill inserts promoting program elements, 

brochures on activities such as composting and naturescaping, as well as advertising regarding free yard 

waste weeks offered annually and the household hazardous waste round-up. Additional promotion and 


Appendix B 


education is provided at the annual City of Red Deer “Let’s Talk” event which allows residents to speak 

with Waste Management staff. Samples of promotion / education materials are included in Appendix J. 

The City of Red Deer Environmental Initiatives department also provides promotion and education for a 

number of public education initiatives throughout the year, including the Kick it to the Curb free giveaway 

weekends, battery drives, and Enviro Fair for Environment Week. The Green Deer anti-litter campaign 

also promotes community clean-up events with the support of a number of community sponsors, with the 

slogan “Leave it Better than you Found it”. 

1.2 Reduction and Reuse 

A number of initiatives are in place to encourage the residents of Red Deer to reduce waste by effectively 

reducing or reusing it. 

1.2.1 Kick it to the Curb 

The “Kick it to the Curb” weekend program was developed to allow for residents to eliminate unwanted, 

yet reusable, items from their homes. Residents are encouraged through advertising to place unwanted 

items on the curb where the items can then be picked up free of charge and reused by other residents. 

These items may include, among others, books, old furniture, construction materials, and kitchen 

supplies. The program typically runs once annually – in 2012, it was held during Environment Week. 

FREE 

Red 

Please help youself to items. 

Red Deer ‘s 

Give Away Weekend 

www.reddeer.ca 

Figure 2: Kick it to the Curb! sign 

For 2012, the Kerry Wood Nature Centre also held a Trash to Treasure Swap Meet during the same 

timeframe. As part of its promotions, The City website also promoted Kijiji and FreeCycle as alternatives 

for reusable items. 

1.2.2 Take It or Leave It Centre 

Furniture and other household items in good condition, such as tables, chairs, couches and small 

appliances, may be placed at the “Take It or Leave It Centre” located at The City of Red Deer Waste 

Management Facility. Items may be dropped off free of charge and picked up by others for reuse during 

regular Waste Management Facility operating hours. 


Appendix B 


1.2.3 Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Bags 

Figure 3: Take It or Leave It Centre 

The City of Red Deer encourages its residents to think twice before using plastic bags at grocery stores 

and retailers. The City is promoting on their website the use of alternatives to plastic bags such as cloth 

shopping bags, as well as simply refusing plastics bags when they are not needed (i.e. small purchases). 

1.2.4 Local Retailers of Used Goods 

A number of retailers, including Habitat for Humanity’s ReStore, Salvation Army and Goodwill, are 

available for residents who wish to drop off or purchase reusable goods such as construction materials, 

clothing, shoes and household items. 

1.2.5 Online Services 

Residents are also encouraged to take advantage of online services such as Kijiji and Freecycle which 

may be used to purchase, sell or trade reusable items to others thereby diverting the items from the 

landfill. The program is promoted on The City of Red Deer website. 

1.2.6 Backyard Composting and Naturescaping 

Red Deer’s Healthy Yards, Healthy Communities initiative has been developed to house all of The City of 

Red Deer’s environmentally responsible yard and garden programs and practices in one place, helping 

residents reduce their environmental impacts through healthier yard care, gardening and growing 

practices. 

In the spring of 2012, The City of Red Deer launched a Composting at Home initiative, a pilot program 

aimed at teaching local residents how to compost. Organic waste can account for half of household 

waste, which this program aims to divert, helping The City reach its Environmental Master Plan waste 

reduction goals. The program is built on the message that composting is a natural biological process 

which keeps organics out of the landfill and helps create healthy soils. Approximately 255 participants 

volunteered to attend workshops and learn to change household organic waste into natural fertilizer 

for their gardens, lawns and yards. In exchange for their one year composting commitment, The City 

provided them with the tools (kitchen catcher for organics, compost aerating tool and a compost bin) 

and knowledge necessary to effectively compost in their own backyard. In addition to the pilot program, 

The City held a public presentation at the downtown library, published informative materials online and 

constructed demonstrations at community gardens. The City website also directs people to alternate 


Appendix B 


sources of information on composting, such as Alberta Environment publications. Further encouragement 

is provided by draws for composting tools, acting as incentive for people to start or continue composting. 

The City also promotes “naturescaping,” which encourages residents to use drought resistant native 

plants and other xeriscaping practices to reduce yard waste, water consumption and pesticide use, 

while also increasing habitat for important urban wildlife like birds and butterflies. 

2 Collection 

This section describes the collection services available in Red Deer for residents, businesses and 

construction/demolition sites. 

2.1 Utility Bylaw 

A unique aspect of Red Deer’s solid waste system is the municipal control over residential and 

commercial waste collection provided through Bylaw No. 3464/2011. This bylaw establishes the public 

utilities in Red Deer, which includes waste collection and disposal. As stated in Part 6 of the Bylaw, which 

outlines the waste management utility details, The City of Red Deer provides for the collection, removal 

and disposal of solid waste, recyclables, and seasonal yard waste within the City of Red Deer for all 

properties, including businesses. There are a few exceptions to the mandatory collection service; the 

following types of waste are the responsibility of the waste generator rather than The City’s: 

• Large household goods such as furniture; 

• Solid waste stored in on-site mechanical compactors, roll-off bins, or containers of a capacity 

greater than 6 cubic yards; 

• Construction and demolition waste; 

• Recyclable material generated by the industrial, commercial and institutional activities; 

• Waste of any kind generated from the Michener Centre. 

The bylaw also states that all solid waste collected in Red Deer must be delivered to The City’s Waste 


This bylaw is fairly unique within the Canadian context, offering some specific benefits through providing 

The City significant control over how waste is managed, thus allowing The City to more directly plan and 

implement improvements to the waste management system. 

2.2 Single Family Collection Services 

The City of Red Deer provides weekly collection of garbage, recycling and yard waste from residential 

detached and semi-detached dwellings. All services are provided through contractors. Roughly 

31,000 tonnes of waste materials were collected through the single-family collection program in 2011. 

Figure 4 shows the relative quantity of materials collected in each stream. 


Appendix B 


11% 

73% 

16% 

Recycling 

Garbage 

Yard waste 

Figure 4: Breakdown of Residential Waste Excluding Multi-Family Buildings in 2011 

2.2.1 Single Family Recycling Collection 

The blue box recycling program was implemented in the spring of 1991. In 2011, roughly 27,000 homes 

received blue box recycling collection and 4,500 tonnes of recyclables were collected – the equivalent to 

170 kg per home. As shown in Figure 5, the amount of material collected through this program has been 

increasing in recent years; there was a 6% increase in tonnage between 2009 and 2010, and a 16% 

increase between 2010 and 2011. The program collects: 

• Corrugated cardboard 

• Phone books 

• Boxboard 

• Glass bottles and jars 

• Newsprint 

• #2 HDPE plastic containers 

• Magazines 

• Polycoat cartons 

• Kraft paper 

• Household metal 

• Office paper 

• Refundable beverage containers 

• Mixed paper 


Appendix B 


5,000 

4,500 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

2009 2010 2011 

Blue box 

MulC-‐family 

Depots 

Figure 5: Recycling Collection 2009-2011 

As shown in Figure 6, the majority of the recyclables collected in this program (by weight) is currently 

newspaper and cardboard. 

Other paper 

6% 

PlasCc 

3% 

Metal 

3% 

Glass 

2% 

Cardboard 

29% 

Newspaper 

57% 

Figure 6: Composition of Blue Box Materials Collected 

There are presently four trucks collecting recyclable materials in the City of Red Deer five days per week. 

Residents receive weekly collection of their blue boxes, and there is no limit on the amount of recyclable 

materials that can be placed out for collection. Residents are initially provided with one blue bin, but may 

request additional blue bins by contacting the Blue Line. 

The Customer Survey results indicate that the limited size of the blue box is an issue for many residents 

and may be a constraint on participation. The size limitation has led to many residents using multiple 

boxes to set out their recyclables, or providing their own larger bin (see Figure 7). An increasing number 

of blue bags are also being seen, although this practice is not encouraged, as the MRF is not designed to 

handle materials collected in blue bags. Collectors have commented that the variation in size and type of 

containers used in the blue box program can be time consuming and labour intensive to pick up. 


Appendix B 


Figure 7: Various residential blue box configurations 


Appendix B 


The recycling program is funded through a monthly utility rate of $5.65 for weekly blue box collection, and 

is a non-optional service. 

2.2.2 Single Family Yard Waste Collection 

The residential yard waste collection program was established in the spring of 1997, with approximately 

26,000 households receiving this weekly collection service from the second Monday in April until the 

second Friday in November. The service falls within the same contract as solid waste collection. The 

program currently accepts the following materials: 

• Grass clippings 

• Tree branches 

• Leaves 

• Garden waste 

There is no limit to the amount of yard waste residents can place out for collection; however the materials 

must be properly packaged. Yard waste must be placed in a garbage bin labeled with a yard waste 

sticker provided by The City (see Figure 8). Alternatively, yard waste may be placed in a compostable 

paper yard waste bag, or in the case of branches, bundled and not longer than four feet. 

Figure 8: Yard waste sticker 

Figure 9: Yard waste set-out variations 

Figure 9 shows some of variations observed in yard waste set-out. As with recyclables, yard waste is 

sometimes set out in plastic bags, despite the fact that the system cannot accept organics in plastic bags, 

and this material is collected and disposed as garbage. Set-out survey results indicate that approximately 

20% of households put out yard waste in plastic bags in the Spring, while around half of that rate use 


Appendix B 


plastic bags for yard waste in the Fall, showing a lack of participation in the yard waste program, or lack 

of understanding of acceptable set-out practices, or both. 

The City also offers two free yard waste weeks to its residents annually which allows residents to drop off 

yard waste at the Waste Management Facility free of charge for one week in the spring and one week in 

the fall. 

An estimated 2,500 tonnes of yard waste are collected annually through the yard waste collection 

program. 

2.2.3 Single Family Garbage Collection 

There are currently four trucks collecting waste in the City of Red Deer five days per week, with 

approximately 26,000 households receiving this collection service. Garbage collection consists of hand 

pick-up of up to five units of solid waste per household per week; however it was observed that the 

average household sets out two units per week. The five unit limit was introduced in the spring of 1999, 

along with the option to purchase extra waste tags to allow the collection of waste in excess of the limit. 

The program is funded through monthly utility rates charged to residents, and is a non-optional service. 

Figure 10 shows the variety of containers and materials that are set out by residents in Red Deer. 

Figure 10: Variations in garbage set-out 

The City of Red Deer collects approximately 22,600 tonnes of solid waste annually through this program. 

This translates to a residential per-capita generation rate of 246 kg per capita, which compares favourably 

to a Canadian residential average of 259 kg per capita and an Alberta average of 273 kg per capita (Stats 

Can, 2010). 


Appendix B 


Under the Utility Bylaw, the charge for basic residential garbage collection is $11.70 per month per 

dwelling unit for the collection of a maximum of 5 units of solid waste per week per dwelling unit year 

round, and once a week collection of yard waste for approximately seven months per year. Tags for 

additional garbage are $1 per tag. 

2.3 Multi-Family Collection Services 

The City of Red Deer provides garbage and recycling collection to multi-family buildings; defined as 

residences with more than four dwelling units. Weekly collection is provided through contract. Yard waste 

collection is not provided by The City to multi-family buildings. 

2.3.1 Multi-Family Garbage Collection 

Approximately 680 multi-family properties receive weekly garbage collection through The City of 

Red Deer’s contractor. Buildings with garbage collection containers larger than 6 cubic yards must 

contract with a private garbage collection service. 

The majority of multi-family buildings are serviced similar to the commercial sector, through the placement 

and servicing of front-load dumpsters, with the same associated charges. Some multi-family buildings, 

however, cannot accommodate front-load bins, and are serviced manually, similar to single-family 

dwellings. In these cases, the program is funded through monthly utility rates charged to residents, as 

with single family residences. Waste Management Facility reports indicate that the City collects 

approximately 5,300 tonnes of solid waste annually from the multi-family sector. Visual inspections of bins 

at multi-family buildings revealed that garbage and recycling are often comingled in both the waste and 

recycling bins. 

2.3.2 Multi-Family Recycling Collection 

The multi-family recycling collection runs weekly and falls under the same contract as the blue box 

collection program. Multi-family recycling was implemented in 1992 and accepts the same materials as 

the blue box program, with the exception of glass bottles and jars. The service provides either front-load 

bins, or toters for recyclable materials as shown in Figure 11 through Figure 16. 

This service is currently provided to approximately 9600 multi-family units throughout Red Deer. An 

estimated 465 tonnes of recyclable material are collected annually through this program. This per unit 

number is extremely high indicating that there may be material other than multi-family recyclables being 

collected in the bin, such recycling from nearby businesses or garbage. This data also contradicts audits 

of recycling containers conducted during this planning process. Visual audits of multi-family residences in 

various locations within Red Deer suggested recycling is not well utilized in this sector, as evidenced 

through the presence of recyclables in garbage containers, and lack of use of recycling bins. A strong 

exception to this generality was observed in multi-family buildings dedicated to senior populations, where 

clean and full recycling bins were observed 

Each dwelling unit within multi-family buildings which receives The City’s communal recycling collection 

service is charged $5.10 per month. 


Appendix B 


Figure 11: Multi-Family Waste Dumpster and 

Green Recycling Toters 

Figure 12: Recycling toter signage 

Figure 13: Empty recycling bins beside 

recyclables in garbage 

Figure 14: Recyclables in multi-family 

garbage bin 

Figure 15: Recycling toters at multi-family site 

Figure 16: Garbage and cardboard bins at 

multi-family site 


Appendix B 


2.4 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Collection Services 

Commercial waste collection is provided through contract by The City of Red Deer. The City tenders 

the exclusive rights to collect solid waste from ICI locations with garbage containers that are 6 cubic yards 

or smaller. The bins which are used to collect the waste are provided and serviced by the contractor 

engaged by The City. Garbage bins which exceed 6 cubic yards are excluded from The City’s collection 

service and are serviced by privately contracted waste collection companies. The City’s current rates 

associated with the collection of commercial waste are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. 

Table 1: Monthly Solid Waste Collection Rates for Commercial Front-End Containers 

Type of Service 

Service on 

Demand 

Scheduled 

Service 

2 Cubic 

Yards 

Container Size 

3 Cubic 

Yards 

4 Cubic 

Yards 

6 Cubic 

Yards 

Container Rental $10.64 $13.30 $15.96 $18.62 

Lift Charge $11.79 $17.68 $23.57 $35.36 

1 Lift/Month $11.79 $17.68 $23.57 $35.36 

1 Lift/2 Weeks $25.46 $38.19 $50.92 $76.37 

1 Lift/Week $51.03 $76.56 $102.07 $153.10 

2 Lifts/Week $102.07 $153.10 $204.14 $306.19 

3 Lifts/Week $153.10 $229.65 $306.19 $459.29 

4 Lifts/Week $204.14 $306.19 $408.26 $612.40 

5 Lifts/Week $255.17 $382.75 $510.33 $765.50 

6 Lifts/Week $306.19 $459.29 $612.40 $918.50 

Extra lift $11.79 $17.68 $23.57 $35.36 

Table 2: Monthly Solid Waste Collection Rates for Commercial Hand Pick Up 

Volume Per Pick-Up 

Frequency of Pick-Up Per Week 

1 2 3 4 5 6 Extra 

≤ 0.4 Cubic Metres $24.38 $48.76 $73.14 $97.52 $121.90 $146.28 $5.63 

> 0.4 to 0.8 Cubic Metres $24.38 $48.76 $73.14 $97.52 $121.90 $146.28 $5.63 






> 4.6 to 5.3 Cubic Metres $170.68 $341.36 $512.03 $682.71 $853.39 $1,024.07 $39.42 


Appendix B 


2.4.1 Recycling Collection Services 

The City of Red Deer does not provide recycling services to the ICI sector. However, there are several 

recycling collection companies operating in Red Deer that can be contracted. Private services are 

available for the collection of automotive metal, scrap metal, office paper, shredded paper and cardboard. 

A list of the known private services and the accepted materials are included in Table 3. 

Company 

1-800-GOT-JUNK? 

Table 3: Private Recycling Services 

Accepted Materials 

Residential, commercial and construction waste 

5 Star Junk Removal Residential, commercial and construction waste 

A-1 Willy's Parts Place Inc. Scrap metal, vehicles, appliances 

All Gotta Go 

Bettenson’s Sand and Gravel Co. 

BFI Canada 

Bulldog Scrap Metal 

Clearwater Waste Management 

Diversified Glycol Services Inc. 

Garbage Grabbers 

Garbage Haulers 

Green Bin Ltd. 

Green For Life (GFL) 

Habitat ReStore 

Iron Mountain 

Kleen Site Services 

Little Dipper Holdings Inc. 

Merlin Shredding Inc. 

Paper Cuts 

Proform Concrete Services Inc. 

Recycle-Logic Inc. 

Scrap Attack 

Shred It 

Sign-A-Bin 

TERVITA 

(formerly Harper’s Metals Inc.) 

The Curbside Recycler 

Waste containment for work sites. 

Clean asphalt and concrete 


All types of scrap metal 

Construction waste and property clean up 

Glycol products 

Residential and construction waste 

General residential waste 

Residential and commercial clean up and junk removal 

Used oil and petroleum fluids, filters, containers and hazardous 

waste recovery 

Recycle used furniture, appliances and construction items 

Select e-waste recycling and paper shredding and recycling service 

Residential and commercial clean up and junk removal 

Used oil, used oil filters and used oil containers 

Paper shredding and recycling service 

Office paper, paper shredding and recycling service 

Concrete recycling 

Electronic waste 

Scrap metal, vehicles, appliances 

Paper, cardboard and select e-waste recycling 

Commercial and residential waste 

Scrap metal recycling 

Paper and cardboard 


Appendix B 


Company 

Thumbs Up Bins & Disposal 

Walway Waste Management Inc. 

Waste Co Disposal Systems 

Waste Management 

wasteAway Bin Rentals 

Accepted Materials 

Property clean up and debris removal 

Construction waste 



Construction waste (mainly used for drywall, shingles, wood waste) 

Small businesses may haul their own recyclables to a depot instead of hiring a collection company. Some 

large businesses may handle their own recycling by backhauling their recyclables to a central location for 

subsequent sale to a recycling company. 

Additional information on ICI waste, as determined through observations, interviews and surveys, is 

included in Appendix K. 

2.4.2 Yard Waste Collection Services 

The City does not provide yard waste collection to ICI locations. However, there are landscaping 

companies that will remove yard waste as part of their site services or businesses can self-haul their yard 

waste to the Waste Management Facility. 

2.5 Recycling Depots 

The City of Red Deer operates two unstaffed 

recycling drop-off depots through the 

residential recycling collection contract which 

may be used by small businesses, as well as 

residents. The first depot is located within The 

City’s Waste Management Facility (WMF), 

and the second depot is found at Waste 

Management’s Materials Recovery Facility 

(MRF). Both depots are serviced under 

contract by Waste Management of Canada. 

The depots may be used free of charge and 

accept the following source-separated 

materials: 

• Glass 

• Metal 

• Newspaper 

• Magazines 

• Mixed paper 

• Cardboard 

• Boxboard 

• Refundable milk and juice containers 

• # 2 HDPE rigid plastic containers 

2.6 Streetscape Waste Collection 

Streetscape refers to waste collection located in outside public areas. Typically, this is done through the 

provision of litter bins in areas frequented by pedestrians, such as parks and other municipal properties. 

In Red Deer, the Downtown Business Association (DBA) has responsibility for keeping the downtown 

area clean. A levy is collected from the downtown businesses and given to the DBA to fund the servicing 


Appendix B 


of street-side litter and recycling containers and removing loose litter from streets, back alleys and public 

areas. In the downtown area, The City has provided DBA with approximately 100 garbage containers and 

11 recycling containers. The bins are serviced Monday through Friday using a small truck with 3 Big Brute 

containers in the back and transported to specific dumpsters in the downtown area for later disposal / 

removal. There are a range of issues with the current downtown system: recycling containers are 

frequently filled with garbage, residential garbage is often placed in the litter bins, and the centralized 

dumpsters are often filled with cardboard. 

Events happening downtown are provided with garbage and recycling bins by DBA, but typically they are 

not well utilized. 

The DBA could play a role in facilitating and promoting recycling in the downtown core, but The City 

would need to amend the current contract (which is up for negotiation in early 2013) to do so. 

The City of Red Deer also has additional waste and recycling bins at other public locations, including bus 

stops (see Figure 17). However, inspection of these bins showed very poor compliance, with most filled 

with general garbage. 

Figure 17: Bus stop recycling station 

3 Construction and Demolition Waste Management 

The City does not provide garbage or recycling collection services to construction and demolition (C&D) 

sites. These sites must hire their own collection contractors (such as Waste-Co. and Biocycle) or self-haul 

their waste and recyclable materials. Discussions with industry stakeholders indicates that self-hauling 

waste and recyclables is a common practice amongst construction, demolition and renovation waste 

contractors. 


Appendix B 


3.1 C&D Reuse and Recycling 

Options available for contractors wishing to give away reusable materials from construction, renovation 

and demolition projects can donate materials to Habitat for Humanity’s ReStore, as shown in Figure 18 

and Figure 19. 

For recycling, there are a number of options available: 

• Proform Concrete Services Inc. accepts concrete for recycling 

• Bettenson’s Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd. accepts both clean asphalt and concrete for recycling 

• The City landfill also accepts clean, separated drywall, asphalt shingles and wood pallets 

for recycling 

• There are metal waste collection companies 

• Cardboard can be dropped off at the recycling depots or collected by a private collection service. 

3.2 C&D Disposal 

C&D waste can be disposed of at the Waste Management Facility. Loads of C&D waste at the landfill 

were observed to contain significant volumes of clean wood waste and some cardboard. A photograph 

of one such load is provided as Figure 20. 

A private pit that accepts inert C&D waste was also reported to be in the vicinity of Red Deer, 

but no information regarding this site was found. 

Figure 18: Habitat for Humanity ReStore 


Appendix B 


Figure 19: Habitat ReStore – A Recycling Alternative for Surplus Construction Materials 

Figure 20: Construction and Demolition Waste Disposed at the Waste Management Facility 

4 Recycling Processing 

All of the recyclable materials collected through the residential recycling program and the two drop off 

depots are processed at Waste Management’s Materials Recovery Facility MRF. This facility has recently 

been updated and expanded. 


Appendix B 


Figure 21: Sorting Line at the Materials Recovery Facility 

Figure 22: Paper (to be sorted) at the Materials Recovery Facility 

5 Waste Management Facility 

The City of Red Deer Waste Management Facility (WMF) offers supplementary recycling opportunities in 

addition to the residential recyclable materials listed in Section 2.2.1. Overall, it was reported that in 2011 

the Waste Management Facility accepted approximately 5,000 tonnes of additional materials including 

scrap metal, white goods, electronic waste, tires, used toilets, shingles, drywall, pallets and yard waste. 

5.1 Electronics Recycling 

The WMF is a designated collection site for Electronics Recycling (Alberta’s electronics recycling 

program). As part of the program, the Waste Management Facility will accept the following materials 

free of charge: 

• TVs 

• Computer monitors 

• Printers 


Appendix B 


• Computer peripherals 

• Laptops 

In addition to the materials accepted as part of the Electronics Recycling program, 

the Waste Management Facility will also accept the following materials free of charge: 

• Photocopiers 

• Network equipment 

• Telephones/cell phones/pagers 

• Answering machines 

• CD/DVD players 

• VCRs 

• Circuit boards 

• Fax machines 

• Projectors 

• Microfiche readers 

• Uninterruptible power supplies 

Electronic materials are collected through the provincial stewardship program currently by eCycle 

Solutions, an approved processor. In addition to offering the drop off service, larger quantities of 

electronics produced by businesses or organizations can be picked up directly through arrangements with 

approved processors. Drop-off locations for household electronic waste also exist at Future Shop and 

Best Buy. Recycle-Logic, a certified electronic recycler, also provides the City of Red Deer with an 

additional drop off location at 8075 49 th Avenue, where it operates an electronics recycling facility. 

In 2011, 297 tonnes of e-waste were collected at the WMF. 

5.2 Toilet Rebate Program 

In an effort to reduce water consumption, The City of Red Deer launched a Toilet Rebate Program in 

July 2008 which provides a rebate to Red Deer homeowners for installing dual flush toilets. The Waste 

Management Facility began accepting toilets free of charge in January 2009 with all their interior parts 

and components removed. The collected toilets are eventually crushed and used as aggregate. 

5.3 Shingle Recycling 

As of June 15, 2011, The City of Red Deer’s Waste Management Facility offers shingle recycling 

opportunities to its residents. The program is limited to asphalt shingles. Other materials including cedar 

shingles are not accepted as part of this program. In 2011, the WMF received 1139 tonnes of shingles. 

Customers are charged the regular tipping fee on shingles. 

5.4 Drywall Recycling 

Similarly, The City of Red Deer’s Waste Management Facility began diverting gypsum drywall on 

June 15, 2011. The program is limited to unpainted gypsum drywall. In 2011, the WMF received 

263 tonnes of drywall. Customers are charged the regular tipping fee on drywall. 

5.5 Pallets 

Customers can drop off pallets at the Waste Management Facility which are then ground into mulch by a 

contractor. The mulch is either used on-site for mud management and compost odour control or marketed 

to various commercial businesses for uses such as composting and feedlot bedding. In 2011, 584 tonnes 

of pallets were diverted from the landfill. 


Appendix B 


Figure 23: Pallet recycling at Waste Management Facility 

5.6 Yard Waste Composting at the Waste Management Facility 

In addition to the residential yard waste collection, the Waste Management Facility offers yard waste 

drop off services to residents and businesses. In 2011, 1,900 tonnes of yard waste was directly hauled 

to the Waste Management Facility. Regular tipping fees apply to dropped off yard waste. All yard waste 

collected at the Waste Management Facility, as well as the yard waste collected through the residential 

program (an additional 2,500 tonnes), is composted at the Waste Management Facility. A contractor is 

responsible for composting and marketing the material. The contractor owns the majority of the finished 

compost, however The City keeps 200 tonnes per year which is sold to residents. 

Figure 24: Yard waste composting site 

6 Private Composting Facilities 

Strickland Farms Composting Site is a private composting facility located west of Penhold which 

began its operation in 2011. The facility is operated by a licensed composting technician and includes a 

compost pad upon which windrows are placed for composting. It was reported that the facility processed 

approximately 8,000 tonnes in 2011 and is looking to increase its throughput considerably in the coming 

months and years. 


Appendix B 


Figure 25: Windrows at Stickland Farms composting site 

7 Household Hazardous Waste Management 

Hazardous household waste (HHW) items may be dropped off at The City of Red Deer’s WMF free of 

charge throughout the year. The items are then recycled or safely disposed of. The WMF accepts a wide 

array of HHW products, however motor oil and prescription drugs are not accepted because there are 

several other locations to return these products in Red Deer. Commercial/industrial hazardous waste 

is not accepted at the WMF. The WMF received approximately 97 tonnes of HHW in 2011. 

8 Residual Waste Management 

As stated in The City’s Bylaw, it is required that all residual waste generated within the Red Deer City 

limits is collected and disposed of at the Waste Management Facility (WMF). This includes all residential 

and commercial waste which has not been diverted, with the exception of waste which is not permitted for 

disposal at the facility. 

The WMF began accepting waste in September 2001 and is a Class II landfill. It is located at the 

southeast limit of the City of Red Deer, south of 19 th Street and east of 40 th Avenue. The WMF property is 

bounded to the north by 19 th Street and the Inglewood Residential Subdivision, to the east by 30 th Avenue 

and agricultural land with rural residences, to the south by agricultural land and commercial 

developments, and to the west by 40 th Avenue and agricultural land with rural residences, and a closed 

landfill. 

The landfill will be developed in two phases with a total landfilled area of 59 hectares. Phase 1 is 

subdivided into six cells with a total area of approximately 21 hectares. Phase 2 is subdivided into nine 

cells with a total area of approximately 38 hectares. Phase 1 will provide an estimated site life of 21 years 

and Phase 2 will provide an estimated site life of 23 years. An additional Phase 3 will be developed, 

which will consist of a vertical expansion covering Phase 1 and Phase 2 and fill in the air space between 

these two development phases. Phase 3 will provide an estimated site life of 10 years. 

The WMF is owned by The City of Red Deer and is operated under contract by MCL. A scale system is 

in place to track all incoming waste using the Geoware software. In 2010, the WMF reportedly received 

86,277 tonnes of waste. The WMF is reported to contain approximately 930,000 tonnes of waste. 


Appendix B 


The WMF is subject to annual monitoring to determine whether the groundwater and surface water may 

have been impacted by landfilling activities. Landfill gas monitoring is also completed annually to ensure 

the subsurface migration of landfill gas does not pose a risk to the surrounding environment. Contingency 

measures have been set in the event any specified parameters exceed the maximum allowable 

concentration. 

Preventative litter control measures are taken to minimize the blowing of litter from the active area of 

the landfill. Daily cover is used to cover exposed waste and to confine light weight material. Additionally, 

temporary moveable litter control fencing is utilized at the active face of the landfill, as required, to keep 

windblown littler within the active area. 

Figure 26: Active Face at the Red Deer Waste Management Facility 

9 Red Deer’s Solid Waste Budget 

The City of Red Deer’s solid waste management services are funded through 3 program budgets: 

1. Program Budget 435: This budget covers collection services and tipping fees for garbage and 

yard waste. In 2011, this budget was $7.2 million. This service is funded through user fees 

charged to residential homes, multi-family residential units and ICI properties. In 2011, all singlefamily 

residential units were charged $11.70 per month for garbage and yard waste collection 

(same rates apply in 2012). ICI properties, including multi-family, were charged based on the 

level of service they receive using the 2012 fees, listed previously in Table 1 and Table 2. 

2. Program Budget 446: This budget covers recycling collection from single-family and multi-family 

dwellings, the operation of the recycling area at the waste management facility, and the 

processing of the recyclables. In 2011, this budget was $2.5 million. This service is funded 

through user fees charged to residential homes and multi-family residential units and the sale 

of recyclables. In 2012, residential homes receiving the blue box recycling service were charged 


Appendix B 


$5.65 per month, and multi-family residential units were charged $5.10 per month (in 2011, 

the blue box program rate stayed the same and the multi-family rate dropped to $4). 

3. Program Budget 460 (operating): This budget covers operation of the landfill. In 2011, the 

operating budget was $5.5 million, which was funded through tipping fees. In 2011, tipping fees 

for residential and commercial waste were $60 per tonne. Special waste and asbestos were 

charged an $80/tonne tipping fee (in 2012, rates were increased to $62 and $82, respectively). 

Program Budget 460 (capital): This capital projects budget is for site improvements, cell 

construction and on-going maintenance of the closed 1972 landfill. This size of this budget varies 

substantially from year-to-year, based on planned projects. The following table outlines the 

projected capital projects budget for 2011 to 2015 (based on the 2011 budget). Capital projects 

are funded through financial reserves. Capital projects are funded through financial reserves 

generated from the tipping fee revenue. 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

$309,000 $5,179,000 $3,233,000 $565,000 $368,000 

The financing of solid waste services in Red Deer is based primarily on user fees for the type of 

service rendered (collection or disposal). General taxes are not used to finance these services. 

This approach to financing ensures that each service is self-sustaining and the fees charged for 

each service reflect the actual cost to provide that service. Additionally, this approach is “user 

pay,” requiring the generators of garbage and recycling to pay only for the services that they 

use and, in the case of commercial generator, for the quantity of garbage that they generate. 


Appendix C: 

Utility Bylaw 3464 

See also attached file “Appendix C_34642011UtilityBylawSchedulesEffectiveMarch12012.pdf”

Utility Bylaw No. 3464/2011 


Page 1 of 4 

PART 1: SHORT TITLE .............................................................................................................. 1 

1 Short Title and Establishment of Utilities........................................................................ 1 

PART 2: GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................. 1 

2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 1 

3 Supervision .................................................................................................................... 1 

4 Supply and Ownership of Facilities and Equipment ....................................................... 1 

5 Assignment of Contract.................................................................................................. 2 

6 City Responsibility and Liability...................................................................................... 2 

7 Application for Service.................................................................................................... 2 

8 Conditions of Service ..................................................................................................... 3 

9 Deposits ......................................................................................................................... 3 

10 Interest on Deposits ....................................................................................................... 4 

11 Refund of Deposit...........................................................................................................5 

12 Service Charge ..............................................................................................................5 

13 After Hours Calls ............................................................................................................5 

14 Disconnection................................................................................................................. 5 

15 Reconnection .................................................................................................................5 

16 Winter Installation........................................................................................................... 6 

17 Utility Charges and Payment of Utility Accounts ............................................................ 6 

18 Billing Errors................................................................................................................... 6 

19 Late Payment Penalty .................................................................................................... 6 

20 Novelty Payment Methods ............................................................................................. 7 

21 Interim Utility Bill............................................................................................................. 7 

22 Enforcement................................................................................................................... 7 

23 Appeals .......................................................................................................................... 7 

24 Reasonable Notice......................................................................................................... 7 

25 Termination by Customer............................................................................................... 8 

26 Termination by The City Upon Notice ............................................................................ 8 

27 Termination without Notice............................................................................................. 8 

28 Termination Due to Vacant Premises............................................................................. 9 

29 Authorization to Enter Premises to Terminate Service................................................... 9 

30 Service Kill ................................................................................................................... 10 

31 Connection to Utility Service ........................................................................................ 10 

32 Utility Connection Exceptions....................................................................................... 12 

33 Abandoned Building Sewer Connections..................................................................... 12 

34 Sampling and Monitoring.............................................................................................. 13 

35 Spills............................................................................................................................. 13 

36 Power and Authority of Inspectors ............................................................................... 15 

37 Offences and Penalties ................................................................................................ 16 

PART 3: WATER UTILITY ........................................................................................................ 18 

38 Water Service Billing Rates.......................................................................................... 18 

39 Connection to City Water Supply ................................................................................. 18




40 Continuous Water Supply not Guaranteed................................................................... 18 

41 Inspection of Premises................................................................................................. 19 

42 Water Use Restrictions................................................................................................. 19 

43 Wastage ....................................................................................................................... 19 

44 Requirement to Use Low-Flow Plumbing Fixtures ....................................................... 20 

45 Use of Water ................................................................................................................20 

46 Investigation into Water Supply Service Failure .......................................................... 21 

47 Pressure Surges .......................................................................................................... 21 

48 Contamination .............................................................................................................. 21 

49 Measurement by Meter ................................................................................................ 22 

50 Meter Installation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 22 

51 Installation Responsiblity.............................................................................................. 22 

52 Meter Chamber ............................................................................................................ 23 

53 Meter Size .................................................................................................................... 23 

54 Bypasses...................................................................................................................... 24 

55 Meter Valving ...............................................................................................................24 

56 Protection of Meter....................................................................................................... 24 

57 Non-Registering Meter ................................................................................................. 25 

58 Testing or Calibration of Disputed Meters.................................................................... 25 

59 Meter Reading.............................................................................................................. 26 

60 Additional Meter Reads................................................................................................ 26 

61 Private Services ........................................................................................................... 26 

62 Use of Groundwater Wells ........................................................................................... 27 

63 Fire Protection Service................................................................................................. 27 

64 Fire Hydrants................................................................................................................ 27 

65 Permt to Use Water from a Fire Hydrant...................................................................... 28 

66 Temporary Water Service ............................................................................................ 28 

67 Thawing Services......................................................................................................... 28 

68 Service Size ................................................................................................................. 29 

69 Boilers .......................................................................................................................... 29 

70 Requested Water Shut Off ........................................................................................... 29 

71 Backflow Preventer ...................................................................................................... 30 

PART 4: WASTEWATER UTILITY ........................................................................................... 31 

72 Wastewater Utility Service Levy and Billing Rates....................................................... 31 

73 Wastewater Connections Exceptions........................................................................... 31 

74 Prohibited Disposal of Wastewater .............................................................................. 31 

75 Cleanouts ..................................................................................................................... 32 

76 Backflow Valves ........................................................................................................... 32 

77 Plugged Wastewater Sewers ....................................................................................... 32 

78 Trees and Roots........................................................................................................... 33 

79 Connection to Wastewater Sewer................................................................................ 33 

80 Storm Water / Ground Water Discharge to Wastewater Sewer ................................... 33 

81 Prohibited Substances in Wastewater.......................................................................... 34 

82 Discharge of Prohibited Substances ............................................................................ 35 

83 Overstrength Surcharge............................................................................................... 36




84 Cost of Sampling.......................................................................................................... 37 

85 Dental Waste Amalgam Separator............................................................................... 37 

86 Grease, Oil, & Solids Interception ................................................................................ 37 

87 Customer Self-monitoring............................................................................................. 38 

88 Manholes...................................................................................................................... 38 

89 Disconnection of Sewer................................................................................................ 39 

90 Private Wastewater Disposal ....................................................................................... 40 

91 Hauled Wastewater...................................................................................................... 40 

92 Best Management Practice .......................................................................................... 40 

PART 5: STORM WATER UTILITY .......................................................................................... 41 

93 Connection to Storm Water Sewer............................................................................... 41 

94 Cleanouts ..................................................................................................................... 41 

95 Backflow Valves ........................................................................................................... 42 

96 Trees and Roots........................................................................................................... 42 

97 Private Storm Water Sewer Systems........................................................................... 42 

98 Prohibited Storm Water Sewer Use in Storm Water .................................................... 42 

99 Discharge of Prohibited Substances ............................................................................ 44 

100 City Storm Water Sewer Use ....................................................................................... 44 

101 Disconnection of Storm Water Sewer .......................................................................... 44 

PART 6: WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITY ............................................................................. 45 

102 Scope of Waste Management Utility ............................................................................ 45 

103 Exclusive Contracts for Waste Management Services................................................. 45 

104 Residental Waste - Detached and Semi-detached Dwelling Units............................... 46 

105 Residental Waste - Multi-family and Multi-attached Buildings...................................... 46 

106 Commerical Waste....................................................................................................... 47 

107 Charges and Fees........................................................................................................ 47 

108 Administration of Solid Waste Services........................................................................ 47 

109 Use of the Solid Waste Utility Service and Disposal Grounds ..................................... 48 

110 Containment of Solid Waste......................................................................................... 49 

111 Disposal of Solid Waste ............................................................................................... 49 

112 Residential Solid Waste Collection............................................................................... 50 

113 Non-Residential Solid Waste........................................................................................ 50 

114 Hazardous Waste, Dangerous Goods, Special Solid Waste........................................ 51 

115 Burning......................................................................................................................... 51 

116 Solid Waste from Outside the City ............................................................................... 51 

PART 7: GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 52 

117 Remainder Enforceable................................................................................................ 52 

118 Effective Date............................................................................................................... 52 

119 Repeal of Previous Bylaw ............................................................................................ 52




SCHEDULE A - DEFINITIONS 

SCHEDULE B - WATER RATES 

SCHEDULE C - WASTEWATER RATES 

SCHEDULE D - BILLING AND SERVICE FEES 

SCHEDULE E - SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES

BYLAW NO. 3464/2011 

Being a Bylaw of The City of Red Deer to provide for the supply and use of the Water, 

Wastewater, Storm Water and Solid Waste utilities of The City of Red Deer. 

Background 

A Council has authority under the Municipal Government Act, to pass bylaws respecting 

the safety, health and welfare of people. Council of the City of Red Deer has deemed it 

appropriate to provide for the establishm ent and operation of certain public utility 

services, including provision for the terms and conditions under which such utilities will 

be provided. 

COUNCIL HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 

PART 1 – SHORT TITLE 

SHORT TITLE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF UTILITIES 

1 (1) This Bylaw may be called "The Utility Bylaw". 

(2) The City of Red Deer hereby establishes the fo llowing municipal utilities: 

Water, Wastewater, Storm Wate r and Waste Management (including 

Recycling). 

PART 2 – GENERAL PROVISIONS 

DEFINITIONS 

2 Words and phrases in this Bylaw shall have the meanings set out in 

Schedule A. 

SUPERVISION 

3 (1) The Utility Services shall be supervised by the City Manager. 

(2) The Director of Development Serv ices (the Director) and the Director of 

Corporate Services (the Treasurer) shall have the powers and duties with 

respect to the Utility Services spec ified in this Bylaw and as otherwise 

specified by the City Manager or Council. 

SUPPLY AND OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

4 (1) All meters and metering equipm ent shall be supplied, owned and 

maintained by The City unless otherwise provided in this Bylaw.

2 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) Notwithstanding the payment by a cu stomer of any cost s incurred by The 

City, The City shall retain full title to all lines, equipment and apparatus on 

its side of the point of delivery, and to all meters and metering equipment 

provided by it. 

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT 

5 A contract for a Utility Service is not transferable and shall remain in full 

force and effect until terminated by the customer or The City as provided 

herein. 

CITY RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY 

6 (1) The City does not guar antee the continuous unint errupted supply of any 

Utility Service but reserves the right to suspend the supply of a Utility 

Service at any time without notice w here required in the maintenance or 

operation of the Utility Service. 

(2) The City and its officers, employees and agents shall not be liable for any 

damages of any kind due to or arising out of: 

(a) 

a failure to provide a Utility Service; 

(b) the interruption of service due to maintenance or operational 

requirements, or due to reasons beyond The City’s control; or 

(c) 

the disconnection of a Utility Service in accordance with this Bylaw. 

APPLICATION FOR SERVICE 

7 (1) Any person who requires a Utility Service shall apply to The City by 

completing an application form and providing such information as The City 

may require, including credit references , confirmation of the identity and 

legal authority of the applicant, and information respecting load and the 

manner in which the services will be utilized. 

(2) The applicant shall pay an application fee as set forth in Schedule D. 

(3) The City may establish procedures fo r the creation of a contract for Utility 

Services by telephone, fax, internet or other electronic means, or may 

require the applicant to sign a contract for service. 

(4) The Utility Service account shall be set up:

3 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

in the name of the owner of the property to which the utilities are to 

be supplied, where the Utilities ar e requested by the owner of the 

property; or 

in the name of the occupant(s) of a property where the Utilities are 

requested by an occupant of the property. Where the occupants 

are tenants, all of the persons named as tenants in the landlordtenant 

agreement shall be jointly and severally liable for the Utility 

account, regardless of which tenant ’s name the account is opened 

in; or 

in the name of the general contract or in the case of a new building 

under construction, where the Utilities are requested by the general 

contractor. 

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (2), t he Treasurer may waive the application 

fee in the case of a mortgage lender wh ich acquires title to a property as 

part of the process of foreclosure. 

(6) Upon making application, providing all information required by The City, 

and paying the application fee, deposit and any other sums required, there 

shall be a binding Utility Service agr eement between the customer and 

The City. The provisions of the app lication form and of this Bylaw shall 

constitute the terms and conditions of such agreement. 

CONDITIONS OF SERVICE 

8 (1) The City is not obliged to supply Utility Services until the account holder 

has provided The City with access to th e premises to wh ich the Utilities 

are to be provided, so to enable The City to inspect the physical 

connections for such Utility and to obt ain an initial meter reading for each 

metered Utility Service. 

(2) No new Utility account will be opened fo r anyone who is already indebted 

to The City for Utility Services unl ess satisfactory arrangements for 

payment of the outstanding amount have been made. 

DEPOSITS 

9 (1) No deposits are required to estab lish a Utility account, except in the 

following cases: 

(a) customers who are unable to establish or maintain 

creditworthiness satisfactory to The City; or

4 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(b) 

where payment of a Utility account in the name of the applicant is in 

arrears; or 

(c) where a Utility service to a pr operty owned or occupied by the 

applicant has been shut off for non-payment of the account; or 

(d) where a cheque received for paym ent of a Utility account in the 

name of the applicant has been retu rned marked "Not Sufficient 

Funds" or "Payment Stopped", or wit h other words indicating that 

the cheque has not been honoured; or 

(e) 

(f) 

where the applicant’s Utility a ccount has been written off as a bad 

debt; or 

where collection proceedings, including legal action or referral to a 

collection agency, have been comm enced in respect of the 

applicant’s previous Utility account; or 

(g) where the applicant has not main tained an existing or previous 

Utility account in good standing; or 

(h) 

in other similar situations, at the discretion of the Treasurer. 

(2) Before a new Utility account is opened, the applicant shall pay all amounts 

owed to The City for any other Utility accounts, and shall also provide a 

guarantee of payment in the form of a cash deposit, money order, or 

certified cheque in the amount set forth in Schedule D. Alternately, In the 

case of large industrial customers, The City may accept an irrevocable 

letter of credit or guarantee from a financial institution. 

(3) Customers opening a new account due to a change of residence within 

the City shall, if a depos it was required for the applicant’s previous 

account, be charged a deposit on the new account. 

(4) The Treasurer may waive the require ment for a deposit if the Treasurer is 

satisfied as to the creditworthiness of the applicant. 

(5) The City may apply a deposit to the balance outstanding under the 

customer’s Utility account. 

INTEREST ON DEPOSITS 

10 Interest on each customer’s cash security deposit shall be calculated

5 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

annually and credited, not in advance, at the rate specified to be paid on 

security deposits under the Residential Tenancy Act, RSA 2000, Ch. R-17. 

REFUND OF DEPOSIT 

11 When a customer has establis hed and maintained creditworthiness 

satisfactory to The City, or upon te rmination of the Ut ility contract, the 

deposit shall be refunded together with accrued interest, after deducting 

all charges outstanding, including the cost of shutting off or discontinuing 

any Utility Service for non-payment. 

SERVICE CHARGE 

12 When a customer requests that The City attend at the property to which 

the Utility service is being supplied with respect to any matter relating to 

the supply of Utility services or the se rvicing of the same, and if for any 

reason whatsoever The City is unable to enter the said premises, or if the 

call is for failure of service not attri butable to The City, the customer shall 

pay a service charge fee as set forth in Schedule D. 

AFTER HOURS CALLS 

13 The customer shall pay the applicabl e after hours fee as set forth in 

Schedule D for service calls after 4: 00 p.m. or before 7:30 a.m., Monday 

through Friday, or on a Saturday, Sunday , or statutory or civic holiday. 

The after hours fee shall also apply if a meter is required to be installed or 

connected, or should a Ut ility Service be required to be disconnected or 

reconnected during such times. 

DISCONNECTION 

14 The customer shall pay a disconnec tion service charge as set forth in 

Schedule D where a service call is m ade to disconnect a Utility service at 

the request of the customer. 

RECONNECTION 

15 The customer shall pay a reconnec tion service charge as set forth in 

Schedule D where a service call is made for the purpose of restoring 

discontinued services. 

WINTER INSTALLATION 

16 The cost payable by the custom er for installing a service between

6 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

November 1 st of any year and May 15 of the following year shall be 

increased by the amount set forth in Schedule D. 

th 

UTILITY CHARGES AND PAYMENT OF UTILITY ACCOUNTS 

17 (1) The rates and charges for Utility Services shall be those set out in the 

Schedules to this Bylaw or as otherwise established by resolution of 

Council from time to time. 

(2) All rates and charges shall be paid to The City within the time prescribed 

by this Bylaw. 

(3) The whole amount owing in a Utilit y account is due and payable on the 

due date stated on the Utility bill and the account will be deemed to be in 

arrears if payment is not made on or before the due date. A customer is 

responsible to pay the amounts owing in a Utility bill whether or not the 

customer has received it. 

(4) The City may discontinue the supply of all or any Utility services when a 

customer has not paid t he full Utility account on or before the due date. 

Utility services will not be reinstated unt il all arrears and charges owed to 

The City are paid, or until payment arrangements satisfactory to the 

Treasurer have been made. 

BILLING ERRORS 

18 Where a customer has been charged le ss or more than they should have 

been charged for Utility Services pr ovided, The City will review the 

account and make corrections for the b illing errors for up to a maximum of 

12 months prior to the date the error is discovered. Corrections will not be 

made for billing errors in respect of Utility Services provided more than 

one year prior to the date the billing error is discovered. 

LATE PAYMENT PENALTY 

19 When the customer pays the utility account after the due date stated in the 

account (or after such other due date as may be approved by the 

Treasurer), whether the payment is made at a financial institution or 

directly to The City, the custom er shall pay a penalty on the overdue 

balance as set forth in Schedule D. 

NOVELTY PAYMENT METHODS 

20 The City may refuse to accept a payment by way of a cheque drawn on a

7 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

form other than a bank cheque form (a Novelty Cheque), but where The 

City does so, the customer shall be liable for and pay to The City all 

charges and costs incurred to proce ss the Novelty Cheque. The City will 

follow the Bank of Canada rules and r egulations of currency acceptance 

limitations in respect of payment by cash. 

INTERIM UTILITY BILL 

21 (1) Where The City has not measured the amount of a metered Utility service, 

it may issue an interim Utility bill based on estimated consumption and 

shall credit Utility accounts for all payments made by a customer against 

such interim bill. 

(2) Where any service rate or charge is designated by reference to a time 

certain, the charge for a lesser period of time shall be calculated on a 

proportionate basis. 

ENFORCEMENT 

22 The Treasurer is authorized to collect all accounts owing to The City under 

this Bylaw, and may take any of the measures a municipality is authorized 

to take under the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, Chap M-26. 

APPEALS 

23 A customer who feel s aggrieved in respect of rates charged to that 

customer under this Bylaw on the gr ounds that such rates are unfair, 

unreasonable or discriminatory, may appeal such rates to the Red Deer 

Appeal & Review Board by a notic e specifying the grounds of the 

complaint submitted in accordance wit h the provisions outlined in the 

Committees Bylaw. 

REASONABLE NOTICE 

24 The City shall provide written notice to a customer of any breach of this 

Bylaw which may result in The City discontinuing Utility Services. Such 

notice shall be delivered at least 10 da ys prior to discontinuance of Utility 

Services and shall be sent to the customer as follows: 

(a) in the case of a customer w ho is known to be a tenant at the 

premises, the notice shall be sent to the address of the premises; 

and 

(b) 

in the case of a customer w ho owns the property, the notice shall

8 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

be sent to the address of the prem ises and the address provided in 

the application for service, if different. 

TERMINATION BY CUSTOMER 

25 (1) A customer is responsible for all charges accruing to the customer’s Utility 

account until such time as the custom er notifies The City that the account 

is to be closed, whether due to a change in the ownership or the 

occupancy of the property to which the Utilities are being supplied. 

(2) When a customer gives notice to The City that the customer’s account is 

to be closed, The City shall obtain a fi nal reading of any meter as soon as 

reasonably practical and the customer shall be liable for and pay for all 

service supplied prior to such reading. The City may base the final charge 

for service on an estimated meter r eading which will be pr orated from the 

time of an actual meter reading. 

TERMINATION BY THE CITY UPON NOTICE 

26 The City may discontinue the supply of any Utility Service for any of the 

following reasons, after notice has been given pursuant to Section 24: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

non-payment of any Utility accounts; 

inability of The City to obtain acce ss to premises to read or inspect 

any meter; 

failure or refusal of a customer to comply with any provision of this 

Bylaw; 

failure or refusal of a customer to comply with the provisions of any 

statute or regulation, including the Alberta Building Code; or 

in any other case provided for in this Bylaw. 

TERMINATION WITHOUT NOTICE 

27 (1) The City may discontinue the suppl y of a Utility Service without prior 

notice for any of the following reasons: 

(a) 

(b) 

at the request of the account holder for discontinuance of service; 

failure by, or refusal of, a cust omer to comply with any order given 

by the Director under this Bylaw;

9 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(c) 

in any other case provided for in this Bylaw. 

(2) The City may discontinue the suppl y of the Water Utility Service without 

prior notice for any of the reasons lis ted above or for any of the following 

reasons: 

(a) 

(b) 

if the customer has caused, permitted or allowed any piping, fixture, 

fitting, container or other appliance to be or remain connected to the 

water supply system which allows or has the potential to allow water 

from a source other than the Wate r Utility or any ot her harmful or 

Deleterious liquid or substance to enter the Water Utility; 

failure by a customer to not ify The City within 24 hours after the 

seal on a bypass is broken; 

(c) failure by a customer to repai r or replace a Backflow Preventer 

within ninety-six (96) hours of being so directed by the Director; or 

(d) in the event of an emergency or water shortage as the Director 

deems necessary. 

TERMINATION DUE TO VACANT PREMISES 

28 When the premises to which Utility Services is provided become vacant 

and no new application for servic e has been made, The City may 

terminate the contract and: 

(a) 

(b) 

disconnect the Utility Service; or 

in lieu of disconnecting the serv ice, open a new utility account in 

the name of the owner and charge the fee set forth in Schedule D to 

open the account. Nothing herein s hall prevent t he owner from 

requesting that The City disconnect such Utility Service provided 

the owner pays the service charge prescribed herein. 

AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER PREMISES TO TERMINATE SERVICE 

29 (1) In accordance with the Municipal Go vernment Act, the Director may, after 

giving reasonable notice to the owner or occupier of the property, enter 

any property upon which a meter or s hut-off valve is situated for the 

purpose of terminating the supply of a Utility Service to that property, or for 

the purpose of supplying a Utility Service to that property.

10 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) The City may tow vehicles blocki ng Utility Service shut off valves and 

manholes and may charge the vehicle owner for the cost of the towing. 

SERVICE KILL 

30 No person shall cause, permit or allow a building to be demolished or 

removed until Utility Services to the property are disconnected and any fee 

for such disconnection has been paid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the 

Director may, in circumstances whic h the Director considers appropriate, 

permit the service to remain connected to the Utility Service line or main. 

CONNECTION TO UTILITY SERVICE 

31 (1) Within one year after a Utility Serv ice becomes available, the owner of 

every building situated on land abutting on any street in which there is a 

Water Main or a Wastewater Sewer, shall at the owner’s expense connect 

such building to the water system and install sanitation facilities, where 

available, and connect the building to the Wastewater Sewer systems in 

accordance with the requirements and standards set out in the Alberta 

Building Code and elsewhere in this Bylaw. 

(2) The owner shall provide The City wit h a completed application in the form 

approved by the Director for a permit to make such connection. The 

application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications, or other 

information required by the Director. 

(3) The owner of a parcel of land in respect of which no Offsite Levy for Water 

or Wastewater has been paid to The City, shall, in addition to the fees 

otherwise specified in this Bylaw, pay a connection fee as follows: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

in the case of a single-family parcel, a fee in an amount equal to the 

current per hectare Offsite Levy charge for the Water and 

Wastewater services provided, mult iplied by the actual area of the 

parcel or 0.12 ha, whichever is less. 

where such a single-family parcel is subsequently subdivided and a 

new Water or Wastewater Service Connection is required for the 

subdivided parcel, the owner sha ll pay a separate connection fee 

for each subdivided parcel, in an am ount equal to the current per 

hectare Offsite Levy charge for the Water and Wastewater services 

provided, multiplied by the act ual area of the un-subdivided parcel 

less the area set out in subsection (a) above; 

in the case of a multi-family or non-residential parcel, a fee in an

11 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

amount equal to the curr ent per hectare Offsite Levy charge for the 

Water and Wastewater services provided, calculated on the area of 

the parcel in question. 

(4) The connection fee specified in s ubsection (3) above shall not apply to 

any parcel in respect of which The City has otherwise received or made 

arrangements to receive payment of an equivalent amount. 

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Director shall have the discretion to 

extend the period of time within which the connection to the Water Main, 

or Wastewater Sewer must be made for such period of time as the 

Director considers is reasonable and subject to review every 5 years or 

less, provided that such extension of time is c onsistent with City policies 

and Council direction, and also provided that the failure to connect: 

(a) will not jeopardize the health or safety of the occupants of the 

building or of other City residents; 

(b) 

will not adversely affect the integr ity or operation of those utilities; 

and 

(c) will not present an undue risk of damage to property or the 

environment. 

(6) A person who has been directed to connect their building to a Utility 

Service shall have the right to appeal the direction to the Red Deer Appeal 

& Review Board by a notice submitt ed within 14 days of the date that the 

direction to connect has been served, in accordance with the provisions 

outlined in the Committees Bylaw. On hearing such appeal, the Board 

may vary, suspend or rescind such di rection on such terms as it deems 

appropriate. 

(7) At such time as the owner connects to a Utility Service, the owner shall 

also open a utility account and make pay ment of all application fees and 

deposits that may be required under this Bylaw. 

(8) No person may connect to a Utility Service until such time as payment has 

been made to The City by the property ow ner or prior owner in respect of 

the cost of construction of the Utilit y Service (including carrying charges) 

to serve the land owned or occupied by that person, or until such person 

has made other arrangements satisfactory to The City to pay that person’s 

proportionate share of those costs. 

(9) No person shall uncover, make any connections with or opening into, use,

12 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

alter, or disturb any Water Mains, City Service Connections, Wastewater 

Sewer, Storm Water Sewer or appur tenances thereof, unless authorized 

by the Director. 

(10) All Water Mains, Wastewater Se wers, and Storm Water Sewers located 

within The City’s property, right-of-way, or easement shall be constructed 

by The City’s forces or its contractors and shall be maintained by The City. 

(11) All Private Service Connections, Wastewater Sewers, and Storm Water 

infrastructure and facilities on privat e property shall be constructed and 

maintained by the owner’s forces at his expense in accordance with the 

requirements of this Bylaw and the Alberta Building Code. 

UTILITY CONNECTION EXCEPTIONS 

32 (1) All owners of property fronting on 65 Avenue between 67 Street and 

Taylor Drive shall, prior to the hook-up of water, Storm Water, or 

Wastewater Sewer services, and as a condition of such services, pay of 

the following sums of money to The City, namely: 

(a) a sum equal to the off-site water charges, Storm Water, or 

Wastewater Sewer levy based on the ra te in force as of the date of 

the water, Storm Water or Wastewater Sewer connections 

established under The City’s Off-Site Levy Bylaw; and 

(b) 

the estimated cost of the construction of small diameter Water Main 

and hydrants, Storm Water, or Wastewater Sewers and manholes 

and all appurtenances thereto, constructed along and in 65 Avenue 

between 67 Street and Tayl or Drive, distributed on the assessable 

frontage along 65 Avenue and pro-rated to the owner based on the 

frontage of the owner's land as it relates to the total assessable 

frontage aforesaid. All such cost s shall be calculated as at the 

current City costs in force as of the date of hooki ng up the water, 

Storm Water, or Sewer service to the owner's property. 

ABANDONED BUILDING SEWER CONNECTIONS 

33 When any Wastewater or Storm Water Private Sewer Connection is 

abandoned, the owner of the property shall effectively block up the 

connection at a suitable location wit hin their property to prevent 

Wastewater or Storm Water from backing up into the soil or from dirt being 

washed into the City Sewer Connection.

13 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

SAMPLING AND MONITORING 

34 (1) Where sampling is required fo r the purposes of determining the 

concentration of constituents in the Wastewater or Storm Water, the 

sample may: 

(a) 

(b) 

be collected manually or by usin g an automatic sampling device; 

and 

contain additives for its preservation. 

(2) For the purpose of determining co mpliance with this Bylaw, discrete 

Wastewater or Storm Water streams within premises may be sampled, at 

the discretion of the Inspector. 

(3) The owner or operator of any indus trial, commercial or Institutional 

premises or multi-storey residential building shall at all times ensure that 

every Monitoring Access Point as requir ed by this Bylaw is accessible to 

the Inspector for the purposes of observing, sampling and flow 

measurement. 

(4) Any single Grab Sample may be used to determine compliance with any 

provision of this Bylaw. 

(5) All tests, measurements, analyses and examinations of Wastewater or 

Storm Water, its characteristics or contents pursuant to this Bylaw shall be 

carried out in accordance with St andard Methods and be performed by a 

laboratory accredited for analysis of t he particular substance(s) using a 

method which is within t he laboratory’s scope of accreditation or to the 

satisfaction of the Inspector as agreed in writing prior to sample analysis. 

(6) The following businesses require Sampling Ports when it is not possible to 

install a Monitoring Access Point: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

dental offices; 

businesses using photographic processing equipment; or 

any other businesses deemed necessary by the Inspector. 

SPILLS 

35 (1) In the event of a Spill on the ground or to a Wastewater and/or Storm 

Water sewers, the person responsible for the Spill or the person having

14 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

the charge, management and control of the Spill shall immediately notify 

and provide any requested information with regard to the Spill to: 

(a) 

(b) 

911 emergency if there is any immediate danger to human health 

and/or safety; or 

if there is no immediate danger: 

(i) The City by contacting the En vironmental Services Source 

Control 24 Hour # 403-342-8750; 

(ii) the owner of the premises where the release occurred; and 

(iii) any other person whom the person reporting knows or ought 

to know may be directly affected by the release. 

(2) Thereafter, that person shall prov ide a detailed report on the Spill to The 

City, within five working days afte r the Spill, containing the following 

information to the best of their knowledge: 

(a) 

name and telephone number of t he person who reported the Spill 

and the location and time where they can be contacted; 

(b) location where Spill occurred; dat e and time of Spill; material 

spilled; characteristics and composit ion of material spilled; volume 

of material spilled; duration of Spill event; 

(c) 

(d) 

work completed and any work still in progress in the mitigation of 

the Spill; 

preventive actions being taken to ensure a similar Spill does not 

occur again; and copies of co mpleted Spill prevention and Spill 

response plan. 

(3) The person responsible for the Spill and the person having the charge, 

management and control of the Sp ill shall do everything reasonably 

possible to contain the Spill, protect the health and safety of citizens, 

minimize damage to property, protec t the environment, clean up the Spill 

and contaminated residue, and restore the affected area to its condition 

prior to the Spill. 

(4) Nothing in this Bylaw relieves any persons from complying with any 

notification or reporting provisions of: 

(a) 

other government agencies, including federal and provincial 

agencies, as required and appropriate for the material and 

circumstances of the Spill; or

15 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(b) 

any other Bylaw of The City. 

(5) The City may invoice the person res ponsible for the Spill to recover all 

costs arising as a result of the Sp ill and such person shall pay the costs 

invoiced. 

(6) The City may require the person re sponsible for the Spill to prepare and 

submit a Spill contingency plan to indica te how risk of future incidents will 

be reduced and how future incidents will be addressed. 

POWER AND AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS 

36 (1) An Inspector or other designated officer of The City may in accordance 

with this Bylaw and the Municipal Government Act: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspection, observation, 

measurement, sampling and test ing in accordance with the 

provisions of this Bylaw. 

take samples of Wastewater, Storm Water, clear-water waste and 

Subsurface Water being released from the premises or flowing 

within a private drainage system; 

perform on-site testing of the Wastewater, Storm Water, clear-water 

waste and Subsurface Water within or being released from private 

drainage systems, Pre-treatment facilities and Storm Water 

management facilities; 

make inspections of the types and quantities of chemicals being 

handled or used on the premises in re lation to possible release to a 

drainage system or watercourse; 

require information from any person, inspect and copy documents 

or remove documents from premis es to make copies, concerning 

any potential violation of this bylaw; 

inspect chemical storage areas and Spill containment facilities and 

request Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for materials stored or 

used on site; 

(g) inspect the premises where a re lease of prohibited or restricted 

wastes or of water containing prohi bited or restricted wastes has 

been made or is suspected of having been made, and to sample

16 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

any or all matter that in their 

release. 

opinion could have been part of the 

(2) Where an inspection discloses any fa ilure, omission, or neglect respecting 

any Utility Service upon the customer's premises, or discloses any defect 

in the location, construction, design or maintenance of any facility or any 

connection there from to the Utility Service, the person making such 

inspection shall, in writing, notif y the customer, owner, proprietor or 

occupier to rectify the cause of complaint within a reasonable time as 

determined by the Director. Such not ified person shall within the time 

limited rectify such cause of complaint stated in the notice. 

(3) No person shall hinder or prevent t he Inspector or designated officer of 

The City from carrying out any of their powers or duties. 

(4) The City may serve any person who is in violation of any provision of this 

Bylaw with written notice stating the nature of t he violation and requiring 

the satisfactory correction thereof within 48 hours, or within such 

additional time as required by this By law or as determined by the Director. 

Such person shall, within the time st ated in such notice, permanently 

cease all violations. 

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES 

37 (1) Any person who: 

(a) 

breaches any of the following sections of this Bylaw: 

(i) Section 31, Connection to Utility Service; 

(ii) Section 35, Spills; 

(iii) Section 74, Prohibited Disposal of Wastewater; 

(iv) Section 80, Storm Wate r / Ground Water Discharge to 

Wastewater Sewer; 

(v) Section 81, Prohibited Substances in Wastewater; 

(vi) Section 83 (3), Overstrength Surcharge; 

(vii) Section 85, Dental Waste Amalgam Separator; 

(viii) Section 86, Grease, Oil, & Solids Interception; 

(ix) Section 87 (2), Customer Self-Monitoring; 

(x) Section 91, Hauled Wastewater; 

(xi) Section 98, Prohibited Storm Water Sewer Use; 

(xii) Section 99 (1), Discharge of Prohibited Substances; or 

(xiii) Section 114, Hazardous Wa ste, Dangerous Goods, Special 

Waste;

17 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(b) fails to act in compliance and accordance with any notice given 

under this Bylaw; 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

obstructs an Inspector; 

releases Wastewater improperly; 

discharges water, without a permi t, to the Wastewater or Storm 

Water Sewer systems that was not provided by The City; or 

knowingly makes false statements, records, reports, plans or other 

documents filed or required to be maintained pursuant to this 

Bylaw, or falsifies, tampers wit h or knowingly renders inaccurate 

any monitoring device or method required under this Bylaw 

shall be guilty of an offence and upon summary conviction shall be liable 

to pay court costs plus a penalty of: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

$1,000 for the first occurrence of such offence; 

$2,500 per occurrence for any subsequent occurrence; and 

in default of payment of the penalty, to imprisonment for up 

to 6 months. 

(2) Any person who breeches any other pr ovision of this Bylaw shall be guilty 

of an offence and upon summary convic tion shall be liable to pay court 

costs plus a penalty of: 

(a) 

(b) 

$100 for the first occurrence of such offence; 

$500 per occurrence for any subsequent occurrence of the offence; 

and 

(c) in default of payment of t he penalty, imprisonment for up to 30 

days. 

(3) Where a person commits a breach of this Bylaw which is of an on-going 

and continuing nature, he shall be liable to a fine of $2,500 per day or part 

thereof during which such offence occurs or continues. 

(4) A Peace Officer or Bylaw Enfo rcement Officer who has reasonable 

grounds to believe that a person has contravened any provision of this 

Bylaw, may serve upon such pers on an offence ticket allowing the

18 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

payment of the specified penalty to The City which payment will constitute 

a guilty plea and shall be accepted by T he City in lieu of prosecution for 

the offence. 

PART 3 - WATER UTILITY 

WATER SERVICE BILLING RATES 

38 (1) A Water Utility customer shall pay the amounts specified in this Bylaw 

and in Schedules B and D for all water supplied and Water Utility services 

provided. 

(2) The Director shall determine which rate in Schedule B and D shall apply to 

any particular customer. 

(3) The rate payable by a customer as set out in Schedule B of this Bylaw for 

all water supplied shall be determined by reference to the size and the 

reading of the water meter supplied to each customer. 

(4) Where a Remote Reading Device is installed in addition to the water 

meter, the water meter shall be used to determine the official reading. 

CONNECTION TO CITY WATER SUPPLY 

39 In the case of a new Private Service Connection to a City Service 

Connection that is 38 mm or larger in diameter, the customer shall 

provide, at the customer ’s expense, proof of satisfactory bacteriological 

test results (as per ANSI/AWWA C 651-05) for the service, from a 

laboratory accredited to perform such tests by the Province of Alberta. 

CONTINUOUS WATER SUPPLY NOT GUARANTEED 

40 (1) The City does not guarantee the pre ssure nor the continuous supply of 

water and The City reserves the right at any and all times without notice to 

change operating water pressures and to s hut off water. The City and its 

officers, employees and agents shall not be liable for any damages of any 

kind due to changes in water pressure, the shutting off of water, or by 

reason of the water containing sediments, deposits or other foreign matter. 

(2) Customers depending upon a continuous and uninterrupted supply or 

pressure of water or having proc esses or equipment that require 

particularly clear or pure water sha ll provide such facilities as they 

consider necessary to ensure a c ontinuous and uninterrupted supply or 

pressure or quality of water required for their use.

19 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

INSPECTION OF PREMISES 

41 (1) The City may inspect the premises of a customer who applies to The City 

for the supply of water in order to determine if it is advisable to supply 

water to such customer. 

(2) The City may, with the permission of the customer, inspect the premises 

of the customer in order to do any tests on water piping or fixtures 

belonging to such customer so as to determine if this Bylaw is being 

complied with and in the event that such customer fails or refuses to give 

such permission, the supply of water to that customer may be shut off. 

WATER USE RESTRICTIONS 

42 (1) The Director may, at such times and for such lengths of time as the 

Director considers necessary or advisable, regulate, restrict or prohibit the 

use of water for use other than hum an consumption. The Director may 

cause the water supply to any customer who causes, permits or allows 

irrigation, wastage, exterior washing, or other non-human consumption in 

contravention of any such regulation, restriction or prohibition to be shut 

off until the customer undertakes to abide by and comply with such 

regulation, restriction or prohibition. 

(2) No customer shall operate, use, interfere with, obstruct or impede access 

to the Water Utility Service or any portion thereof in any manner not 

expressly permitted by this Bylaw, in default of which the Director may 

cause the water being supplied to such customer to be shut off until such 

customer complies with all of the provisions of this Bylaw. 

WASTAGE 

43 (1) No customer shall cause, permit or allow the discharge of water so that it 

runs waste or useless, whether by reason of leakage from Private Service 

Connection, a faulty plumbing system or otherwise. 

(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, t he Director may under such condition as 

the Director may consider reasonable allow water discharge for the 

purposes of: 

(a) the installation and maintenance of infrastructure, including the 

flushing of Water Mains, hydrant leads and City Service 

Connections to prevent stagnation and/or to remove Deleterious 

materials;

20 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

preventing the freezing of Water Mains, hydrants leads, irrigation 

systems and services connections; 

conducting water flow tests; 

fire fighting and associated training programs; or 

other purposes as deemed necessary by the Director. 

REQUIREMENT TO USE LOW-FLOW PLUMBING FIXTURES 

44 (1) Any person installing plumbing fixtur es for any new construction or 

renovation project that requires a plumbing permit for a residential, 

commercial, industrial, or Institutional structure shall install only Low-flow 

Plumbing Fixtures. 

(2) The requirements of subsection (1) s hall not apply to plumbing facilities 

installed for safety or emergency purposes including emergency safety 

showers and face / eye wash stations. 

USE OF WATER 

45 (1) No customer shall: 

(a) 

sell water supplied hereunder; 

(b) use or apply any water to the us e or benefit of others or to any 

other than the customer’s own use and benefit; 

(c) 

(d) 

increase the usage of wate r beyond that agreed upon with The 

City; or 

extract or remove any water from any hydrant within the City; 

without first obtaining written permissi on from the Director and subject to 

such reasonable conditions as the Director may impose with respect to the 

quantity, price and times of withdrawal of the water so used. 

(2) During such periods as the Cit y Manager may designate by notice 

published in a newspaper in the City, 

(a) no customer shall use, permit, or allow to be used, any water 

supplied to any premises, t he numerical address of which

21 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(excluding street name) ends in odd number, for vehicle washing, 

lawn watering or other irrigation purposes on any day of the month 

which is an even number; 

(b) no customer shall use, permit, or allow to be used any water 

supplied to any premises, t he numerical address of which 

(excluding street name) ends in an even number for vehicle 

washing, lawn watering, or other irrigation purposes, on any day of 

the month which is an odd number; 

(3) During such period as The City by notice published in a newspaper may 

designate, no customer shall use, pe rmit, or allow to be used, any water 

supplied to any premises for vehicl e washing, lawn watering or other 

irrigation purposes. 

INVESTIGATION INTO WATER SUPPLY SERVICE FAILURE 

46 (1) Any customer that notifies The City of a failure or interruption of water 

supply, the investigation of which nec essitates the excavating of a street 

shall, prior to excavating, deposit wit h the Treasurer the costs thereof as 

estimated by the Director, or sign a work order, agreeing to pay such 

costs, at the discretion of the Director. 

(2) If such failure or interruption was caused by the City Service Connection 

the customer shall not be liable for such costs and any deposit paid shall 

be refunded. 

(3) If such failure or interruption was caused by the Private Service, the actual 

cost of such work shall be paid by the customer and the deposit shall be 

applied thereto; any excess shall be refunded to the customer and any 

deficiency shall be collected in the same manner as water rates. 

PRESSURE SURGES 

47 No customer shall cause, permit or allow any apparatus fitting or fixture to 

be or remain connected to the custom er’s water supply or to be operated 

which causes pressure surges or other disturbances which may in the 

opinion of the Director, result in damage to other cust omers or to the 

Water Utility Service. 

CONTAMINATION 

48 No customer shall cause, permit or allow to be or remain connected to the 

customer’s water supply system any pipi ng, fixture, fitti ng, container or

22 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

other appliance which may cause wate r from a source other than the 

Water Utility Service or any liquid or substance to enter the Water Utility 

Service. The Director may cause t he water supply to any customer 

contravening the provisions of this se ction to be shut o ff provided that the 

Director shall, if the Director considers it practicable so to do, give notice 

to such customer prior to such wa ter supply being shut off. The water 

supply to such customer shall not be restored until such customer has 

paid to The City all costs associated with the shutting off of the water 

supply, the cleanup of contamination and the remedying of the customer's 

default under this section. 

MEASUREMENT BY METER 

49 All water supplied by The City to a customer shall be measured by a meter 

unless otherwise provided for in this Bylaw. 

METER INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE 

50 (1) Customers who require the installation of more than one meter shall pay a 

fee as set forth in Schedule D for each additional meter. 

(2) The City may change a customer’s me ter(s) with notice given pursuant to 

Section 24. 

INSTALLATION RESPONSIBILITY 

51 (1) Water meters supplied by The Cit y which are 50 millimet res in size or 

smaller shall be installed by The City with no direct charge to the 

customer. 

(2) Water meters supplied by The City which are larger than 50 millimetres in 

size shall be installed at the expense of the customer. 

(3) The customer shall provide for the installation of a water meter to the 

satisfaction of the Director and when required shall inst all a properly 

valved bypass. 

(4) For water meter installation within a building, the customer shall provide a 

suitable site for such installation near a main shut off, to the satisfaction of 

the Director and in accordance with the City of Red Deer Design 

Guidelines. 

(5) The customer shall ensure that employees or agents of The City have 

clear access to meter areas and wate r meters for meter testing and

23 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

reading purposes. 

(6) Unless the Director otherwise approves, The City shall not be obligated to 

supply more than one water meter for any one building. If additional water 

meters are approved, a separate cu rb stop will be required for each 

additional water meter. 

(7) A separate water meter shall be installed for each of the two dwelling units 

contained within a duplex residential building and a separate curb stop will 

be required for each water meter. 

(8) Any customer whose water is not metered, or whose meter is not 

positioned to the satisfaction of the Dir ector, shall make proper provision 

for a meter to be installed or the me ter to be moved as the case may be, 

all costs of which shall be paid by the customer. 

METER CHAMBER 

52 When in the opinion of the Director, the premises to be supplied with water 

are too far from the City Service Connection to conveniently install a meter 

in the premises, or if a number of buildings are to be so supplied or for any 

other reason in the opinion of the Directo r, then the customer shall, at the 

customer’s sole cost, construct and ma intain a container for a meter and 

such container shall in all respects including location, construction size, 

access and otherwise howsoever be satisfactory to the Director. 

METER SIZE 

53 The size of the meters shall be determined as follows: 

(a) 

if the internal diameter of t he Private Service is 25 millimetres or 

less, a 16 millimetre meter shall be used; or 

(b) if the internal diameter of the Private Service exceeds 25 

millimetres, the size of the mete r shall be one size smaller than the 

size of the Private Service; or 

(c) 

if the Private Service is a Comb ined Service, the internal diameter 

of the Private Service branch to be used for purposes other than 

fire protection shall determine the meter size as set out in 

subsections (a) and (b) of this section. 

BYPASSES

24 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

54 Any customer having a water meter 50 m illimetres in size or larger shall at 

the customer’s own expense construc t and maintain a properly valved 

bypass satisfactory to the Director which bypass shall be sealed by The 

City and shall be opened by the customer only in case of emergency. The 

customer shall notify The City within 24 hours after the seal on the bypass 

is broken, failing which the Director may cause the water supply to such 

customer to be shut off until sati sfactory arrangements have been made 

for the calculation of and payment fo r water supplied and not recorded on 

the meter. 

METER VALVING 

55 Any customer having a meter smaller than 50 millimetres in size shall, at 

the customer’s sole cost and expense, supply and maintain valves on both 

sides of and within 300 millimetres of the meter. 

PROTECTION OF METER 

56 (1) The customer shall provide adequate protection for the meter supplied by 

The City and any associated valves or pipes against freezing, heat or any 

other internal or external damage of any kind which may affect the 

operation of the water meter or mete rs, failing which the customer shall 

pay to The City all costs associated with the repair of such meter or 

associated valves & pipes which amount shall be recoverable in the same 

manner as all other costs and charges provided for under this Bylaw. 

(2) No person other than an author ized City employee shall remove, 

disconnect, reconnect or tamper with a meter. 

(3) The customer shall notify the Dir ector immediately whenever a water 

meter is not operating or if any part of a meter becomes damaged or 

broken. 

(4) The customer is responsible for t he safe keeping of any water meter and 

any Remote Reading Device that is installed on the customer’s premises. 

(5) The customer shall pay the cost of repairing or replacing any water meter 

or metering accessories supplied and in stalled by The City that may be 

damaged from any causes or any other cause within the control of the 

owner. 

(6) The customer shall notify the Direc tor within 24 hours if the seal on the 

bypass valve or a water meter is broken for emergency purposes or any 

other purpose.

25 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

NON-REGISTERING METER 

57 (1) If, upon the reading of a meter, it is determined that the meter has failed to 

accurately record the consumption of the Utility Service supplied then the 

consumption will be estimated upon such basis that the Director considers 

to be fair and equitable and the account rendered pursuant to Section 18. 

(2) Where it has been determined by The Cit y that the meter is not accurately 

recording the consumption of a Utilit y Service, The City may enter the 

premises to replace the meter, on notice to the customer pursuant to 

Section 24. 

TESTING OR CALIBRATION OF DISPUTED METERS 

58 (1) A customer who disputes a meter r eading shall give written notice to The 

City. 

(2) Following receipt of written notic e; the water meter situated on the 

customer's premises s hall be tested or calibrated by a qualified person 

designated by the Director. If the mete r is found to be accurate within 

98.5% to 101.5% of the water passing through it, the expense of such test 

or calibration shall be borne by the cust omer in the amou nt designated in 

Schedule D. 

(3) If the meter is found not accurate wit hin the above limits it shall forthwith 

be repaired or be replaced by one t hat is accurate and the expense 

thereof shall be borne by The City. 

(4) If a meter is found not to be accura te within the aforesaid limits then any 

meter handling and testing fees paid by the customer shall be refunded, 

and the billings adjusted. 

(5) Where an examination of past mete r readings or other information does 

not disclose the time at which the meter error commenced, then the meter 

error shall be deemed to have commenced three months prior to the date 

the meter was tested or from the dat e upon which the meter was installed, 

whichever is less. 

METER READING 

59 (1) A customer shall permit The City to perform meter reading using 

automated monitoring equipment.

26 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) The City shall endeavour to read the meters of non-residential customers 

once every month and to read the mete rs of residential customers once 

every two months, or at such ot her intervals as are reasonable and 

practicable under the circumstances. If The City cannot gain access 

safely to read the meter as afores aid, the consumpt ion of the Utility 

Service shall be estimated upon such bas is as the Treasurer considers to 

be fair and equitable and the account re ndered in accordance with such 

estimate. Each meter shall be read at least once per year and if such 

reading cannot be obtained, The City may discontinue any or all Utility 

Services supplied to the premises, unt il such time as The City is able to 

obtain an actual meter reading. 

(3) The Director may shut off the water supply to a customer who refuses to 

provide a water meter reading or acce ss to perform a water meter reading 

after notice has been given pursuant to Section 24. 

(4) The customer shall ensure that acce ss to the meter is safe, well lit, and 

free of hazards to the person reading the meter. 

(5) The City may require a water meter to be either tested on site or removed 

for testing by a person authorized by The City at any time. The City may 

discontinue any or all Utilit y Services supplied to the premises until such 

time as a person authorized by The Cit y is able to obtain access to test 

the meter or remove it for testing. 

ADDITIONAL METER READS 

60 When a customer requests a mete r reading at a time other than the 

regular scheduled time for meter readi ng, the customer may be assessed 

a fee as set forth in Schedule D for su ch reading. Provided, however, if 

upon such reading, it is determined that the previous billed meter reading 

is incorrect, no fee shall be required. 

PRIVATE SERVICES 

61 All persons doing any work or serv ice upon a Private Service or the 

plumbing system attached to it shall comply with the provisions of the 

Alberta Building Code and any applicable bylaws. A Private Service shall 

be buried to a depth of at least 2.7 metres to prevent freezing. 

USE OF GROUNDWATER WELLS 

62 Once a parcel of land is connec ted to City Water Service, any 

groundwater wells within such property must be abandoned unless

27 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

otherwise approved in writ ing by the Director. Such approval would be 

subject to cross-connection contro l, flow measurement and periodic 

inspection, as stipulated by the Director. 

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE 

63 (1) A Fire Line shall be used only for fire protection purposes and a water line 

which provides combined domestic service and Fire Line service shall not 

be installed without the prior approval of the Fire Chief. 

(2) The Director shall determine whether or not a meter shall be affixed to a 

Fire Line. If required, the meter shall be supplied and installed in a 

manner satisfactory to the Director at the customer’s expense. 

FIRE HYDRANTS 

64 (1) Unless authorized by the Director, no person shall: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

open or close any fire hydrant or valve; 

connect any device of any kind to a fire hydrant, including a pipe, 

hose, fixture, or appliance; or 

use water from a fire hydrant, r egardless of whether that hydrant is 

located on private or public property, for any purpose other than fire 

protection. 

(2) All fire hydrants are to be number ed and painted to The City’s standard. 

The City may provide this servic e upon request, as per the rates in 

Schedule D. This information can be provided upon request to the 

Environmental Services Department. 

(3) No owner or occupant of a parcel or premises shall allow the access to a 

fire hydrant located on or adjacent to that parcel or premises to be 

obstructed in any manner, whether by the building or erection of any 

structure or the accumulation of any building material, rubbish or other 

obstruction. 

(4) No owner or occupant of a parcel or premises shall allow anything on the 

parcel or premises to in terfere with the operation of a fire hydrant located 

on or adjacent to that parcel or premises. 

(5) All persons who own property on whic h a fire hydrant is located or own 

property which is adjacent to City ow ned property on which a fire hydrant

28 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

is located shall: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

maintain a one (1) metre clearance on each side of a fire hydrant; 

not permit anything to be construc ted, erected, or placed within the 

clearance area; 

not permit anything except grass to be planted within the clearance 

area; and 

maintain visibility of hydrants from the nearest access road. 

PERMIT TO USE WATER FROM A FIRE HYDRANT 

65 (1) The Director may authorize the use of a fire hydrant and the use of water 

from a fire hydrant on a temporary basis where no other supply of water 

can reasonably be obtained. 

(2) The Director will, as a condition for the use of a fire hydrant and the use of 

water from a fire hydrant, require that the water pass through a water 

meter and backflow prevention device prior to use. 

(3) Any person authorized to use a fire hydrant shall obtain a hydrant 

connection permit from The City and ensure that a copy of such permit is 

kept with the persons utilizing the hydrant and they must produce the 

hydrant connection permit to an em ployee or agent of The City 

immediately upon demand. 

TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE 

66 Any persons requiring a temporary water supply during the course of 

construction shall apply to The City and shall pay the sums required in 

Schedule B and D, which may include in stallation and removal of service 

water meter and Backflow Preventer and water consumption charges. 

THAWING SERVICES 

67 (1) The cost of thawing a frozen service shall be borne as follows: 

(a) by the customer if the Private Service or the plumbing system 

connected thereto is frozen, as determined by the Director; 

(b) 

by the customer if the City Serv ice Connection is frozen as a result 

of the negligence of the customer, as determined by the Director;

29 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(c) 

by The City if the City Servic e Connection is frozen for any other 

reason, as determined by the Director. 

(2) If the Director is of the opinion that a Private Service or plumbing system 

has frozen without any negligence on the part of the customer or any other 

person for whose negligence the custom er is responsible, the Director 

may waive the cost of one thawi ng during any one winter season which 

shall be deemed to run from November 1 st to May 15 th . 

(3) The City shall not thaw a Private Service or plumbing system unless the 

customer shall first have signed an acknowledgement recognizing that 

thawing may be inherently dangerous to property including Private Service 

or plumbing system and may cause dam age to electrical systems or the 

outbreak of fire and waiving any cl aim against The City for any such 

damage whatsoever except damage c aused by the negligence of The 


SERVICE SIZE 

68 The size of the service requir ed for residential purposes shall be 

determined in accordance with the Alber ta Building Code, provided that 

The City shall not install a service having a size smaller than 25 mm. 

BOILERS 

69 In any case where a steam boiler or equipment of a nature similar to that 

of a steam boiler is supplied directly from a service, su ch boiler or other 

equipment shall be equipped with at least one safety valve, vacuum valve 

or other device sufficient to prevent the collapse or explosion thereof in the 

event the water supply thereto is shut off. 

REQUESTED WATER SHUT OFF 

70 (1) No person shall turn a water Serv ice Valve on or off except as authorized 

by the Director. 

(2) No owner of a parcel or premises shall allow a water Service Valve to be 

turned on or off except as authorized by the Director. 

(3) If a customer requires the supply of water to be shut off for their own 

purposes, the customer shall submit a request to the Director and pay The 

City the amount specified in Schedule D.

30 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

BACKFLOW PREVENTER 

71 (1) Where in the opinion of the Director, the conf iguration of any water 

connection creates a high risk for cont amination to the water system, the 

customer, upon being given notice by t he Director, shall install on their 

water service an approved Backflow Prev enter at the customer’s sole 

cost. 

(2) No customer or other person sha ll connect, cause to be connected, or 

allow to remain connected to the wate r system any piping, fixture, fittings, 

container or appliance, in a manner which under any circumstances, may 

allow contaminated or Polluted Water, Wastewater, or any other liquid, 

chemical or substance to enter the domestic water system. 

(3) If a condition is found to exist which is contrary to subsection (2), the 

Director may issue such order or orders to the customer as may be 

required to obtain compliance with subsection (2). 

(4) Where in the opinion of the Director, the configuration of any water 

connection creates a high risk of cont amination to the water system, the 

customer, upon being given notice by the Director, shall install an 

approved Backflow Preventer at all identified sources of potential 

contamination. 

(5) All Backflow Preventers shall be in spected and tested at the expense of 

the customer, upon installa tion, and thereafter annually, or more often if 

required by the Director; by personnel approved by the Director to carry 

out such tests, to demonstrate t hat the device is in good working 

condition. The customer shall submit a report in a form approved by the 

Director for all tests performed on a Ba ckflow Preventer within thirty (30) 

days of a test and a record card issued by the Director shall be displayed 

on or adjacent to the Backf low Preventer. The test er shall record thereon 

the name and address of the owner of the device; the location, type, 

manufacturer, serial number and size of the device; and the test date, the 

tester's initials, the tester's name (i f self employed) or the name of the 

testers employer and the tester's license number. 

(6) When the results of a test referr ed to in subsection (5) show that a 

Backflow Preventer is not in good working condition, the customer shall, 

when so directed by the Director, repair or replace the device within 

ninety-six (96) hours. If the customer fails to co mply with the direction 

given, The City may shut off the water service or water services. 

(7) If a customer fails to have a Backf low Preventer tested, the Director may

31 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

notify the customer that the Backflow Preventer must be tested within 

ninety-six (96) hours of the customer receiving the notice. 

(a) if a customer fails to have a Backflow Preventer tested within the 

time provided in subsection (5), the Director may cause the water 

service or water services to be terminated until the Backflow 

Preventer has been tested and approved as required by Section 71 

of this Bylaw. 

(8) No person shall turn on a water Service Valve to provide water to the 

occupants of any newly renovated, constructed, or reconstructed premises 

until the plumbing system in such pr emises has been inspected for Cross 

Connections and approved by the Inspections and Licensing Manager. 

(9) No persons other than those who have achieved journeyman or 

“Certificate of Competency” in an accredited program of Alberta may 

conduct the tests on Backflow Preventers. 

PART 4 - WASTEWATER UTILITY 

WASTEWATER UTILITY SERVICE LEVY AND BILLING RATES 

72 The City hereby levies on all per sons owning or occupying property 

connected with The City’s Wastewater Sewer system a fixed Wastewater 

charge plus a variable charge based on the volume of Wastewater 

contributed by the customer, to be paid monthly as determined by the 

Director calculated using the rates set forth in Schedule C. 

WASTEWATER CONNECTION EXCEPTIONS 

73 Notwithstanding Section 72, the Director shall have the right to make 

special agreements on terms fixed by the Director with certain industries 

or others to whom large quantities of water are sold but whose uses of 

such water do not involve the re turn of comparable amounts of 

Wastewater to The City's Wastewater Sewer system. 

PROHIBITED DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER 

74 (1) No person shall place, deposi t, dump or permit Wastewater, dangerous 

goods, or any other waste, to be deposited in any manner upon public or 

private property within the City or in any area under the jurisdiction of The 


(2) No person shall discharge to any wa tercourse within the City or to any

32 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

area under the jurisdiction of The City, any Wastewater, Industrial Waste, 

Dangerous Goods, or Polluted Waters , except where suitable pretreatment 

is provided. 

(3) Except as permitted by this Bylaw or the Alberta Building Code, no person 

shall construct or maintain in the Cit y any privy or pit toilet, septic tank, 

cesspool, or other facility intended or us ed for the collection or disposal of 

Wastewater. 

CLEANOUTS 

75 A Building Sewer that is connect ed to a Wastewater Sewer shall be 

equipped with a main Cleanout with a minimum diameter of 100 mm 

located not more than 25 m from property line. The main Cleanout shall be 

located as close as practical to t he point where the Wastewater Sewer 

leaves the building and in such a manner that the op ening is readily 

accessible and has sufficient clearance (2 metres) for effective rodding 

and cleaning. The building Wastewater Sewer from Cleanout to property 

line is to be as straight as possi ble. A maximum of one 45° bend is 

permitted for the Cleanout and a maximum of one additional 45° bend 

may be used between the Cleanout and proper ty line. Total angle of all 

bends shall not exceed 90°. 

BACKFLOW VALVES 

76 All Wastewater plumbing fixtures and floor drains set below the highest 

level of the ground surface adjacent to the premises sh all be protected 

from backflow by an approved Wastewater Backflow Valve. 

PLUGGED WASTEWATER SEWERS 

77 (1) When a Sewer blockage occurs, a cu stomer shall first contact a private 

plumbing firm to determine whether the blockage is in the Private Sewer 

Connection or the City Sewer Connection. 

(2) Plumbers may bill The City at t he rates identified in Schedule D if 

blockages occur on The City’s property. 

(3) The private plumbing firm shall notify The City within three hours when 

unable to clear a blockage on City property. 

TREES AND ROOTS 

78 (1) No deep rooting trees such as willow, poplar or elm are to be planted over

33 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

building Wastewater Sewer lines on private property. 

(2) If it is determined that a blockage in a Private Sewer Connection is caused 

by a tree located on private property then The City shall have no obligation 

to clear the blockage. 

(3) If it is determined that a blockage in a Private Sewer Connection is caused 

by a tree located on City property, The City will clear the blockage and 

either place the Sewer on a root-c utting maintenance program to ensure 

that the roots are kept clear, re-line the Sewer pipe, or remove the tree at 

The City’s expense. 

(4) If it is determined that a blockage in the City Sewer Connection or any 

other part of The City’s Wastewater Sewer system is caused by tree roots 

extending from trees loca ted on private property , The City will, at the 

owner’s expense, clear the blockage and either place the Sewer on a rootcutting 

maintenance program, re-line the Sewer pipe, or remove the 

tree(s). 

CONNECTION TO WASTEWATER SEWER 

79 No weeping tile, sump pump or eavestrough downspout system shall be 

connected to any Wastewater Sewer unless approved in writing by the 

Director. 

STORM WATER / GROUND WATER DISCHARGE TO WASTEWATER SEWER 

80 No person shall discharge, or c ause to be discharged, Storm Water, 

surface water, ground water, roof run-off, subsurface drainage, or Cooling 

Water to any Wastewater Sewer, unless: 

(a) 

upon the application of the custom er the Director determines that 

exceptional conditions prevent compliance with the foregoing 

provisions and authorizes such discharge; and 

(b) the discharge is in accor dance with a validated Wastewater 

Discharge Dewatering Permit. 

PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES IN WASTEWATER 

81 No person shall discharge or permit to be discharged into any Wastewater 

Sewer: 

(a) 

any solid or viscous substance capable of causing obstruction, or

34 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

other interference with the operat ion of the Wastewater system, 

including Dangerous Goods, Hazardous Waste, Biological Waste, 

Combustible Waste, Biomedical Waste, Reactive Waste, elemental 

mercury, prescription or ill egal drugs, PCBs, Pesticides, 

Radioactive Materials, ashes, cinder s, sand, potters clay, resin, 

mud, straw, metal, glass, rags, f eathers, tar, plastics, wood, grass 

clippings, insoluble shavings, asphalt, creosote, bone, hide, 

eggshells, meat and fat trimmings or waste, baking dough, 

chemical residues, spent grai n and hops, whole food, garbage, 

paint residues, cat box litter, ani mal tissues, manure, blood, or 

Sharps; 

(b) Wastewater having a pH lower than 6.0 or higher than 10.5, or 

having any other corrosive proper ty capable of causing damage or 

hazard to structures, equipmen t, and Wastewater treatment 

processes; 

(c) 

Wastewater containing substances in concentrations exceeding the 

following: 

(i) Antimony 1.0 mg/L 

(ii) Arsenic 1.0 mg/L 

(iii) Barium 3.0 mg/L 

(iv) Boron 1.0 mg/L 

(v) Cadmium 0.05 mg/L 

(vi) Chromium 1.0 mg/L 

(vii) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 0.02 mg/L 

(viii) Copper 0.5 mg/L 

(ix) Cyanide 1.0 mg/L 

(x) Lead 1.0 mg/L 

(xi) Manganese 1.0 mg/L 

(xii) Mercury 0.1 mg/L 

(xiii) Nickel 0.5 mg/L 

(xiv) Phenolic Compounds 0.1 mg/L 

(xv) Selenium 1.0 mg/L 

(xvi) Silver 1.0 mg/L 

(xvii) Sulphide 

1.0 mg/L 

(xviii) Zinc 

1.0 mg/L 

(xix) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 4,800 mg/L 

(xx) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 4,800 mg/L 

(xxi) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 9,600 mg/L 

(xxii) Total Phosphorus 

150 mg/L 

(xxiii) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 

400 mg/L 

(xxiv) Oil and Grease - animal, vegetable 500 mg/L

35 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(xxv) Oil and Grease - synthetic hydrocarbon 

(xxvi) Phosphates 

50 mg/L 

100 mg/L 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

Wastewater containing hydr ogen sulphide, carbon disulphide, 

reduced sulphur compounds, amines or ammonia; 

Wastewater containing dyes or colouring materials which may or 

could pass through a Wastewater tr eatment plant and discolour the 

Wastewater effluent; 

Wastewater above 75 degrees Celsius; 

any substance which: 

(i) 

(ii) 

is or may become harmful to any recipient water course or 

collection system or part thereof or will cause a violation or 

noncompliance event in the O perating Approval for the 

Wastewater Treatment Plant; 

may interfere wit h the proper operation or maintenance of 

the Wastewater system, dispos al of biosolids, or any 

Wastewater treatment proc ess or cause damage to the 

Wastewater Works or Wastewater treatment plant; 

(iii) grit removed from comme rcial or industrial premises 

including but not limited to grit removed from car washing 

establishments, automobile gar ages and restaurant Sumps 

or from Interceptors; 

(iv) 

will be discharged in layers or will form layers upon 

interaction with other Wastewater; 

DISCHARGE OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES 

82 (1) Any person responsible for or aware of the discharge of prohibited 

substances in the Wastewater system shall immediately report to the 

Director in order that the necessary precautions can be taken to minimize 

the Deleterious effects of the disc harge. Such person must also make 

other required reports to Alberta Environment and any other governing 

body. 

(2) If testing of Wastewater shows that it is noncompliant wit h this Bylaw, the 

Director may direct the customer to comply with the Bylaw and may, in 

addition, direct the customer at its expense to install such monitoring and

36 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

recording equipment as the Director deems necessary and to provide to 

The City the results of said monitoring as required. 

(3) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of Section 81, 82, 83 or 

85 shall, in addition to any penalty for in fraction of this Bylaw, be liable to 

and shall on demand pay to The City all costs of monitoring, sampling, 

testing, and removing any contamination resulting from the discharging of 

any such substances into a Wastewat er Sewer, and for any other amount 

for which The City may be held liable because of such contamination. 

OVERSTRENGTH SURCHARGE 

83 (1) A person who has discharged, caus ed, or permitted Wastewater to be 

discharged into any Wastewater Sewer containing constituents exceeding 

the concentrations outlined in Schedul e C, shall pay the volume and 

treatment charges set forth in Schedule C. 

(2) Should testing of the Wastewater being discharged into the Wastewater 

collection system be required for the purpose of determining the 

Wastewater surcharge rate, such sampling and testing shall be conducted 

by the Inspector, or by the customer to the satisfaction of the Inspector, 

using automated sampling devices or in accordance with the following 

manual sampling protocol: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

samples from the effluent produc ed at a location will be collected 

for a minimum of any two days within a seven day period; 

a minimum of four Grab Samples of equal volume shall be taken 

each day, such samples to be taken at least one hour apart; 

the analysis shall be conducted on a Composite Sample made of 

each day's Grab Samples; and 

(3) The results of the foregoing te sts shall be averaged to determine the 

characteristics and concentration of t he effluent being discharged into the 

City Wastewater collection system. 

(4) No person shall, for the purpose of meeting any concentration limits set 

out in this Bylaw, dilute any Wast ewater intended to be deposited in the 

Wastewater collection system. 

COST OF SAMPLING

37 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

84 When the customer’s discharged wastewater contains constituents 

exceeding the discharge limits in Secti on 81, 82, or 83, the cost of all 

sampling and analysis shall be at the customer’s expense. 

DENTAL WASTE AMALGAM SEPARATOR 

85 Every owner or operator of premises from whic h Dental Amalgam may be 

discharged, which waste may directly or indirectly enter a Sewer, shall: 

(a) 

install in any piping system at its premises that connects directly or 

indirectly to a Sewer, Dental Amalgam Separators with at least 95% 

removal efficiency in amalgam wei ght and which are certified as 

compliant with ISO 11143 – “Dental Equipment: Amalgam 

Separators”; 

(b) operate and maintain all Dent al Amalgam Separators in good 

working order and accordi ng to the manufacturer’s 

recommendations; 

(c) 

(d) 

provide an approved monitoring poi nt which is readily and easily 

accessible at all times for inspection; and 

provide to the Inspector on request a maintenance schedule and 

record of maintenance for each installed Dental Amalgam 

Separator. 

GREASE, OIL, & SOLIDS INTERCEPTION 

86 (1) Every owner or operat or of premises containing a restaurant, vehicle 

repair or auto body shop, petroleum service station, or vehicle and 

equipment washing establishment, when in the opinion of t he Director it is 

necessary to do so, shall: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

install an Interceptor or filter for the removal from Wastewater of 

grease, oil, solids or other harmful substance; 

make available to the Inspector upon request a maintenance 

schedule and record of maintenance for the Interceptor or filter; and 

shall keep and make available to the Inspector upon request a twoyear 

record of documentary proof of Interceptor clean-out and the 

disposal of oil, grease, solids and sediments.

38 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) All Interceptors shall be of a ty pe and capacity approved by the Director 

and shall be located so as to be read ily and easily accessible for cleaning 

and inspection and shall be maintained by the customer at the customer’s 

expense in continuously efficient operat ion at all times. The Interceptors 

shall be installed in compliance with t he most current requirements of the 

Alberta Building Code and the Canadian Standards Association. 

(3) No person shall: 

(a) 

(b) 

discharge emulsifiers into the Sewer system ahead of an 

Interceptor; or 

use enzymes, bacteria, solvents, hot water or other agents to 

facilitate the passage of Oil and Grease through a Grease 

Interceptor. 

(4) Should any blockage of the Wastewater Sewer system be caused by 

reason of failure, omission, or neglect of a customer, to comply strictly with 

the provisions of this Bylaw, the cust omer shall, in addition to any penalty 

for infraction of this Bylaw, be liable to and shall on demand pay The City 

for all costs of clearing such blo ckage and for any other amount for which 

The City may be held liable because of such blockage. 

CUSTOMER SELF-MONITORING 

87 (1) The customer shall, at its ow n expense, complete any monitoring, 

sampling, and testing of any disc harge to a Wastewater system as 

required by The City, and shall provide the results to The City in a form 

specified by the Director. 

(2) Any customer who exceeds the dischar ge limits in this Bylaw shall submit 

an environmental plan to the satisfaction of the Director, at the customer’s 

expense, which will detail t he steps necessary to change their discharge 

characteristics to the standards requi red under the provisions of this 

Bylaw. 

MANHOLES 

88 (1) Manhole(s) are required to be construct ed in locations that are accessible 

to The City, on all Wastewater Service Connections to premises such as: 

(a) 

Industrial - Oil related industries, dairies, breweries, packing plants, 

processing plants, feed mills, manu facturing plants, fabricating 

plants, painting shops;

39 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(b) 

(c) 

Commercial - Shopping centres, strip malls, warehouses, grocery 

stores, heavy machine repair, welding shops, automobile repair, 

service stations, car washes, re staurants, paint stores, hotels, 

motels, dry cleaners, laundries; and 

Other - residential dwellings ov er 6 units, apartment over 6 units, 

nursing homes, senior complexes, Institutions, hospitals, dental 

labs, funeral homes, churches, schools. 

(2) Such manholes may be constructed by the customer, or by The City at the 

customer’s cost, and shall be maintained by the customer so as to be safe 

and accessible at all times. 

DISCONNECTION OF SEWER 

89 (1) Where Wastewater which: 

(a) 

is hazardous or creates an immediate danger to any person; 

(b) endangers or interferes with t he operation of t he Wastewater 

collection system; or 

(c) 

causes or is capable of causing an adverse effect; 

is discharged to the Wastewater colle ction system, the Inspector may, in 

addition to any other remedy available, disconnect, plug or shut off the 

Sewer line discharging the unacceptable Wastewater into the Wastewater 

collection system or take such other action as is necessary to prevent 

such Wastewater from entering the Wastewater collection system. 

(2) The Wastewater may be prevent ed from being discharged into the 

Wastewater collection system until evidence satisfactory to the Inspector 

has been produced to ensure that no further discharge of hazardous 

Wastewater will be made to the Wastewater collection system. 

(3) Where the Director takes action pursuant to subsection (1), the Inspector 

may by notice in writing advise the owner or occupier of the premises from 

which the Wastewater was being dischar ged, of the cost of taking such 

action and the owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall forthwith 

reimburse The City for all such costs which were incurred. 

PRIVATE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 

90 (1) Where a Wastewater Sewer is not available for connection as required

40 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

under the provisions of Section 31( 1), the building Wastewater Sewer 

shall be connected to a private Wast ewater disposal system complying 

with the provisions of this Bylaw, the Alberta Building Code, Alberta 

Environment & Public Health Regulations, and such additional 

requirements as may be imposed by the Director. The owner shall operate 

and maintain the private Wastewater di sposal facilities in a Wastewater 

manner at all times at no expense to The City. 

(2) After the owner has connected to the Wastewater Sewer system as 

required by Section 31(1), the owner s hall, within 60 days of the date of 

connection to the Wastewater Sewe r system, dispose of all waste 

appropriately and remove any septic tanks, cesspools and similar private 

Wastewater disposal facilities and reclaim the site with clean native soil. 

HAULED WASTEWATER 

91 (1) No person shall discharge or permi t the discharge of Hauled Wastewater 

at any location other than a Haul ed Wastewater discharge location 

approved by the Director. Manifests to discharge Hauled Wastewater are 

available at The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

(2) Any person or company that proposes to discharge Hauled Wastewater at 

The City Wastewater Treatment Plant must: 

(a) 

apply for and receive a Hauled Wast ewater Manifest issued by the 

Director; and 

(b) enter into and comply with the requirements of the Hauled 

Wastewater agreement established by The City. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 

92 (1) As a condition of discharging Wast ewater into the Wa stewater Sewer, 

customers in industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors shall submit 

to the Director a completed Notice of Wastewater Discharge form and a 

Best Management Practice: 

(a) 

(b) 

in the case of new premises , within 30 days of commencing the 

discharge of Wastewater in the Wastewater Sewer; and 

In the case of existing premises, within 90 days of the date that this 

Bylaw is adopted.

41 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) A Best Management Practice is not required for the discharge of waste 

produced from residential premises, or for sanitary waste and Wastewater 

from showers and restroom washbas ins produced from a non-residential 

property. 

(3) A customer must report any change in the discharging operation 

registered under the Notice of Wastewater Discharge form (such as a 

change in the discharge characterist ics, ownership, name, location, 

contact person, telephone number, or fa x number) to the Inspector within 

30 days of the change by submitting a completed Notice of Wastewater 

Discharge form showing the changes. 

(4) Nothing in a Best Management Prac tice or a Notice of Wastewater 

Discharge form relieves a person disc harging waste from complying with 

this Bylaw or any other applicable enactment. 

PART 5 - STORM WATER UTILITY 

CONNECTION TO STORM WATER SEWER 

93 Where the seasonally adjusted groundwat er table is withi n 2m of the top 

of the footing of any residence cons tructed after the passage of this 

Bylaw, such residence must have a weeping tile system connected to a 

Storm Water Sewer where a Storm Water Sewer is available, or with the 

permission of the Director, connected to the Wastewater Sewer. 

CLEANOUTS 

94 A building Storm Water Sewer that is connected to The City’s Storm Water 

Sewer shall be equipped with a main Cleanout with a minimum diameter 

of 75mm, located not more than 25m from property line. The main 

Cleanout shall be located as close as practical to the point where the 

Storm Water Sewer leaves the buildi ng and in such a manner that the 

opening is readily accessible and has sufficient clearance (2m) for 

effective rodding and cleaning. The building Storm Water Sewer from 

Cleanout to property line is to be as st raight as possible. A maximum of 

one 45° bend is permitted for the Cleanout and a maximum of one 

additional 45° bend may be used between the Cleanout and property line. 

The total of the angles of all bends shall not exceed 90°. 

BACKFLOW VALVES 

95 All weeping tile and Storm Water fixtures set below the level of the highest 

ground surface adjacent to the premises shall be protected from backflow

y an approved Storm Water Backflow Valve. 

42 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

TREES AND ROOTS 

96 (1) No deep rooting trees such as willow, poplar, or elm are to be planted over 

Storm Water Sewer lines on private property. 

(2) If it is determined that a blockage in a private Storm Water Sewer 

connection is caused by a tree locat ed on private property , The City shall 

have no obligation to clear the blockage. 

(3) If it is determined that a blockage in a private Storm Water Sewer 

connection is caused by a tree locat ed on City property, The City will clear 

the blockage and either place the Sewer on a root-cutting maintenance 

program, re-line the Sewer pipe, or remove the tree at The City’s expense. 

(4) If it is determined that a block age in The City’s Storm Water Sewer 

connection or any other part of the City Storm Water Sewer system is 

caused by tree roots extending from trees located on private property, The 

City will, at the owner’s expense, clear the blockage and either place the 

Sewer on a root-cutting maintenance pr ogram, re-line the Sewer pipe, or 

remove the trees. 

PRIVATE STORM WATER SEWER SYSTEMS 

97 Storm Water Sewers installed on indus trial, commercial or Institutional 

property for the purposes of collecting Storm Water and carrying it into the 

Storm Water Sewers shall be equipped with an Interceptor. The 

installation of catch basins and Inte rceptors on private property shall 

comply with The City’s Design Guidelines, as they may be amended from 

time to time. 

PROHIBITED STORM WATER SEWER USE 

98 (1) No person shall discharge, or c ause to be discharged, groundwater, roof 

run-off, subsurface drainage, or C ooling Water from any industrial 

process, to any Storm Water Sewer, unless; 

(a) 

upon the application of the custom er, the Director determines that 

exceptional conditions prevent compliance with the foregoing 

provisions and authorizes such discharge; and 

(a) the discharge is in accor dance with a validated Storm Water 

Discharge Dewatering Permit;

43 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) No person shall discharge, deposit or permit any of the following into any 

pipe, main conduit, manhole, street inlet, gutter or aperture draining into 

the Storm Water system: 

(a) 

any Deleterious substance; Indus trial Waste; domestic waste; nondomestic 

waste; Wastewater; truck ed liquid waste; pool or hot tub 

water; mud, sand, silt, or grit; any flammable liquid or explosive 

material; solvent or petroleum der ivative including but not limited to 

gasoline, naphtha or fuel oil; any pesticides, insecticide or 

fungicides; Radioactive Material; septage or animal wastes. 

(b) any corrosive, noxious or ma lodorous gas, liquid or substance 

which either singly or by interact ion with other wastes, is capable 

of: 

(i) creating a public nuisance or hazard to life; 

(ii) preventing human entry into a Storm Water Sewer or pump 

station; or 

(iii) causing damage to the Storm Water system. 

(c) 

any other substance which may cause impairment of or damage to 

the environment, human health, safety, property, or City 

infrastructure. 

(3) No person shall obstruct or restri ct a Storm Water Sewer or the flow 

therein. 

(4) No person shall discharge water to any Storm Water Sewer or to a 

watercourse, containing any substanc e which, in the opinion of the 

Director: 

(a) is or may become harmful to any recipient watercourse or Storm 

Water system or part thereof; 

(b) may interfere with the proper operation or main tenance of the 

Storm Water system; 

(c) may become a health or safety hazard to persons, property, 

animals, vegetation and the environment. 

DISCHARGE OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES IN STORM WATER 

99 (1) Any person responsible for or aware of the discharge of prohibited 

substances in the Storm Water system shall immediately report that event

44 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

to the Director in order that the nec essary precautions can be taken to 

minimize the Deleterious effects of t he discharge. Such person must also 

make other required reports to Alberta Environment and any other 

governing body. 

(2) Should any testing of Storm Water s how that it is nonc ompliant with this 

Bylaw, the Director may direct the cu stomer to comply with the Bylaw and 

may, in addition, direct the custom er at its expense to install such 

monitoring and recording equipment as the Director deems necessary and 

supply the results of said monitoring as required. The cost of all sampling 

and analysis shall be at the customer’s expense. 

(3) Any person who contravenes any of t he provisions of Se ction 98 shall, in 

addition to any penalty for infraction of th is Bylaw, be liable to and shall on 

demand pay to The City all costs of monitoring, sampling, testing, and 

removing any contamination resulting from the discharging of any such 

materials into a Storm Water Sewer, and for any other amount for which 

The City may be held liable because of such contamination. 

CITY STORM WATER SEWER USE 

100 City forces may discharge water into a Storm Water Sewer or watercourse 

resulting from non-domestic activities such as: 

(a) 

(b) 

hydrant & Water Main flushing (dechlorination required); and 

fire fighting activities. 

DISCONNECTION OF STORM WATER SEWER 

101 (1) Where Storm Water which: 

(a) 

is hazardous or creates an imm ediate danger to any person or the 

environment; 

(b) endangers or interferes with t he operation of the Storm Water 

system; or 

(c) 

causes or is capable of causing an adverse effect; 

is discharged to the Storm Water system , the Director may, in addition to 

any other remedy available, disconnec t, plug or seal off the Storm Water 

Sewer line discharging the unacceptable water into the Storm Water

45 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

system or take such other action as is necessary to prevent such water 

from entering the Storm Water system. 

(2) The water may be prevented from being discharged into the Storm Water 

system until evidence satisfactory to the Director has been produced to 

assure that no further discharge of hazardous water will be made to the 

Storm Water system. 

(3) Where the Director takes action pur suant to subsection (1), the Director 

may by notice in writing advise the owner or occupier of the premises from 

which the water was being discharged, of the cost of taking such action 

and the owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall forthwith reimburse 

The City for all such costs. 

PART 6 - WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITY 

SCOPE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITY 

102 (1) The City Waste Management Utilit y shall provide for the collection, 

removal and disposal of Solid Wa ste, Recyclables, Yard Waste and 

Special Waste within the City as specified in this Bylaw. 

(2) As Waste Management Utility servic es are not a metered service, the 

provisions of Part 2 of this Bylaw dealing with the creation and 

administration of utility accounts apply to the Wast e Management Utility 

subject to all necessary modifications to reflect the provisions of this Part. 

EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

103 (1) City Administration is authorized to enter into exclusive contracts for the 

collection, removal and disposal of Solid Waste, Yard Waste, Special 

Waste and Recyclables within the City. 

(2) The Solid Waste Contractor shall not have exclusive rights to collect the 

following types of waste: 

(a) 

large household goods such as furniture; 

(b) Solid Waste in on-site mechani cal compactors, roll-off bins, or 

Containers of a capacity greater than 6 cubic yards; 

(c) 

Waste produced in the process of constructing, altering or repairing 

a building;

46 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

Waste not accepted at the Disposal Grounds; 

those items suitable for recycling or reuse; or 

Waste of any kind generated from the Michener Centre. 

(3) Where The City has entered into su ch exclusive contracts, no person 

other than the contractor may provide the same or similar type of service 

within the City. No twithstanding that, the owner or occupant of premises 

may remove or dispose of Solid Wast e, Recyclables or Yard Waste from 

those premises. 

(4) Any person who breaches the provis ions of subsection (3) hereof, in 

addition being liable to prosecution for an offence under this Bylaw, shall 

be liable for and make payment to The City of the amount of revenue 

which would have been generated had T he City been able to collect the 

Recyclables, Solid Waste or Yard Waste. 

RESIDENTIAL WASTE - DETACHED AND SEMI-DETACHED DWELLING UNITS 

104 Solid Waste, Recyclables and Yard Wa ste shall be collected by The City 

on a weekly basis from all det ached and semi-detached Dwelling Units 

and secondary suites. 

RESIDENTIAL WASTE - MULTI-FAMILY AND MULTI-ATTACHED BUILDINGS 

105 (1) The City shall provide weekly collect ion of Recyclables for all Multi-Family 

and Multi-Attached Buildings. 

(2) The City shall provide weekly collect ion of Solid Waste for all Multi-Family 

and Multi-Attached Buildings except, where the building owner has made 

provisions for others to collect such Solid Waste; in which case, Solid 

Waste must be collected at least once per week. 

COMMERCIAL WASTE 

106 (1) In this section, Non-residential Premises includes premises of a 

commercial or industrial nature, as well as instituti ons and Places of 

Worship. 

(2) Subject to the provisions of Se ction 103, the owner or occupant of Nonresidential 

Premises may choose to hav e Solid Waste from the premises 

collected by The City or by a private contractor.

47 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(3) The City does not provide Yard Wa ste collection or Recyclable collection 

services to Non-residential Premises. 

CHARGES AND FEES 

107 (1) The owner or occupant of premis es receiving Waste collection services 

from The City, shall pay to The City a monthly char ge at the rates 

established in Schedule E. 

(2) The monthly charge for waste collection services (Solid Waste and 

Recyclables) will apply even where no material is set out for collection. In 

the case of detached and semi-det ached Dwelling Units, the monthly 

charge shall be a debt due to The City w hether the property is occupied or 

not. The owner of the pr operty shall be liable to pay the monthly charge 

where the utility account with the o ccupant has been terminated for any 

reason. 

(3) Where service is provided for par t of a billing period, the rates shown 

under Schedule E for such service s hall be prorated and charged for the 

portion of the period the service is provided. 

(4) No charges shall be levied in respect of unimproved residential lands. 

ADMINISTRATION OF SOLID WASTE SERVICE 

108 The Director shall have the fo llowing authorities with respect to the 

administration of the Waste Management Utility: 

(a) ensure the safe and efficient colle ction, removal and disposal or 

recycling of Solid Waste, Yard Waste, and Recyclables under this 

Bylaw and under any contract entered into by The City; 

(b) require the owner of a proper ty to install a lid on a garbage 

Container when, in the Director’s opinion, there is a problem with 

the containment of Solid Waste which could be resolved by the 

installation of a lid; 

(c) 

decide what does or does not cons titute Solid Waste, Yard Waste, 

Recyclables or Special Waste under this Bylaw; 

(d) determine which of the rates se t out in Schedule E applies to a 

particular customer in light of the quantity or volume of Solid Waste 

produced by that customer;

48 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

establish the months of the y ear during which Yard Waste shall be 

collected; 

establish the number of Units of Solid Waste permitted per weekly 

collection; and 

establish such other reasonable po licies or regulations as may be 

necessary for the safe, orderly and efficient collection and disposal 

of Waste within the City. 

USE OF THE SOLID WASTE UTILITY SERVICE AND DISPOSAL GROUNDS 

109 (1) The City is not responsible to collect Solid Waste that is not stored in a 

Container or Receptacle and placed out for collection. 

(2) Customers shall place Solid Waste Receptacles as near as practicable to 

the lane abutting the lands from which the Solid Waste is produced so as 

to be easily accessible to the Solid Waste Contractor. 

(3) If a building is constructed such that it abuts direct ly on the lane, the 

owner of the parcel sha ll provide to the reasonable satisfaction of the 

Director a space within the building of sufficient area to contain all Solid 

Waste between periods of collection. 

(4) In the case of premises for whic h Solid Waste Services are not provided 

by a lane, customers shall place Solid Waste Receptacles in such manner 

as the Director directs. 

(5) A Receptacle for containing Solid Waste shall be sufficiently strong to hold 

the weight of Solid Waste contained therein without breaking and shall not 

exceed 1.2m in length or 100 litres in volume. 

(6) A Receptacle when loaded with Solid Waste shall not weigh more than 25 

kg and The City is not required to handle or collect the contents of a 

Receptacle which exceeds that weight. 

(7) All Solid Waste shall be removed to and disposed of in the Disposal 

Grounds subject to the regulations established by The City and no person 

shall deposit or dispose of Solid Wast e at any location in the City except 

the Disposal Grounds. 

(8) A person shall not use or permit to be used any vehicle or trailer for the 

conveyance or storage of Waste unless it is fitted with a cover capable of 

preventing the scattering or dispersal of Waste while it is being stored or

49 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

transported by the vehicle. Any per son conveying an unsecured load to 

the Disposal Grounds, in addition to being liable for prosecution for an 

offence under this Bylaw, will be char ged a surcharge at the Disposal 

Grounds as outlined in Schedule E. 

CONTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE 

110 (1) No owner or occupant of land s hall permit Solid Waste to accumulate 

loosely on such land. 

(2) An owner or occupant of land s hall ensure that any Solid Waste produced 

from such land is held in Receptacle s or Containers in good condition and 

which are adequate to contain the accumu lation of Solid Waste originating 

from such lands between collection times. 

(3) A person shall not put out or permit to be put out animal feces or any other 

excrement unless packaged separately from other Solid Waste in a 

securely tied plastic bag free of punctures, tears and leaks. 

DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE 

111 (1) All owners or occupants of land s hall remove and dispose of all Solid 

Waste originating on their lands or premises which are not collected, 

removed and disposed of pursuant to this Bylaw, and in default of their so 

doing, The City may remove and dispos e of such Solid Waste at the 

expense of such owners or occupants, who shall pay such expenses to 

The City on demand. 

(2) No person shall dispose of any Waste in a Receptacle or Container owned 

or leased by another person without t he express written consent of the 

owner or lessee of the Receptacle or Container. 

(3) Public Receptacles shall only be us ed for the disposal of incidental Solid 

Waste and shall not be used for the dis posal of Solid Waste generated by 

residences, businesses or other commercial activities. 

RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION 

112 (1) Basic residential Solid Waste collection service shall consist of the weekly 

collection of a maximum of 5 Units of Solid Waste per residential customer 

unless otherwise directed by the Director. Units of Solid Waste in excess 

of the basic residential Solid Waste collection service will be picked up if 

an Extra Waste Tag, purchased from The City, is attached to the garbage 

bag for disposal.

50 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) The owner or occupant of residentia l lands or premises may remove or 

cause to be removed Solid Waste fr om their property at their own 

expense, but must still pay to The City the rate levied under this Bylaw for 

Solid Waste and Recyclable Collection. 

(3) The owner or occupant of multi-fam ily residential lands or premises must 

ensure that Solid Waste is collected from the property at least once per 

week. Unless Containers are used, t he owner must ensure that all Solid 

Waste is neatly contained in Receptac les between collection times. The 

joint use or sharing of Containers or Receptacles between multi-family 

residential lands or premises, for t he collection and disposal of Solid 

Waste, shall not be permitted except with the prior written permission of 

the Director. 

(4) Subsections (2) & (3) do not apply to removal of Solid Waste from the 

Michener Centre. 

NON-RESIDENTAL SOLID WASTE 

113 (1) The owner or occupant of non-resi dential lands or premises may remove 

their own Solid Waste at their own cost and expense by employing the 

services of their own workers or em ployees, but such owner or occupant 

shall not contract such work out to any party other t han the Solid Waste 

Contractor. This prohibition does not apply to the removal of the types of 

Solid Waste which are listed as exceptions in Section 103(2). 

(2) Any person who breaches the provisi ons of subsection (1), in addition to 

their liability to be prosecuted for an offence under this Bylaw, shall be 

liable for and make payment to The City of the fees and charges for 

removal and disposal of Solid Wast e which such person would have had 

to pay had such person used the servic es of the Solid Waste Contractor 

for such purpose. 

(3) This section does not apply to remo val of Solid Waste from the Michener 

Centre. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE, DANGEROUS GOODS, SPECIAL SOLID WASTE 

114 (1) The owner or occupant of l and which produces or possesses any 

Dangerous Goods, Hazardous Waste or Special Solid Waste shall remove 

and dispose of such goods in acco rdance with this Bylaw and any 

regulations of the Governments of Alberta and Canada.

51 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

The owner or occupant of any lands from which any Dangerous Goods, 

Hazardous Waste or Special Solid Waste is removed shall properly 

identify such Waste or goods and shall be responsible for obtaining 

approvals for the safe transport and disposal thereof. 

No person shall deposit or mix with any Solid Waste for collection in the 

Solid Waste service or delivery to the Disposal Grounds any Dangerous 

Goods or Hazardous Waste. 

No person shall place, or cause to be placed, any Special Solid Waste into 

the Solid Waste service or Disposal Grounds without obtaining permission 

from the Director and making payment of the disposal charge specified in 

Schedule E. 

Any person breaching any part of this section shall be responsible for all 

costs incurred in eliminating any pollution or contamination of the Disposal 

Grounds or any other site in the City and shall make payment of the same 

to The City on demand. 

BURNING 

115 

Except as provided in The City's Fire Permit Bylaw no person shall burn or 

attempt to burn any Solid Waste in the City. 

SOLID WASTE FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY 

116 No person shall deposit any Solid Waste at the Disposal Grounds which 

does not originate from within the boundaries of the City except with the 

prior written permission of the Director or under the authority of a contract 

with The City. 

PART 7- GENERAL 

REMAINDER ENFORCEABLE 

117 Should any portion of this Bylaw be found by any court to be void or 

unenforceable, then it is the intention of Council that the remainder of this 

Bylaw shall remain in full force and effect, notwithstanding such ruling. 

EFFECTIVE DATE 

118 This bylaw shall come into effect on February 1, 2012.

52 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

REPEAL OF PREVIOIUS BYLAW 

119 Bylaw No. 3215/98 is hereby repealed effective February 1, 2012. 

READ A FIRST TIME IN OPEN COUNCIL this 1 ih day of December 2011. 

READ A SECOND TIME IN OPEN COUNCIL this 9 1 h day of January 2012. 

READ A THIRD TIME IN OPEN COUNCIL this 9 1 h day of January 2012. 

AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK this 9 1 h day of January 2012. 

"Morris Flewwelling" 

MAYOR 

"Elaine Vincent" 

CITY CLERK

SCHEDULE A – DEFINITIONS 

SCHEDULE B – WATER RATES 

SCHEDULE C – WASTEWATER RATES 

SCHEDULE D – BILLING AND SERVICE FEES 

SCHEDULE E – SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES 

53 Bylaw No. 3464/2011

SCHEDULE A 

DEFINITIONS 

In this Bylaw, words and phrases shall mean and be interpreted in accordance with the 

definitions set out in this Schedule. 

(1) Backflow Preventer, also referred to as a cross connection control device, means a 

device that prevents flow of water or other liquids, mixtures, or substances into the 

potable water system from any source or sources other than the intended source. 

(2) Backflow Valve means a device to prevent flow reversal in a Storm Water or 

Wastewater Sewer connection. 

(3) Best Management Practice means a set of procedures, equipment, training, or other 

provisions applicable to operations to assist in compliance with this Bylaw. 

(4) Biological Waste means waste from a hospital, medical clinic, health care facility, 

mortuary or biological research laboratory which contains or may contain: 

(a) 

(b) 

pathogenic agents that cannot be effectively mitigated by Wastewater 

treatment; and 

experimental biological matter that may be hazardous to human health or 

detrimental to the environment. 

(5) Biomedical Waste means: 

(a) 

(b) 

any human anatomical waste, animal waste, untreated microbiological waste, 

waste Sharps and untreated human blood and body fluids known to contain 

viruses and agents listed in “Risk Group 4” as defined in “Laboratory Biosafety 

Guidelines” published by Health Canada, date, 2004, as amended; or 

waste that is generated by human health care facilities, medical research and 

teaching establishments, clinical testing or research laboratories, and facilities 

involved in the production or testing of vaccines, and contains or may contain 

pathogenic agents that may cause disease in humans exposed to the waste. 

(6) BOD or Biochemical Oxygen Demand means the five-day BOD which is the 

determination of the molecular oxygen utilized during a five-day incubation period for 

the biochemical degradation of organic material (carbonaceous demand), and the 

oxygen used to oxidize inorganic material such as sulphides and ferrous iron, and the 

amount of oxygen used to oxidize reduced forms of nitrogen (nitrogenous demand) as 

determined by the appropriate procedure in Standard Methods.

2 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(7) Building Sewer means that part of a Wastewater drainage system outside a building 

commencing at a point 1 metre from the outer face of the wall of the building and 

connecting the building drain to the Wastewater sewer or place of disposal of 

Wastewater; 

(8) COD or Chemical Oxygen Demand means a measure of the capacity of water to 

consume oxygen as a result of oxidation of inorganic chemicals and decomposition of 

organic matter. 

(9) City Service Connection means that portion of a pipe used or intended to be used 

for the supply of water which extends from the water main to the service valve. 

(10) City Sewer Connection means that part of the Wastewater or Storm Water sewer 

pipe located within the limits of The City’s road allowance, lands, right of ways, or 

easements and is connected to a private sewer system and The City’s sewer main. 

(11) Cleanout means a pipe fitting that has a removable cap or plug and is so constructed 

that it will permit access to a sewer pipe for the purpose of cleaning. 

(12) Combined Service means the City Service Connection used or intended to be used 

to supply water for fire protection as well as water for purposes other than fire 

protection. 

(13) Combustible Waste means a substance that is able to catch fire and burn easily. 

(14) Composite Sample means a volume of Wastewater, Storm Water, uncontaminated 

water, clear water or effluent made up of three or more grab samples that have been 

combined automatically or manually and taken at intervals during the sampling 

periods, 

(15) Container means a container for Solid Waste which is designed to be emptied by a 

front loading Solid Waste vehicle. 

(16) Cooling Water means water that is used in a process for the purpose of removing 

heat and that has not, by design, come into contact with any raw material, 

intermediate product, waste product or finished product, but does not include 

blowdown water. 

(17) Cross Connection means an existing connection or a potential connection between 

any part of a potable water system and any other environment containing other 

substances in a manner, which, under any circumstances, would allow such 

substance to enter the potable water system.

3 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(18) Dangerous Goods has the meaning set out from time to time in the Dangerous 

Goods Transportation and Handling Act, RSA 2000, Ch D-4 as amended, and the 

regulations thereunder. 

(19) Deleterious means: 

(a) 

(b) 

any substance that, if added to any water, would degrade or alter or form part 

of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water so that it is 

rendered or is likely to be rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat or 

unsuitable for the purposes intended; 

any water that contains a substance in such quantity or concentration, or that 

has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a 

natural state that it would, if added to any other water, degrade or alter or form 

part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of the water so that it 

is rendered or is likely to be rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat or 

unsuitable for the purposes intended. 

(20) Dental Amalgam means a dental filling material consisting of an amalgam of 

mercury, silver and other materials such as copper, tin or zinc. 

(21) Dental Amalgam Separator means any technology, or combination of technologies, 

designed to separate dental amalgam particles from dental operation Wastewater. 

(22) Disposal Grounds means the landfill site operated by The City. 

(23) Dwelling Unit means one or more rooms useable as a residence operated as a single 

housekeeping unit and having its own sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities. 

(24) Extra Waste Tag means a sticker purchased from The City to be used to identify 

Units of Solid Waste in excess of the basic residential Solid Waste collection service. 

(25) Fire Line means a pipe intended solely for the purpose of providing a supply of water 

for fire protection purposes. 

(26) Grab Sample means a volume of Wastewater, Storm Water, potable water or effluent 

which is collected over a period not exceeding 15 minutes. 

(27) Hauled Wastewater means waste removed from a Wastewater system, including a 

cesspool, a septic tank system, a privy vault or privy pit, a chemical toilet, a portable 

toilet or a Wastewater holding tank or any industrial waste which is transported to and 

deposited into any location in the Wastewater works.

4 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(28) Hazardous Waste means: 

(a) 

(b) 

any substance or mixture of substances that exhibits characteristics of 

flammability, corrosivity, radioactivity, reactivity or toxicity; and 

has the meaning set out from time to time in the Environmental Protection and 

Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, Ch. E 12 as amended, and the regulations 

thereunder and the Alberta Waste Control Regulation (AR129/93) and any 

successor to this Acts or Regulations. 

(29) Hydrocarbons mean solvent extractable matter as set forth in Standard Methods. 

(30) Industrial Waste means any waste from industrial processes, such as dairies, 

breweries, packing plants and similar processes. 

(31) Inspector means a person or employee authorized by The City to enforce the 

provisions of this Bylaw such as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer or a Designated Sewer 

Officer. 

(32) Institution or Institutional Facility means a facility, usually owned by a government, 

operated for public purposes, such as a school, university, medical facility (hospital, 

nursing station, nursing home), museum, prison, government office, military base. 

Some of these facilities produce non-residential discharges to sewers from, for 

example, laboratories, chemical use, and industrial processes. 

(33) Interceptor means a device designed to prevent oil, grease, sand or other solid 

matter from passing from the source thereof into the Wastewater or Storm Water 

Sewer systems. 

(34) Low-flow Plumbing Fixtures means toilets with a usage not exceeding 6.0 litres per 

flush; single flush urinals with a usage not exceeding 3.8 litres per flush; shower head 

fixtures with a flow rate not exceeding 9.5 litres per minute; and lavatory basin faucets 

and kitchen sink faucets with a flow rate not exceeding 8.3 litres per minute. 

(35) Monitoring Access Point means an access point, such as a chamber, in a Private 

Sewer Connection to allow for observation, sampling and flow measurement of the 

Wastewater, potable water or Storm Water therein. 

(36) Multi-Family Building and Multi-Attached Building means a building containing 

three or more dwelling units. 

(37) Oil and Grease means n-Hexane extractable matter as described in Standard 

Methods.

5 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(38) Overstrength Surcharge means the rate per m3 of water consumed and charged to 

a user who releases Wastewater to the Sewer that exceeds one or more constituent 

concentrations. 

(39) PCBs means any mono-chlorinated or polychlorinated biphenyl or any mixture of 

them or mixture that contains one or more of them. 

(40) Person means an individual, association, partnership, corporation, municipality or an 

agent or employee of such a person. 

(41) pH means the measure of the intensity of the acid or alkaline condition of a solution 

determined by the hydrogen ion concentration of the solution as set forth in Standard 

Methods. 

(42) Phosphates means a chemical salt classified as orthophosphates, condensed 

phosphates and poly-phosphates. 

(43) Polluted Water means materials or water that contain deleterious substances in 

excess of that permitted in this Bylaw. 

(44) Potable Water means water with a level of quality which is typical of uncontaminated 

water normally supplied by The City; 

(45) Pretreatment means the reduction, elimination or alteration of pollutants in 

Wastewater prior to discharge into the Sewer, whether by physical, chemical or 

biological processes, through pollution prevention, or by other means, except by 

diluting the concentration of the pollutants. 

(46) Private Sewer Connection means the part of any sewer system lying within the limits 

of private lands and connecting to The City’s Wastewater or Storm Water Sewer 

system. 

(47) Private Service or Private Service Connection means that portion of a pipe used or 

intended to be used for the supply of water which extends from the Service Valve to a 

meter. 

(48) Radioactive Materials means prescribed substances as defined in the Atomic Energy 

Control Act and Regulations (RSC 1985, c. A-16) as amended from time to time or as 

defined in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and Regulations or amended versions 

thereof. 

(49) Reactive Waste means a substance that: 

(a) 

is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent changes without detonating;

6 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

reacts violently with water; 

forms potentially explosive mixtures with water; 

when mixed with water, generates toxic gases, vapours or fumes in a quantity 

sufficient to present danger to human health or the environment; 

is a cyanide or sulphide bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions 

between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapours or fumes in a quantity 

sufficient to present danger to human health or the environment; 

is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a strong 

initiating source or if heated under confinement; 

is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at 

standard temperature and pressure; or 

is an explosive (Class 1) as defined in the regulations under the [federal, 

provincial or territorial Statute or Regulation as appropriate for the municipality], 

as amended. 

(50) Receptacle means a receptacle for Solid Waste other than a container as defined 

herein and includes a garbage can and garbage bags. 

(51) Recyclable means any materials designated as recyclable under The City’s 

Residential Recycling Collection Contract. 

(52) Recycling Contractor means the person who is under contract with The City to 

collect Recyclable material from residential properties in the City of Red Deer. 

(53) Remote Reading Device means a device which is connected to a water meter by 

The City and provides a duplicate reading of the water consumed, which may be 

monitored from the exterior of a building. 

(54) Sampling Port means a valve, tap, or similar device on equipment, a drain pipe or at 

another suitable location, to allow for sampling, consistent with technical guidelines 

that The City may establish from time to time. 

(55) Service Valve means the water valve on a City Service Connection. 

(56) Sewer means a pipe, conduit, drain, open channel or ditch for the collection and 

transmission of Wastewater or Storm Water and to which Private or City Sewer 

Connections may be attached.

7 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(57) Sharps means hypodermic needles, syringes, blades, broken glass and any devices, 

instruments or other objects which have acute rigid corners, edges or protuberances. 

(58) Solid Waste Contractor means the person who or the Corporation which is under 

contract with The City to collect and haul Solid Waste to the City’s Disposal Grounds. 

(59) Solid Waste means discarded material or Waste or any kind which is permitted to be 

disposed of at the Disposal Grounds. 

(60) Special Solid Waste means waste which requires special disposal treatment at the 

Disposal Grounds but does not include Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste or Dangerous 

Goods. 

(61) Spill means a direct or indirect discharge into the Wastewater or Storm Water sewer 

or the natural environment which is abnormal in quantity or quality in light of all the 

circumstances of the discharge. 

(62) Standard Methods means a procedure or method set out in Standard Methods for 

the Examination of Water and Wastewater published jointly by the American Public 

Health Association, American Water Works Association and the Water Environment 

Federation, recent or latest edition or approved in writing by the Inspector. 

(63) Storm Water Sewer means a sewer for the collection and transmission of 

uncontaminated water, Storm Water, drainage from land or from a watercourse or any 

combination thereof but excluding any Wastewater. 

(64) Storm Water means the water running off the surface of a drainage area during and 

immediately after a period of rain or snow melt. 

(65) Subsurface Water means groundwater including foundation drain water. 

(66) Sump means a facility on the connection to the Wastewater collection system for 

trapping large, heavy solids before discharge into these systems. 

(67) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen means the sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen as 

set forth in Standard Methods. 

(68) Total Phosphorus means an essential chemical element and nutrient for all life forms 

as set forth in Standard Methods. 

(69) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) means insoluble matter in liquid that is removable by 

filtration, as determined by the appropriate procedure described in Standard Methods. 

(70) Unit of Solid Waste means a garbage bag up to 660 mm by 915 mm or a garbage 

can up to 100 litres in volume.

8 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(71) Utility and Utility Service means, as the context may require, the City’s Water Utility, 

Wastewater Utility, Storm Water Utility and Waste Management Utility. 

(72) Water Main means those pipes installed by The City in streets for the conveyance of 

water throughout the City to which City Service Connections may be attached. 

(73) Water Utility means the system of water works owned and operated by The City and 

all accessories and appurtenances thereto. 

(74) Waste means any solid or liquid material or product or combination of them that is 

intended to be treated or disposed of or that is intended to be stored and then treated 

or disposed of. 

(75) Wastewater means the composite of water and water-carried wastes from residential, 

commercial, industrial or institutional premises or any other source. 

(76) Wastewater Sewer means a sewer for the collection and transmission of domestic or 

industrial Wastewater or any combination thereof. 

(77) Wastewater Sludge means Wastewater containing more than 0.5% total solids or 

solid material recovered from the Wastewater treatment process. 

(78) Wastewater Works means any works for the collection, transmission, treatment and 

disposal of Wastewater, Storm Water or uncontaminated water, including a combined 

sewer, Wastewater Sewer or Storm Water Sewer, or any part of such works, but does 

not include plumbing or other works to which the applicable Building Code applies. 

(79) Yard Waste means any materials designated as Yard Waste under The City’s Solid 

Waste & Yard Waste Collection Contract.

9 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

SCHEDULE B 

WATER RATES 

1 Every customer shall pay for water supplied to him the aggregate of amount 

determined as follows: 

(a) 

(b) 

A consumption charge of $0.743 for each cubic metre of water supplied. 

A fixed monthly charge shall be determined by the size of the meter 

supplied to each customer as follows: 

METER SIZE 

FIXED MONTHLY CHARGE 

16 mm $19.60 

19 mm $31.38 

25 mm $57.12 

38 mm $133.34 

50 mm $321.91 

75 mm $543.51 

100 mm $1,150.60 

150 mm $2,156.13 

200 mm $3,810.21

10 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

SCHEDULE C 

WASTEWATER RATES 

1 The cost of Wastewater service for residential premises connected to The City Sewer 

system and which contain not more than two dwelling units shall be a flat fee of 

$37.91 per month. 

2 Where there are more than two dwelling units in residential premises or for other 

properties served by a single water meter, the customer shall pay at the rate of $1.53 

per cubic metre of Wastewater calculated in the manner herein set forth with a 

minimum of $37.91 per month. 

3 Where the Director has tested the discharge of Wastewater into the sewerage system 

pursuant to Clause 83, Overstrength Surcharge and found that the Wastewater 

exceeds the limits of BOD, total suspended solids or oil & grease set out therein, then 

that customer shall pay for Wastewater service at the following rates: 

(a) 

(b) 

a volume charge based on $1.53 per cubic metre, plus 

a treatment charge based on the amount of BOD, grease and suspended solids 

at the following rates: 

Tier 1 

Surcharge 

Concentration above Concentration below 

BOD 300 2,400 mg/L $0.87 /kg 

TSS 300 2,400 mg/L $0.83 /kg 

Oil & Grease - animal, vegetable 100 250 mg/L $0.68 /kg 

Tier 2 

Surcharge 

Concentration above Concentration below 

BOD 2,400 4,800 mg/L $1.16 /kg 

TSS 2,400 4,800 mg/L $1.10 /kg 

Oil & Grease - animal, vegetable 250 500 mg/L $0.90 /kg 

Maximum Allowable Limits 

Surcharge 

Concentration above 

BOD 4,800 mg/L $1.74 /kg 

TSS 4,800 mg/L $1.66 /kg 

Oil & Grease - animal, vegetable 500 mg/L $1.36 /kg 

Example calculation: 

For wastewater containing a BOD concentration of 5,000 mg/L (5 kg/m 3 ): 

Surcharge Rate 

On the first 0.3 kg/m 3 0.3 x $0.00 = $0.00 

On the next 2.1 kg/m 3 2.1 x $0.87 = $1.83

11 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

On the next 2.4 kg/m 3 2.4 x $1.16 = $2.78 

On the last 0.2 kg/m 3 0.2 x $1.74 = $0.35 

Total Surcharge Rate: $4.96 per m 3 

4 For the purpose of calculating t he sewerage charge payable by a customer, the 

volume of Wastewater contributed by the cu stomer to the Wastewater Sewer shall be 

deemed to be equal to 80% of the water de livered to the customer’s premises, 

whether the water was received from The City or from s ources other than The City. 

Where no meter or other exact means exist to determine the quantit y of water 

consumed by any person, the Director shall make an estimate thereof for the purpose 

of determining the Wastewat er Utility c harges. The cust omer may, at his own 

expense, install and maintain a meter subj ect to approval by the Director upon which 

the service charge shall thereafter be determined. 

5 Disposal at the Liquid Waste Station and FOG Station (Fats, Oils and Grease) is 

$8.30/cubic meter. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

charges will be based on an estimate of the load volume, as determined by the 

Director. 

there is a minimum $5 charge per load. 

there is no charge for recreational vehicles. 

Note: See Schedule D for Wastewater Service Fees

12 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

SCHEDULE D 

BILLING AND SERVICE FEES 

1 UTILITY BILLING FEES 

(1) Application fee for utility billing $15 

(2) Non-application fee (open a new account in owner’s name) $30 

(3) Deposit to obtain a utility account $220 

(4) Late payment penalty 1.5% per month of the 

outstanding balance 

2 NEW SERVICE CONNECTION 

(1) Basic charge for 25mm water service and 

150 mm Wastewater Sewer 

From Main From Main 

In Street In Lane 

$7,185 $6,000 

(2) Basic charge for 25 mm water service $6,145 $4.845 

(3) Basic charge for 150 mm Wastewater Sewer $6,145 $4,845 

(4) Basic charge for 100 mm Storm Water 

Sewer 

(5) Basic charge for 25 mm water main, 150 

mm Wastewater Sewer and 100mm Storm 

Water Sewer 

$6,145 $4,845 

$7,430 $6,140 

(6) Dual service upon approval $8,240 N/A 

(7) Water service renewal upon approval $7,085 N/A 

(8) Extra charge for larger water service: 

38 mm $275 

50 mm $750 

100 mm $3,255 

150 mm $4,025

13 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

200 mm $5,295 

250 mm $6,550 

300 mm $8,450 

(9) Extra charge for larger Wastewater or Storm Water sewer: 

200 mm Ribbed $225 

DR35 $300 


DR35 $480 


DR35 $690 

375 mm Ribbed $ 640 

DR35 $1005 


DR35 $1450 


(10) Disconnection of service (water kill) 

up to 50 mm in size $2,665 

up to 50 mm in size, same dig at time of basic service $1,155 

Over 50 mm in size $4,465 

(11) Additional fee for winter construction of service (Nov. 1 – May 15) 

(a) Lane $1,545 

(b) Street $2,330 

(12) Other Charges 

(a) Construction of manhole to 3.1 metres in depth $3,745 

(i) additional cost per vertical metre in excess of 3.1 

metres in depth 

$510 

(b) Inspection Chamber $2,170

14 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(c) Fire Hydrant and Valve Installation $5,985 

(d) 

Cutting and replacing pavement 

(i) single or double service 75 mm and under $2,890 

(ii) single or double service over 75 mm $2,670 

(iii) triple service 75 mm and under $3,815 

(iv) triple service over 75 mm $4,275 

(v) for service kill 75 mm and under $1,855 

(vi) for service kill over 75 mm $1,985 

(vii) for water service renewal $1,460 

(viii) additional asphalt repair costs for excavations in $1,000 

excess of 4 metres deep (per additional metre of 

depth) 

(e) 

Replacing sidewalks: 

(i) single or double service residential $2,850 

(ii) single or double service commercial $4,420 

(iii) triple service residential $3,150 

(iv) triple service commercial $4,620 

(i) additional sidewalk repair costs for excavations in 

excess of 4 metres deep (per location) 

$650 

(f) 

Replacing curb only: 

(i) single or double service $1,680 

(ii) triple or dual service $1,874 

(iii) additional curb repair costs for excavations in 

$450 

excess of 4 metres deep (per location) 

(g) Landscaping repairs (boulevard area) $200 

(h) Landscaping repairs (utility lot/reserve) $575 

3 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE FEES 

(1) Installation of more than one meter $21 per meter 

(2) Requested meter reading $21 

(3) Service call during regular hours $52

15 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(4) Service call after regular hours $150 

(5) Disconnection service charge $54 

(6) Reconnection service charge $54 

(7) Turn water off or on for repairs or line testing 

(a) during regular working hours $54 

(b) after regular working hours $150 

(8) Temporary water supply: 

(a) 

for construction purposes includes 16 mm water meter 

with up to 10 cubic metres consumption (Consumption 

in excess of 10 cubic meters will be billed at current 

water consumption rate) 

$80 

(plus monthly 

meter charge) 

(9) Meter Test $90 

(10) Repairs to water meters at cost 

(11) Thawing water service at cost 

(12) Repair to damaged standpipe at cost 

(13) Private fire hydrant maintenance 

(a) routine hydrant inspection $40 / hydrant 

(b) winter hydrant inspection (Nov 1 – May 15) $75 / hydrant 

(c) damage evaluation $65 / hydrant 

(d) paint $75 / hydrant 

(14) Bulk Water 

(a) 

use of designated fire hydrant to obtain water (per 

permit plus water consumption charges) 

$75 

(15) Clearing plugged Wastewater Sewer 

(a) during regular working hours $120 / blockage 

(b) after regular working hours $250 / blockage 

(16) Televise Wastewater Sewer lines

16 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(a) service (regular hours only) $185 / service 

(b) mains (regular hours only) at cost

17 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

SCHEDULE E 

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES 

1 (a) Rates to be applicable for premises when supplied with a Container by the 

Solid Waste Contractor engaged by The City. Scheduled Service includes 

Contractor-provided Container. 

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES FOR 

FRONT-END CONTAINERS 

Type of Service 

Monthly Rate 

1.5 m 3 (2 yd 3 ) 2.3 m 3 (3 yd 3 ) 3.1 m 3 (4 yd 3 ) 4.6 m 3 (6 yd 3 ) 

Service on Demand: 

Container rental 10.19 12.73 15.28 17.83 

Lift charge 11.28 16.92 22.56 33.85 

Scheduled Service: 

1 lift per month 11.28 16.92 22.56 33.85 

1 lift every 2 weeks 24.37 36.56 48.74 73.10 

1 lift per week 48.85 73.28 97.70 146.55 

2 lifts per week 97.70 146.55 195.41 293.10 

3 lifts per week 146.55 219.83 293.10 439.65 

4 lifts per week 195.41 293.10 390.81 586.22 

5 lifts per week 244.26 366.38 488.51 732.77 

6 lifts per week 293.10 439.65 586.22 879.32 

Extra lift for scheduled service 11.28 16.92 22.56 33.85 

(b) 

Charges for special Container services in addition to the above rates will be as 

follows: 

Standard lid 

Castors on Containers 

Lock 

no charge 

$17.83 per month per container 

$20 one time charge per container

18 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

2 Rates to be applicable for premi ses where the owner or agent is charged and suc h 

owner or agent provides Receptacles for hand pickup of Solid Waste. 

MONTHLY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATES FOR 

COMMERCIAL HAND PICK-UP 

Volume Frequency of Pick-Up per Week Cost per 

Per 

Pick-Up 

1 2 3 4 5 6 Extra 

Pick-Up 

< 0.4 m 3 23.63 47.26 70.89 94.52 118.15 141.78 5.46 

> 0.4 to 0.8 m 3 23.63 47.26 70.89 94.52 118.15 141.78 5.46 

>0.8 to 1.5 m 3 47.26 94.52 141.78 189.04 236.30 283.56 10.92 

> 1.5 to 2.3 m 3 70.90 141.80 212.70 283.61 354.51 425.41 16.37 

>2.3 to 3.1 m 3 94.53 189.06 283.59 378.13 472.66 567.19 21.83 

>3.1 to 3.8 m 3 118.16 236.32 354.48 472.64 590.81 708.97 27.29 

>3.8 to 4.6 m 3 141.79 283.58 425.37 567.16 708.95 850.75 32.75 

>4.6 to 5.3 m 3 165.42 330.84 496.26 661.68 827.10 992.52 38.20 

Note: 0.4 m 3 is approximately equal to 3 units (bags or cans) of garbage 

3 For a single family Dwelling Unit, a semi-detached residential unit, a single family 

Dwelling Unit with a basement Dwelling Unit situated therein, or a Dwelling Unit in a 

Multi-Family Building or multiple family development, the charge for basic residential 

collection shall be $11.70 per month per Dwelling Unit for the collection of a maximum 

of 5 Units of Solid Waste per week per Dwelling Unit year round, and once a week 

collection of Yard Waste for approximately seven months per year. The charge for 

Solid Waste tags for units in excess of the basic residential collection service shall be 

$1.00 per Extra Waste Tag. 

4 (a) All Dwelling Units which require individual blue box collection services shall be 

charged $5.65 per month for weekly pick up. 

(b) 

Any Dwelling Unit which requires the City’s communal recycling collection 

service shall be charged $5.10 per month per Dwelling Unit. 

5 Disposal Grounds rates for acceptance of Solid Waste 

Description 

Rate 

(a) residents hauling residential Solid Waste $60 per tonne 

from their own residences 

(b) private companies or commercial haulers $60 per tonne 

with commercial or residential Solid Waste

19 Bylaw No. 3464/2011 

(c) demolition, concrete, asphalt and tree rubble $60 per tonne 

(d) Special Solid Waste $80 per tonne 

(e) Asbestos $80 per tonne 

(f) 

When fractional metric tonnes are delivered, the rate charged for the same 

shall be determined by pro-rating the above rates per tonne in the same ratio 

as the weight of such Solid Waste or rubble delivered bears to a metric tonne. 

In any event, a minimum charge of $7.00 shall apply for items 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 

and a minimum charge of $80 shall apply for items 5(d) and 5(e). 

(g) 

Cover Material as defined in The City of Red Deer 

Waste Management Facility Disposal Guidelines 

No Charge 

(h) 

A surcharge of $20 per load will be appl ied to unsecured loads as outlined in 

Clause 108(b), Administration of Solid Waste Service.

Appendix D: 

ICI Audits, Interviews and On-Line Survey Results 

1 Audits and Interviews 

Impromptu interviews were conducted at a variety of businesses in Red Deer, from coffee shops to 

banks, to automobile servicing garages and fast food enterprises. Information gathered included handling 

methods for various types of waste materials, current waste collection provider as well as any additional 

comments. 

Along with garbage removal, typically once a week, small businesses often share a cardboard recycling 

bin with neighbouring businesses. Paper shredding and recycling services, utilized by hotels, banks and 

other businesses, are provided largely by either Paper Cuts or Merlin Shredding Inc. however, Iron 

Mountain and Shred It also operate within Red Deer. These companies also collect cardboard for 

recycling. 

Paper Cuts is unique in that it provides shredding services but also collects and bales unshredded paper 

for shipment. Unsold newspapers from local printers and non-confidential recycling from other recycling 

providers compose the majority of this material. 

In locations where recycling is not contracted out, some businesses report that their staff members collect 

and recycling on their own, bringing the materials to drop-off depots or home so that they can put it in 

their household blue box program. Staff members also initiate alternatives like donating surplus food to 

people in need and funding local charities through refundable beverage container collections. 

Various businesses expressed the desire to have a type of “blue box” program, in which a comingled 

recycling bin would be available for multiple materials such cardboard, plastics and tin. Business also 

indicated an interest in receiving organic waste collection, provided the potential issues of odour and pest 

control could be effectively managed. 

Figure 1: Commercial waste and recycling bins 


Appendix D 


Figure 2: Commercial garbage bin contents 

Figure 3: Recycling and garbage bin contents 

1.1 Large Retailers 

Many large box-style stores, such as London Drugs, Costco or Walmart, and numerous chain grocers 

like Safeway and Sobey’s, are equipped with an on-site baler to process recyclables for shipment back 

to their respective warehouses. These baled materials, including cardboard, plastics and, in Safeway’s 

case, beverage containers from in house coffee shops (i.e. Starbucks), are shipped out on the delivery 

trucks’ return trip. In addition, electronics and batteries may also be shipped in bulk to their warehouse for 

recycling. Although these materials are being diverted from landfill, there is no data available to indicate 

the extent of this activity in Red Deer. 

Figure 4: Safeway’s In-Store Compactor for Recyclables 

Bower Mall sends recyclables to Waste Management’s Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for processing. 

An on-site compactor is used for cardboard collection, Figure 6, and two garbage compactors, like that in 

Figure 5, are also used onsite. 


Appendix D 


Figure 5: Bower Mall GarbageCompactor 

Figure 6: Bower Mall Cardboard Compactor 

1.2 Red Deer Hospital 

The Red Deer Hospital also utilizes onsite compactor bins to reduce the volume of nonhazardous waste 

directed to the landfill. The hospital has one cardboard bin and four smaller totes available for comingled 

recyclables, all of which go to the MRF for recycling. Confidential paper recycling is shredded onsite by 

Merlin Shredding Inc. The hospital hopes to expand paper recycling to include newsprint and magazines 

soon as well as enhance current recycling practices, however is in part limited by cost barriers. 

The idea that recycling costs more than general waste is a common misconception of businesses in 

Red Deer. Consultation with service providers confirmed that recycling fees are in fact more affordable 

than waste handling and landfill disposal fees. 

1.3 The Collicut Centre 

The Collicut Centre manages recycling in house. Recyclables are collected and stockpiled until staff 

can conveniently deliver them to a recycling depot while conducting purchasing for the centre. 

1.4 Schools 

Larger institutions were also contacted regarding their current garbage and recycling practices. 

All Red Deer Public Schools, and several separate schools, opted to be serviced through the City’s 

recycling contract for cardboard and commingled recycling collection. 


Appendix D 


Figure 7: Lindsay Thurber Recycling Toters 

1.5 Red Deer College 

Red Deer College (RDC) has numerous initiatives directed at reducing waste generated onsite. The 

college strives to divert materials from the landfill through a composting program that deals with yard 

waste and horticultural trimmings. The college also practices grasscycling by leaving cuttings on their 

lawns. This practice reduces volumetric strain on the small scale composting system and helps to retain 

both soil moisture and nutrients. 

To further divert organics from their waste stream RDC is keen to participate in a City-run composting 

program or initiate a larger scale operation on their own property. 

Classrooms and facilities currently have 3-stream waste bins, separating garbage, paper recycling 

and refundable beverage containers. Other special bins, shown in Figure 9, exist to collect disposable 

cups which are later combined with cardboard recycling in a 40 cubic yard bin. Other initiative on 

campus include: 

• The campus food services contractor, Chartwells, encourages recycling and sustainability (Figure 

13) campus wide, in part by offering a 10 cent discount for using personal reusable 

coffee/tea mugs. 

• Food services employees recycle materials into four black toters, whose contents are later 

picked up and taken to the MRF. 

• Paper Cuts provides confidential shredding and newsprint recycling 

• restaurant outlets on campus also recycle by utilizing a comingled recycling bin 

• Metal waste from RDC’s welding program is collected in two bins and recycled through local 

providers. Furniture (office chairs, desks, etc.) is donated to Habitat ReStore. 

• RDC also has instituted Green Campus scholarships, funded by revenue from the collection 

of refundable beverage containers. 

• The Great Garage Give Away is an annual event at RDC and allows students and staff to bring 

items they no longer use or want to a common area where they can be traded or given away. 

The extensive on campus to reduce, reuse and recycle are highly commendable. It was noted that 

the variety of bin sizes, colours and signage, evident in paper recycling containers (Figure 8 and 

Figure 12), could be a barrier to higher performance due to a lack of program continuity. Creating 

a branded system that is easily recognizable, and promotes visual recall could help increase 

participation. 


Appendix D 


Figure 8: RDC Paper Recycling Receptacle 

Figure 9: RDC Paper Coffee Cup Recycling Bin 

Figure 10: RDC Waste and Recycling Bins 

Figure 11: RDC Cardboard Recycling Bin 


Appendix D 


Figure 12: Another type of Paper Recycling 

Container at RDC 

Figure 13: RDC Food Court Management, 

Chartwells, Sustainability Poster 

2 ICI Survey Results 

Red Deer businesses were invited via notice from the Chamber of Commerce, as well as other 

associations like the Red Deer Home Builders, and in person (via bookmark handouts during business 

visits and public events) to participate in a brief online survey regarding waste and recycling practices. 

There were 23 respondents, comprised of educational institutions (5%), manufacturing businesses / 

warehouses (5%), medical businesses (5%), professional service providers (14%), retail stores (19%) and 

other classifications (52%. including an auto repair shop, non-profit organization, real estate development, 

construction tradespersons, etc.) from which highlights are summarized below. 

A range of business sizes were represented by the respondents, the majority (44%) employing 10 or less 

staff, followed by 33% with 11-50 staff members, 13% having 251 or more staff. Participating businesses 

employing 51-100 staff and 101-250 staff accounted for 4% and 9% respectively. Typical materials 

generated and current handling methods are illustrated in Figure 14 Responses suggest that commonly 

recycled materials (cardboard, paper, etc.) are in fact being put into the garbage. Future diversion 

opportunities are also evident in Figure 14, namely with regard to food waste which can be composted. 


Appendix D 


number of respondents 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Don't have 

Recycle/Compost 

Put in garbage 

Reuse 

Figure 14: Commercial Waste Materials Handling 

When asked who collects their garbage, 35% of respondents specified their contracted collection 

company, 40% indicated they utilize The City of Red Deer contractor, and 25% did not know. Recyclables 

are reportedly handled by Paper Cuts, Waste Management, BFI Canada, and other collection companies 

and staff members. Garbage containers are shared by 41% of businesses, while only 15% share 

recycling containers. 

The survey also identified the main barrier to businesses recycling as the inability to find a recycling 

service. Cost, time and labour, and available space were also noted issues. 58% of businesses reported 

further challenges related to recycling, some of which stem from City bylaws (inability for businesses 

to participate in the City’s recycling collection program) and inaccessibility to collection options 

(e.g., no alternative for food waste). 

The majority of businesses that responded to the survey (86%) do not face challenges with garbage 

collection and the 14% who do mentioned service not being prompt (on-time) and special handling 

protocols (e.g., healthcare waste). 

Recommendations for improvements to garbage and recycling services in Red Deer reflected a desire 

for increased access to recycling in the downtown core, more recycling bins around businesses and 

multi-material recycling bins. Providing for more information regarding recyclable materials was also 

suggested, as well as landfill bans and mandatory recycling. Providing an informative brochure / pamphlet 

in monthly utility bills, outlining what recycling services are available in Red Deer, was also suggested. 


Appendix E: 

Education / Promotion Overall Approach Examples 

Government Leadership 

Markham, Ontario 

Population: 301,709 

Definition 

Municipalities lead by example by establishing progressive waste reduction policies and programs. 

Examples include green procurement policies and aggressive waste reduction and diversion programs 

in all municipal operations. 

Description 

The Civic Center is Markham’s first zero waste facility. In moving towards this goal several changes 

to existing department programs took place: 

Town 

Department 

Asset 


Purchasing 

Strategic 

Services 

Oversees 

Garbage 

collection 

Food 

services 

Special 

events 

Changes 

• Removed all garbage containers from staff work stations 

and offices (went from 500 containers to 45) 

• Provided a small blue box at each desk 

• Staff was instructed to empty as needed into larger 

centralized recycling container 

• Introduced centralized organics containers 

• Internal material bans from garbage 


• Local Food Plus Procurement Practices 


Central Recycling and Organics Station 

Employee Workstation Kit 


Appendix E 


Internal Bans 

Civic Centre Restaurant “Reflections” Recycling and Organics Bin 

Internal bans from Civic Centre garbage are used for the following materials: 

• Batteries • Grass • Paint cans 

• Blue box recyclables • Ink cartridges • Plastic pails 

• Computers • Leaf and yard material • Pop cans 

• Construction materials • Metal items • Propane tanks 

• Coroplast signs • Office paper • Wood 

• Corrugated cardboard • Organic material • Wooden skids 

• Garbage from home or 

other facilities 

Zero Waste Food and Catering Services and Events Policy 

Effective July 1, 2008, all food services operations and Town-run events in the Civic Centre will conform 

to Markham’s Zero Waste Food and Catering Service Policy. 

Example Policy statements include: 

• Suppliers shall recycle and/or compost all materials possible. 

• Suppliers shall purchase coffee in reusable, recyclable or compostable containers or 

packaging only. 

• Condiments such as tea bags, sugar, milk, cream, mustard, ketchup, jam in single serve nonrecyclable 

packets are prohibited. 

• Polystyrene (foam) plastic products for food or beverages is prohibited. Reusable china 

dinnerware and stainless steel service ware is preferred. 

• Paper products such as coffee cups and plates shall contain post-consumer fibre and be 

recyclable or compostable. Biodegradable paper cups made of corn and 100% recycled 

unbleached compostable napkins are preferred. 

• Zero Waste and recycling instructions shall be visible in the food preparation and service areas. 

Educational materials approved by the Town will be visible and available. 

• Suppliers are encouraged to offer price incentives for the use of reusable mugs or cups. 

• Suppliers are encouraged to donate surplus food to local shelters and food banks. 

For a complete copy of the Zero Waste Policy: Food and Catering Services visit 

http://www.markham.ca/NR/rdonlyres/2212CA8B-4388-4A90-A9C2- 

E4243FC71258/0/zerowaste_policy09.pdf 


Appendix E 


Effective January 1, 2009, all food services operations in Town-owned or leased facilities and Town-run 

events are required to conform to this Policy. 

All food services for Town-sponsored events are prohibited from using polystyrene food serving products, 

effective January 1, 2009. 

Zero Waste Staff Functions With Refreshments Policy 

The Town also has specified performance standards, similar to above policy, that must be met for staff 

functions including meetings, parties and celebrations. 

Example Policy statements include: 

• Polystyrene (foam) plastic products for food or beverages is prohibited. 

• Condiments such as tea bags, sugar, milk, cream, mustard, ketchup, jam in single serve nonrecyclable 

packets are prohibited. Napkin dispensers are preferred over piles of loose napkins. 

• Drinking water in pitchers is preferred over serve plastic bottles. 

• Using cellophane to wrap prepared food is to be avoided. 

Local Food Plus Procurement Practices 

In a related program, effective June 2008, Markham was the first municipality in Canada to adopt Local 

Food Plus (LFP) procurement practices for its municipal food services. This initiative assists supporting 

Ontario’s farm economy, addresses climate change, reduces greenhouse gases and pesticide use, and 

promotes environmentally responsible purchasing. 

LFP certification requires farmers to adhere to strict guidelines representing significant progress in the 

transition to sustainable development practices. With the assistance of LFP, Markham will ensure a 

minimum of 10 percent of its material and produce comes from LFP certified Ontario farmers, with future 

increases of five percent each year. 

Zero Waste Zero Waste Office Supplies Policy 

The Town of Markham is developing a policy that covers paper reuse and documents. For instance, any 

consultant that wishes to submit a proposal to the Town of Markham must do so on 80%-100% recycled 

content paper. Additionally, the proposal must not contain any plastic sheets or cerlox binding. 

Green Procurement 

The Town of Markham has a draft green procurement policy. Presently the Town purchases Fair Trade 

coffee and recycled content paper products (toilet paper, paper towels and photocopy paper) even though 

the green procurement policy is not official the spirit of the policy is in place. 

Reduction Potential and Quantitative Results 

Medium – high reduction potential for City-generated waste. Depends on types of programs/policies 

implemented. 

Since implementing the City Hall (500 employees) recycling and composting programs, waste has 

decreased from one 14 yard bin being collected twice a week to nine locked 65 gallon toters being 

collected every six weeks. When the City plastic bag recycling program starts it is anticipated that two 

65-gallon toters will be collected every six weeks. 


Appendix E 


Lessons Learned 

• Councilors and senior staff did not like ‘change’, they had a tremendous sense of entitlement of 

the level of service that they should receive at work. They fought ‘change’ on every level. Ensure 

that significant education (e.g., cost savings, stewardship) is available prior, during and after 

‘change’. 

• Start with the area you have most control over. 

• Develop relationship with key departments. Action from several Departments may be required to 

move forward with zero waste (e.g., Asset Management, Purchasing and Strategic Services) and 

zero waste may not be considered a top priority by each Department. 

• Educate public about your achievements. 

Communities with Similar Program 

Brandon, MB (Pop: 46,061) – Effective January 1, 2012 the sale and provision of single-use bottled 

water has been eliminated at all City owned and operated facilities. Reusable water bottles are available 

at these facilities for purchase along with water filling stations. 

London, ON (Pop: 366,151) – In 2008 the City of London banned selling bottled water at city-owned 

sites. 

Santa Monica, CA (Pop: 89,736) – Polystyrene ban (all polystyrene including expanded polystyrene and 

clear styrene) adopted January 9, 2007. For all City facilities and operations, city managed concessions, 

and city sponsored and permitted events the ban was effective February 9, 2007. For all food service 

providers it was effective February 9, 2008. Requires that all plastic takeout food packaging be 

recyclable. 

Spruce Grove, AB (Pop: 26,171) – The City of Spruce Grove is committed to sustainable development 

and supports environmentally positive initiatives. In order to promote environmental leadership and 

responsibility the City always considers environmentally superior product choices in procurement 

decisions. 

The Spruce Grove Purchasing Policy, adopted May 24, 2005, states that “the goods and services 

necessary for the provision of municipal services are obtained in an effective, expedient, and 

environmentally friendly manner and at the best overall value” (City of Spruce Grove, 2005). 

For more information see the next section, Green Procurement Education. 

Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – Facilities Management (FM) operates the City’s Civic Centres and many 

other City buildings throughout Toronto. With nearly 7,500 staff from 22 divisions, FM created a recycling 

program called No Waste. In 2004 No Waste was adopted by all staff working in City owned buildings. 

This program diverts office waste along with fluorescent bulbs, cell phones, inkjet and laser cartridges 

and batteries. In 2004 FM recycled 71% of office workplace waste; in 2010 it recycled 85% with 17 office 

workplaces sowing waste diversion ranging from 61% to 92%. 


Appendix E 


Toronto Internal Deskside Recycling Centre 

with Small Garbage Container 

Toronto Internal 

Centralized Recycling Centre 

Over the next few years the City offer its Green Bin organics collection to City facilities and will include 

vendor-take-back clauses in contracts. 

For more information on the City’s internal waste diversion programs visit 

http://www.toronto.ca/environment/pdf/diverting_news_2011.pdf 

Contact 

Claudia Marsales 

Manager, Solid Waste Management 

Town of Markham 

101 Town Centre Boulevard 

Markham, ON L3R 9W3 

T: (905) 477-7000 ext. 3560 

cmarsales@markham.ca 


Appendix E 


Green Procurement 

Richmond, British Columbia 


Definition 

Internal and community education supporting environmentally-preferable products and services 

by giving them preference in purchasing decisions (e.g., purchasing products with recycled content 

supports markets for recyclable materials). Procurement is also one of the most important areas 

for governments to show environmental leadership. 

Description 

Through leading by example the City of Richmond’s Environmental Purchasing Policy was adopted 

in 2000. It states that: 

“In order to increase the development and awareness of environmentally sound products and services, 

City of Richmond staff will review their contracts and tender specifications for goods and services, to 

ensure that wherever possible and economically feasible, specifications are amended to provide for 

consideration of environmental characteristics. Consideration may be given to those environmental 

products that are certified by an independent accredited organization. 

The City of Richmond as a whole will endeavour to increase its use of products and services that are 

more responsible to the environment in the way that they are made, used, transported, stored and 

packaged and disposed of. It is recognized that analysis is required in order to ensure that the products 

are made available at competitive prices, and that the environmental benefits provided by a product or 

service should not significantly affect the intended use of that product or service” (City of 

Richmond, 2001). 

Purchasing is decentralized and there is no one individual in charge of the green procurement policy. 

The decision to buy green products is left to each department. Examples of City green purchases include 

recycled-content paper (e.g., photocopy paper, toilet paper and paper towels), environmentally friendly 

janitorial cleaning products and recycled-content blue boxes. 

In 2001 the City of Richmond developed an Environmental Purchasing Guide to complement the Policy 

and assist City staff and other municipal staff across British Columbia in selecting products. This guide is 

located at http://www.richmond.ca/services/Sustainable/environment/policies/purchasing.htm and outlines 

environmental guidelines for common products that municipalities would purchase (e.g., office supplies, 

lighting, janitorial products, vehicles and maintenance). Sample specifications and local recycled product 

listings are also presented. 


Appendix E 


Richmond Environmental Purchasing Guide 

In 2002 the City introduced an environmental purchasing checklist for suppliers to complete. The City’s 

Terms and Conditions of Contract, including the checklist, is provided at the end of this section. 

The City website also has general information for individuals to consider when looking for environmentally 

friendly products and links to a variety of purchasing resources. 

From the Environmental Purchasing Policy came the High Performance Building Policy, adopted in 2005, 

whereby LEED-BC Gold accreditation was set as the desired standard of performance for new City 

buildings greater than 2,000 ft 2 and the City will seek to meet LEED-BC Silver certification as the 

minimum requirement for major renovations to existing facilities and new City buildings smaller than 

2,000 ft 2 , but may not necessarily seek formal accreditation. 

The next step for the City of Richmond is to move towards a sustainability purchasing policy and guide 

that will include environmental, economic and social considerations. 


Low reduction potential if not accompanied by incentives. Important that the City ‘walks the talk’ regarding 

green purchasing. 

There is no formal tracking of this Policy. This program is considered to be successful as the information 

was shared with the Greater Vancouver Regional District (now Metro Vancouver) in 2001 and in 2009 the 

City is still receiving municipal information requests regarding the Policy. 


• Important to educate City staff and ensure that they understand the Guide and the intent of the 

Policy at the beginning. Ongoing education is needed. 

• One challenge the City faces is with suppliers which are often small companies who are not 

aware of the environmental issues regarding their products (e.g., carpet cleaners). They typically 

do not have enough information to sufficiently fill out the checklist provided by the City. 

• Another challenge is for the City to become knowledgeable on green products and services 

options. It is difficult to become informed on all products and services as there is not enough staff 

to do so. The City relies on the environmental market demonstrating their products and services. 

• If the City realized that this Policy would gain so much attention by other municipalities it would 

have implemented some type of success tracking system. 

• Consider dedicating City resources to assist departments with applying Guide concepts. 


Appendix E 


Communities/Organizations with Similar Program 

CalRecycle – CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery), formerly the 

California Integrated Waste Management Board, provides website education on environmentally 

preferable purchasing (http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/epp/) that can be used by both residents and 

businesses. To reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste, information is available on purchasing recycled, 

repairable and durable goods. A Green Guide and the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Best 

Practices Manual is available online along with the Recycled Content Products Directory 

(http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/RCP/). 

EcoLogo M – Environment Canada’s EcoLogo M Program provides consumers with a level of assurance 

that the product bearing the EcoLogo M , EcoLogo’s symbol of environmental excellence, meets stringent 

environmental criteria. The mark also tells the consumer that the manufacturer of the product has been 

audited by a credible third party. 

Started by the Government of Canada in 1988, the EcoLogo M Program is one of many ecolabelling 

programs around the world rewarding products and services for their environmental leadership. To date, 

over 3,000 products and services have attained certification with the program. 

For more information visit http://www.terrachoice-certified.com/en/ 

Eco label certification programs are found worldwide and include, but are not limited to: 

Country 

Australia 

Brazil 

Germany 

Hong Kong 

India 

Japan 

Korea 

New Zealand 

Sweden 

Spain 

Thailand 

Ukraine 

United States 

Certification Program 

The Australian Ecolabel Program 

Brazilian Ecolabelling 

Blue Angel 

Green Label Scheme 

Eco Mark 

Eco Mark 

Environmental Labelling 

Environmental Choice New Zealand 

TCO 

AENOR-Medio Ambiente 

Thai Green Label 

Living Planet 

Green Seal 

Local Food Plus – Local Food Plus (LFP) is an award winning non-profit organization that brings 

farmers and consumers to the table to share the benefits of environmentally and socially responsible 

food production. LFP is a national organization that currently focuses on Ontario, and in particular the 

Greenbelt around the Greater Toronto area. Similar to EcoLogo M , a certification process is available to 

obtain the LFP certification mark. LFP certified farmers and processors work to: 


Appendix E 


• Employ sustainable production systems that: 

– Reduce or eliminate synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. 

– Avoid the use of harmones, antibiotics and genetic engineering. 

– Conserve soil and water. 

• Provide safe and fair working conditions for on-farm labour. 

• Provide healthy and humane care of livestock. 

• Protect and enhance wildlife habitat and biodiversity on working farm landscapes. 

• Reduce food-related energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions through energy 

conservation, recycling, minimal packaging and local sales. 

For more information visit http://www.localfoodplus.ca 

Spruce Grove, AB (Pop: 26,171) – The City of Spruce Grove is committed to sustainable development 

and supports environmentally positive initiatives. In order to promote environmental leadership and 

responsibility the City always considers environmentally superior product choices in procurement 

decisions. 

The Spruce Grove Purchasing Policy, adopted May 24, 2005, states that “the goods and services 

necessary for the provision of municipal services are obtained in an effective, expedient, and 

environmentally friendly manner and at the best overall value” (City of Spruce Grove, 2005). 

This Policy also states that the City of Spruce Grove will ensure that the short and long term 

environmental costs are factored into all purchasing decisions. Completing a life cycle analysis will outline 

the short and long term costs of a product or service. A comprehensive examination of a product’s 

environmental and economic effects throughout its lifetime include: new material extraction, 

transportation, manufacturing, use, and disposal. 

General criteria to be considered for all purchases include: 

• Purchase reusable, recycled, and recyclable products. 

• Products made from the highest available recycled content and/or post-consumer content. 

• Durable products, with a long life expectancy, as opposed to single-use goods. 

• Products that are energy efficient, can be recharged, run on renewable fuels or reduce water use. 

• Non-toxic, minimally toxic, and/or biodegradable products. 

• Products that are produced or locally or regionally to reduce shipping and 

packaging requirements. 

For packaging materials the following criteria is to be considered: 

• Products that have minimal or no packaging. 

• Bulk product when available 

• Pro-actively discuss both efficiencies and methods of reducing packaging requirements with 

suppliers, on an ongoing basis. 

• Acquire packaging, where possible, that is refillable, recyclable, reusable or returnable. 

Environmental sustainability is one of six purchasing factors that must be considered including cost. 

Typically paying 10% more for green products is acceptable. 

City staff selects options from the Environmental Choice (EcoLogo M ) or EnergyStar programs and 

vendors are required to identify green options. 


Appendix E 


This policy is not formally tracked but is considered to be successful. For example, Corporate Services 

has switched all departments to recycled content paper and the use of environmentally friendly cleaning 

products is now part of the janitorial contract. 

In order to achieve success in policy implementation, staff buy-in and office champions are needed. 

Resistance to change is considered a challenge. 

Whistler, BC (Pop: 9,824) – On December 4, 2006 the Resort Municipality of Whistler adopted a 

Purchasing Policy (F-29) which states that one of the Guiding Principles is that the “Resort Municipality of 

Whistler will employ municipal purchasing activities that demonstrate our commitment to moving our 

community toward Whistler’s adopted sustainability objectives: 

Eliminate Whistler’s contribution to: 

• Progressive build-up in concentrations of waste derived from the earth’s crust. 

• Progressive build-up in concentrations of materials produced by society. 

• Ongoing physical degradation of nature. 

• Undermining other people’s ability to meet their needs” 

(Resort Municipality of Whistler, 2006). 

Under best practices, Whistler must communicate the “commitment to sustainability to all suppliers and 

contractors as a means of encouraging upstream improvements in product development and availability” 

(Resort Municipality of Whistler, 2006). 

The Resort Municipality also has a Sustainable Purchasing Guide (2006) that discusses sustainable 

purchasing and the six steps of product assessment. A copy of this guide is located at 

http://www.whistler2020.ca/whistler/site/genericPage.acds?context=1967998&instanceid=1967999 

Contact 

Suzanne Bycraft 

Manager of Fleet and Environmental Programs 

City of Richmond 

6911 No. 3 Road 

Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 

T: (604) 233-3338 


Appendix E 


Community Engagement 

Herefordshire and Worcestershire Councils, United Kingdom 

Population: 180,000 (Herefordshire); 558,000 (Worcestershire) 

Definition 

Community engagement can be used in conjunction with specific community-based social marketing 

campaigns to build overall community awareness, support and participation in diversion initiatives. 

Description 

The goals of the “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign were to raise awareness of the need to reduce food 

waste, reduce the level of food waste being sent to landfill and help residents to save money. The specific 

objectives of the “Love Food Hate Waste Campaign” were to increase the percentage of people 

committed to reducing food waste by 10% over a six-month period from October 2008 to April 2009; 

and as a result divert more than 2,000 tonnes of food waste from landfill. The campaign was a mix 

of advertising, community engagement, and public relations. Key elements included: pre- and post 

campaign surveys; 30 “roadshows” (meeting local groups and having booth at local events and in public 

places); trial door-to-door engagement with eight “food champions” visiting 22,000 households; billboards; 

bus, press and radio ads; press liaison and editorials; 20,000 leaflets, plus posters. The campaign was 

successful in increasing the percentage of “Committed Food Waste Reducers” from 13% to 23%. As a 

result, it was estimated that the campaign reduced food waste generation by 2,340 tonnes by April 2009. 

The campaign costs were 30% lower than the cost of disposal, estimated on a per tonne basis. Direct 

one-on-one engagement was considered to have been positive and effective. However, the door-to-door 

outreach component of the campaign was considered to be less efficient for directly engaging citizens 

regarding food waste habits due to the complex issues associated with food culture and behaviour. For 

future roll out of the Love Food Hate Waste campaign, the plan will be to collaborate with civil society 

groups as well as expanding the Master Composter leadership and outreach program. 

For more information visit www.letswasteless.com/cms/reduce/lovefoodhatewaste.aspx 

See also: WRAP case studies: www.wrap.org.uk/content/local-authority-communications-case-studies. 

Reduction Potential 

Low to moderate. 

Communities with Similar Programs 

Mecklenburg County, NC (923,400) – Recycling Ambassadors Program. The mission of the program 

is to “recognize and reward Mecklenburg County businesses that are committed to building a strong 

community and foster an environment of stewardship to reduce, reuse and recycle waste in the workplace 

and purchase recycled products.” Businesses are engaged and rewarded in various ways, and 

performance of the program is monitored. Events that bring participants together for recognition, 

education and networking opportunities are held a few times per year. One ‘Wipe Out Waste 

Ambassadors” event focused on supporting businesses in their efforts to promote Earth Day. As part of 

this initiative, the County hosted a luncheon discussion on how to promote Earth Day using social media. 

The event was attended by 40 business and institutional representatives. A presentation by a 

communications company provided information and advice on how to get the message out via social 

media. 

http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/SolidWaste/BusinessRecycling/Pages/RecyclingAmbassadorPro 

gram.aspx 

City of Corvalis, OR (55,000) – Corvallis Recycling Block Captains Program. Initiated by the 

Corvallis Sustainability Coalition in December 2010, this program engages volunteer residents to 

distribute recycling information to their neighbors four times a year, serving as points of contact for 


Appendix E 


recycling, and liaising between the community and the coalition. The program has acquired 70 block 

captains thus far. Some have taken on this role after completing the Master Recycler class offered by 

Allied Waste Services in conjunction with Oregon State University. The Coalition plans to expand the 

block captain program by engaging current block captains to train new captains, similar to the Master 

Recycler concept. 

http://sustainablecorvallis.org/action-teams/waste-prevention/recycling-block-captain-program/ 

Cities of Albany, Astoria, Bend, Coos Bay, Medford and Pendleton, OR – Using Community 

Engagement to Increase Refrigerator Recycling. Non-profit agency Energy Trust of Oregon operates 

a refrigerator incentive and take-back program aimed at encouraging residents to switch to more energy 

efficient models. The program had successful results in the capital city of Portland but was less effective 

in outlying regions due to lack of awareness and skepticism. Between 2009 and 2011, Energy Trust 

initiated a community engagement program to increase participation in six communities, with a particular 

focus on direct outreach and community-specific media campaigning. A “Fridge Recycling Challenge” 

was launched in each community with the objective of identifying the “oldest” fridge still in use; the winner 

would receive a new energy efficient model. Print, radio and web advertising was used, as well as social 

media; media outreach resulted in extensive coverage. The result was a “triple digit” increase in the 

number of refrigerators picked up in each city, compared to prior years. 

http://www.peci.org/resources/library/it-takes-village-using-community-engagement-encouragerefrigerator-recycling-becc 

Greater Victoria, BC (350,000) – Annual Pumpkin Smash Community Event. The Greater Victoria 

Compost Education Centre, in partnership with the Capital Regional District, Ellice Recycle and Thrifty’s 

Foods, organizes an annual post-Halloween pumpkin collection and smash community event. It is 

intended to engage citizens on the issue of organic waste in a “fun, family” setting, as well as to divert 

pumpkin waste. The annual invitation to “Do the Pumpkin Smash” is widely advertised and supported 

through a range of community-based outreach networks. Collection points are provided in various 

locations on one weekend after Halloween. Over 13 tonnes of pumpkin waste was collected for 

composting in 2009. 

www.compost.bc.ca/ 

http://www.villagenow.net/2010/11/gvcec-pumpkin-smash-keep-your-jack-o.html 

City of Oldham, UK. (220,000) – Engaging Culturally Diverse Community in Implementation of 

New Recycling Service. In 2008, Oldham implemented an updated and expanded collection program 

that introduced a new weekly organics collection service, and shifted the existing recycling program to a 

biweekly schedule along with garbage. Oldham has a highly ethnically and economically diverse 

population, including a significant population of English as a second language speakers. A community 

engagement campaign was designed specifically to target ethnic minority residents in 11,000 households. 

Elements of the campaign included: one-on-one engagement through walkabouts in housing estates and 

meetings with community groups; engagement with community leaders and inter-faith groups; 

employment of community language speakers to lead outreach events; production of multi-language print 

and branding materials, as well as use of graphics and photos to explain the program. Use of community 

language speakers, and engagement with community leaders in order to build trust were found to be keys 

to success. The results showed that participation in the new paper recycling and comingled recycling 

collection rose by 43% compared to the pre-campaign ‘old’ program. Participation in the new organics 

collection exceeded the local target. 

www.wrap.org.uk/content/local-authority-communications-case-studies 

London Borough of Waltham Forest, UK (227,100) – Engaging Diverse Communities In Work On 

Recycling. The objective of this 2007 outreach initiative was to engage black, Asian and minority ethnic 

communities in the borough of Waltham Forest in order to increase their involvement and participation in 

recycling. The primary approach was to meet with approximately 40 community and faith-based 

organizations in the area in order to start a conversation about recycling. It was found that these groups 

rely on informal networking, conversations and peer support for their pubic service information rather than 

on formal communications channels such as print materials and electronic media. Therefore, the Borough 

should prioritize informal networks, face-to-face discussions and person-to-person linkages for the 

purposes of ongoing engagement with these communities. 

www.suscom.org/Documents/BAME_engagement_summary.pdf 


Appendix E 


Community-Based Social Marketing 

Edmonton, Alberta 


Definition 

Proven social marketing techniques are incorporated into program education/promotion activities to 

effectively change behaviors. 

The community-based social marketing process centres on uncovering barriers that inhibit individuals 

from engaging in sustainable behaviours, it focuses on tools that have demonstrated to be effective in 

fostering and maintaining behaviour change, then piloting takes place on a small portion of the community 

followed by ongoing evaluation once the program has been implemented community-wide. 

The following information is from Doug McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith’s Fostering Sustainable 

Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing (1999). 

Uncovering barriers involves three steps: 

1) Literature review (e.g., articles, reports, websites and databases) – Assists with identifying issues 

to be explored further with residents. 

2) Focus groups – A focus group consists of six to eight residents who have been randomly selected 

and are paid to discuss issues that the literature review has identified as important. Focus groups 

are an essential step in enhancing the understanding of how community residents view the 

behavior to be promoted. 

3) Phone survey – A phone survey allows for the views of a randomly selected larger group of 

residents. Focus groups ensure that a more comprehensive survey is constructed and that 

questions contained in the survey will be readily understood by respondents. 

Behaviour change centres on five tools that help overcome barriers: 

1) Commitment – From good intentions to action. For instance, when distributing compost units, ask 

when the resident expects to begin to use the unit and inquire if someone can call shortly 

afterward to see if they are having any difficulties or ask households who have just been 

delivered a compost unit to place a sticker on the side of their recycling container indicating that 

they compost. 

2) Prompts – Remembering to act sustainably. For example, distribute grocery list pads that remind 

shoppers every time they look at their grocery list to shop for products that have recycled content, 

are recyclable or have less packaging. One can also place signs at the entrances to 

supermarkets reminding shoppers to bring their reusable shopping bags into the store and/or 

distribute car window stickers with the purchase of reusable shopping bags; the stickers can be 

placed on the window next to the car lock to remind people to bring their reusable bags into the 

store. 

3) Norms – Building community support. For instance, affix a decal to the recycling container 

indicating that "We Compost" or affix a decal to the recycling container indicating that the 

household buys recycled products. 


Appendix E 


4) Communication – Creating effective messages. Several techniques can be used and are not 

limited to the following: 

– Ensure that the message is vivid, personal and concrete 

– Have the message delivered by an individual or organization who is credible with the 

audience 

– Make communications easy for residents to remember what to do and how and when to do it 

– When possible, use personal contact to deliver the message 

– Provide feedback to both the individual and community levels about the impact of sustainable 

behaviours 

5) Incentives – Enhancing motivation to act. For instance, invoke user fees to increase motivation to 

recycle, compost and source reduction or attach a sizable deposit on household hazardous waste 

to provide the motivation necessary for individuals to take leftover products to a depot for 

proper disposal. 

The above tools are powerful but they can be ineffective if significant external barriers exist. If the 

behavior is inconvenient, unpleasant, costly or time-consuming, no matter how well internal barriers are 

addressed the community-based social marketing strategy will be unsuccessful. Removing or minimizing 

external barriers is imperative. Examples include: 

• It is too inconvenient to obtain a compost unit. 

Solution: Deliver compost units door-to-door. When compost units are delivered for free, as they 

were in a pilot project in the City of Waterloo, Ontario participation rates can rival those for 

recycling programs. In that pilot project, a door hanger was distributed to 300 homes informing 

residents that they had been selected to receive a free composting unit. Of the 300 homes that 

were contacted, 253 (or 84%) agreed to accept compost units. In a follow-up survey, 77% of 

these households were found to be using their compost units. 

• It is difficult to identify products that are recyclable or have recycled content. 

Solution: Provide prompts that make their identification easier. 

• The inconvenience of taking household hazardous waste to a depot results in little of this waste 

being diverted from the landfill. 

Solution: Provide semi-annual hazardous waste home collection dates. Pass a municipal bylaw 

which mandates that hazardous materials must carry a sticker indicating that the product is a 

hazardous waste and when the collection dates are in that area. 

Once barriers are identified and prioritized, and behaviour change tools are selected that match the 

barriers, the next stage is program design. At this time, a pilot project can be established. When the pilot 

is effectively changing behaviour, a community-wide program can be implemented. 

Evaluation of the community-wide implementation can focus on baseline information in the activity prior to 

implementation and at several points afterwards. 

Additional information, including articles, reports, case studies and a list serve is located at 

www.cbsm.com. 

Description 

The City of Edmonton has a highly integrated waste management system with social marketing and 

community relations being key components. 

Extensive blue box to blue bag and grasscycling social marketing campaigns were conducted in 1999 

and 2005-2006 respectively. 


Appendix E 


The City decided to use social marketing tools as an alternative to information campaigns in order to 

change residential behaviour. Barriers to grasscycling and switching from the blue box to blue bag system 

were identified followed by the development of a strategy using behaviour change tools, a pilot took place 

including evaluation and then community-wide implementation. 

Behaviour change strategies utilized include: 

Blue Box to Blue Bag 

• Direct mail with sample bags 

• Bags for boxes exchange 

• Open house 

• Volunteers 

• Advertising (print and tv) 

Grasscycling 

• Two pilots: 

• Direct mail and home visits 

• Direct mail and demonstration yard 

• Product tags 

• Promotions (draw) 

• Television and transit advertising 

• Media interviews 


Low to high reduction potential. Impacts each individual program. 

A 2006 telephone survey and visual observations indicate that the City blue bag recycling program has an 

88% voluntary participation rate. The same survey shows that grasscycling has increased to 39% 

participation compared to 26% from before grasscycling social marketing took place. Additionally, the 

grasscycling web page hits increased from 546 in 2005 to 5,771 in 2006. 


Tips for applying social marketing tools to waste diversion programs from the City of Edmonton are: 

• Every waste activity requires a unique social marketing program 

• Research is essential 

• Do not rely on a single communication vehicle 

• Repeat, repeat, repeat 

• Measure behaviour 

Communities/Events with Similar Program 

Don’t Mess With Texas – This extensive campaign, sponsored by the Texas Department of 

Transportation, started in 1986 to educate Texans about the high cost of litter and promoting litter 

prevention through award-winning billboard, radio and television advertisements. Road litter has dropped 

about a third since 2001 with the assistance of household names including Willie Nelson, Matthew 

McConaughey and LeAnn Rimes. 

Messin’ With Texas, high school curriculum kits are available to teachers along with an elementary school 

outreach program called Litter Force. Don’t Mess With Texas also partners with colleges and universities 

to promote school spirit with a CampusCleanup event, and communities across the state can have fun 

learning about litter prevention through a summer outreach program. The Trash 4 Ca$h competition is 

also extremely popular where by high schools compete against one another for cash prizes. 

Litter bags, bumper stickers and decal are available at no cost from the campaign website. 

Every two years this campaign conducts an Attitudes and Behaviors Results study that focuses on 

awareness of the Don’t Mess with Texas campaign slogan, assesses litter behaviour levels and 


Appendix E 


measures the persuasiveness of attitudinal and informative statements on one’s likelihood to litter less or 

dispose of litter properly. 

For more information, visit http://www.dontmesswithtexas.org/ 

Griffin, GA (Pop: 23,643) – Griffin has the only mandatory residential curbside recycling program in 

Georgia. This program started in March 2007 and residents who fail to put out their 35 gallon recycling 

cart at the curb on the designated collection day forfeit their garbage collection for that day. City officials 

noticed that residents of the Monday route were setting out their recycling and garbage carts but that the 

recycling carts were only partially full and being put out so that garbage would be collected. 

After a three month residential grassroots education campaign that attempted to break down the barriers 

keeping residents from filling their carts weekly the City of Griffin reported a collection volume increase of 

22% when compared to the same period in 2007. The effort began in October 2008 when officials 

launched a campaign designed to reach city residents through strategic advertising, participation at local 

events, a partnership with Keep Spalding-Griffin Beautiful and media relations with the help of the 

Curbside Value Partnership (a national invitation-only program of Keep America Beautiful). 

Every Sunday from October to December a ¼ page ad was placed in the local newspaper. Additionally, 

the Monday route received three flyers, a different one the first week of each month from October - 

December, with their recycling cart that focused on removing the perception that recycling is something 

difficult. 

An interesting fact about the City of Griffin is that it went from no city run recycling programs to mandatory 

recycling in 2007 for residents and the commercial sector (cardboard only). 

For more information contact Phil Francis, City of Griffin Director of Central Services at (770) 229-6421. 

Riding Mountain National Park, MB – The 60 Tonne Challenge Sticker Campaign was a program to 

increase recyclables collected in Wasagaming to 60 tonnes a year. Stickers were purchased at the 

Friends of Riding Mountain National Park Nature Shop for $1.00 each. The sticker was attached to one 

bag or box of clean unsorted recyclables that was dropped off at the Recycling Depot. Friends’ staff 

ensured that the recyclables were placed in the correct container. This program ran from 2004 – 2011. In 

2012 Parks Canada is reviewing Riding Mountain National Park waste diversion programs. 

Waste Reduction Awards Program – CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and 

Recovery), formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board, coordinates the Waste 

Reduction Awards Program (WRAP) which provides the opportunity for California businesses to gain 

public recognition for their outstanding efforts to reduce waste. Businesses do not compete against each 

other as each business is judged independently based on individual accomplishments. Successful 

applicants receive an award certificate from the State of California along with a camera-ready WRAP 

WINNER logo and window decal. The logo can be used on products, advertising and business websites 

to publicize waste reduction efforts. In addition, CalRecycle publicizes WRAP winners via local and 

statewide press releases and they are listed on the CalRecycle WRAP website. 

Since 1993, more than 17,000 awards have been given to 4,288 California businesses, many being 

multiple-year winners. 

The following are examples of how the WRAP winner logo is being promoted: 

• AT&T Yellow Pages, a multi-year winner, places the logo on the back cover of all California white 

and yellow page telephone directories. 

• Dole Fresh Vegetables printed the logo on its invoices. 

• Nissan Motor Corporation printed the logo on ceramic coffee cups. 

• Bayer Corporation uses the logo in newsletters and/or advertisements. 


Appendix E 


Annually CalRecycle recognizes five of the best examples of nonhazardous waste reduction efforts for 

the ‘WRAP of the Year’ award. These businesses serve as waste management models for the rest of 

their industry. 

Waste Wise Program – This free, voluntary program set up by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) attempts to eliminate municipal solid waste. Participants, including government, 

nonprofit organizations and large businesses join the program by signing a three year contract and 

commit to reduce waste, establish waste reduction goals and track progress of their accomplishments. 

Within six months of joining, partners must set their three year goals in waste prevention, recycling 

collection and buying or manufacturing products with recycled content. Once the EPA approves an 

organization’s goals, they receive a Waste Wise logo for internal and external use. The EPA also 

publicizes organizations successful in reducing waste through EPA publications, case studies, and 

national and regional events. 

Since launched in 1994 Waste Wise has more than 2,000 members in more than 54 industry sectors and 

has reported more than 120 million tons of waste reduced and made significant achievements reducing 

climate change impact. 

Winnipeg Folk Festival – This annual event uses reusable plastic plates for all of its concession stands 

and for meals served to performers and volunteers backstage. A two dollar deposit is required when 

picking up a clean plate, which is returned when the used plate is brought back. This program is an 

integral component of the folk festival as no glass is allowed on site. Reusable mugs are sold by festival 

staff and concessioners and in 2008 biodegradable beer cups were used in the tavern areas and 

composted afterwards. 

Contact 

Connie Boyce 

Director of Community Relations 

City of Edmonton 

3rd Floor, Century Plaza 

9803 – 102A Avenue 

Edmonton, AB T5J 3A3 

McKenzie-Mohr & Associates 

248 Eglinton Street 

Fredericton, NB E3B 2W1 

T: (780) 496-5407 

T: (506) 455-5061 

F: (506) 455-0550 

dmm@cbsm.com 


Appendix E 


Community-Based Social Marketing – Incentives 

Hamilton, Ontario 


Definition 

Incentives are earned on participation in recycling/composting and/or reductions in garbage generated. 

Incentives provide a positive reinforcement for the desired waste diversion behaviour, and can be a 

rewarding and effective way to encourage participation. 

Description 

To promote successful waste management practices in the home, the City of Hamilton’s Waste 

Management Division launched the Gold Box Reward and Recognition Program in January 2006. The 

Gold Box program recognizes residents who reach and exceed the goal of 65% waste diversion from 

landfill. 

Residents are encouraged to complete a ballot provided on the City’s website located at 

http://www.hamilton.ca/CityServices/Garbage-and-Recycling/Blue-boxes-recycling/Win-a-gold-box.htm. 

From the submitted ballots, 50 properties are randomly selected each month to be audited by the City for 

household waste, recyclables and source separated organics. All audited households that meet or 

exceed the community target of 65% waste diversion from landfill receive two ‘gold’ boxes to use each 

week for recyclables (instead of the standard blue box), are recognized in the local media and are 

recognized before City Council during Earth Week or Waste Reduction Week. Participation is voluntary 

and the contest is only open to households within the City of Hamilton. 

Hamilton Gold Box Recipients 

One Grand Prize winner is selected each month. In addition to the above recognition the resident who 

diverts the most also receives a cheque for $160 to illustrate the savings that can be realized by diverting 

waste from landfill by recycling and composting. The cheque represents the approximate the value 

of taxes paid in 2008 for waste management. 


Medium reduction potential. 

To date, the City of Hamilton has recognized 12 Grand Prize winners per year who have achieved 

an average of 90% waste diversion. Approximately 200 household have received Gold Boxes. 


• Initially selected 10 residents a month but the Gold Boxes were very slow in being visible 

to public. In October 2008 started selecting 50 residents a month. A typical month produces 

30-32 winners since approximately 10 no longer want to participate when contacted about 


Appendix E 


upcoming audit and 10 are disqualified for other reasons (e.g., do not have recycling / organics / 

waste set out before 7 am or only place out two streams but need three to complete audit). 

• Originally designed to be a surprise audit for residents but realized early on that this is not 

possible as residents did not place recycling, organics and garbage out. Now call ahead of time 

to request residents place three streams out the following two weeks. 

• Resource intensive process; hired contractors to complete monthly audits, reports to residents 

and delivering Gold Boxes. 

• As transportation throughout the city is time consuming, into order streamline the auditing 

process the City now draws a Ward each month, then draws the name of 50 residents from the 

selected Ward. 


Austin, TX (Pop: 790,390) – The City of Austin’s Home Composting Rebate Challenge is a program 

challenging residents to complete a free composting class, downsize to a 32-gallon trash cart and 

purchase a home composting system. Residents who complete these tasks are eligible for a 75% rebate 

off the cost of their new home composting system, up to $75. For more information visit 

http://www.austintexas.gov/department/home-composting-rebate-challenge 

Berkley, CA (Pop: 112,580) – On selected days in May and June staff collected trash from randomly 

selected addresses, with permission from the residents, and searched for recyclables. Those with no 

recyclable material in their trash were awarded cash prizes of at least $250. If no winners were identified, 

the prize money rolled over to the next day for a potentially larger reward for the next winner. 

The Cash for Trash contest is viewed as a unique approach to educating community residents regarding 

the need for recycling and leveraging the innovation of Berkeley residents in identifying simple strategies 

to reduce waste. The contest typically stimulates a surge in curbside participation and increased tonnage 

of material recycled and is part of the City’s effort to reach the goal of diverting 75% material away from 

landfill by 2010. 

In 2003, seven local residents were awarded cash prizes totaling $7,500. 

Changes Recycling Centre – Fourteen Changes Recycling Centres are in the Metro Vancouver area, 

located next to local Save-On-Foods grocery stores. 

Changes Recycling Centre offers customers the opportunity to choose cash back or to use cash receipts 

to purchase Save-On-More bonus points for beverage container refunds. Each cent converts to two 

Save-On-More points. 

Most ready-to-drink beverages sold in British Columbia grocery stores are included in the deposit refund 

program with the exception of milk and milk substitute containers of all types. Alcoholic beverage 

containers are not sold in grocery stores and are not refunded at Changes. 

Changes Packaging Return Sign 

The Voluntary Return Program makes it more convenient for recycling of specific brand packaging. When 

shopping at Save-On-Foods a shelf tag is placed on products that packaging can be returned at Changes 

for Save-On-More points. 


Appendix E 


Voluntary Return Program Brand Packaging Accepted 

Packaging/Material Brands Save-On-More Points 

Save-On-Foods Corporate Brands Western Family 

Western Classics 

1 point per container 

Selected National Brands 

Dairyland 

Unilever 

HighLiner 

Nature’s Path 

5 points/4L milk jug 




Milk Jugs 1 All brands 2 points/4 L jug 

Used Printer Cartridges 2 All brands 10 points/cartridge 

1 Limit 30 jugs per family per day 

2 Limit 5 cartridges per family per day 

Changes give customers the opportunity to donate points to charity and Save-On-Foods will match the 

contribution so the charity receives double the points. 

Contra Costa County, CA (Pop: 1,049,025) – Residents that complete an online form located at 

http://www.wastediversion.org/app_pages/view/63 and register as a certified composter receive a 

$1.50 per month garbage bill discount. Annual online recertification is required to receive the rebate. 

ecoATM – Customers can trade-in/trade-up their cellphones, iPods, and MP3 Players. Once approved 

after a three step inspection process the device can be converted into a trade-up coupon, gift card, cash 

or into a contribution of your choice. For instance a working Verizon iPhone 4 was deemed to be worth 

$221, but the value depends on the condition of the electronic device scanned. 

ecoATM Kiosk 

ecoATM Kiosks are primarily located in southern California mostly in San Diego along with San 

Francisco, Omaha and Kansas City. 

It is anticipated that 500 ecoATM machines will be set up in US shopping malls by the end of 2012. 

For more information visit http://www.ecoatm.com/ 

Hastings, England (Pop: 86,900) – A pilot was conducted in the Borough of Hastings to test a 

competition or challenge approach. The competition approach placed different communities in 

competition with one another to see who could increase their levels of recycling the most. The groups 

were awarded every two weeks using a variable reward system. The group that demonstrated the 


Appendix E 


greatest increase in recycling rate would receive the highest reward (£400) with the group recycling the 

second highest receiving £200 and the group with the lowest increase receiving £100. 

The pilot took place with three housing groups throughout the Borough of Hastings. Monitoring was 

undertaken throughout the pilot to assess any changes in quantities of recyclables set out. The group 

would be given rewards related to how they performed against the baseline. Recycling containers were 

monitored three times a week to determine their level of fullness. 

The pilot scheme appeared to work well in two of the housing groups with levels of recycling far 

exceeding those set out in the baseline survey. The success was attributed to the level of enthusiasm and 

community involvement of residents in these areas. No actual results were provided in the study. 

IKEA – After a successful pilot installation near London, England, IKEA will install a significant number of 

Revend Recycling reverse vending machines that collect domestic light bulbs (launched January 2012) in 

stores throughout Europe, including the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark. Customers of IKEA 

who recycle used light bulbs receive a reward incentive to use in-store and also have the option to make 

a donation to UNICEF, Save the Children, WWF or the Woodland Trust. 

IKEA Light Bulb Reverse Vending Machine 

London, England (Pop: 7,825,200) – Two Boroughs in London, England piloted two incentive programs 

using cash incentives to encourage an increase in household recycling tonnages and participation rates. 

In the one pilot, participating households (1,240 households) were offered £10 cash incentive if they 

recycled at least half of the time over the six month pilot period. Each household was given a bar coded 

recycling bin which was scanned each time it was put out for recycling. Participation rose from 35% to 

41% and tonnage collected increased by 34%. At the end of the trial 22% of households received the £10 

cash incentive. 

In the second pilot, participating households (887 households) in a high density housing estate were also 

offered £10 cash incentive for recycling at least half the time over the six month period. Residents were 

given booklets containing sticky notes that they attached to their recycling bin each time it was placed out 

for recycling. These slips were collected when the recycling bins were dumped. Recycling tonnages 

increased by 27% and 11% of households received the £10 cash incentive at the end of the trial. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) – MIT is home to a new reverse vending machine that 

uses social media, real time analytics and gaming to encourage more recycling. Greenbean Recycle Inc., 

a software technology company, is the maker of the machines that accept deposit and non-deposit glass 

and plastic bottles and aluminum cans. During the first three months at MIT, more than 14,000 containers 

were recycled. Students who recycle containers with deposits can get a refund straight into PayPal 

account, MIT’s student ID, cash or sent as a donation to charity. The machine allows students to use 

their phone number as a login and tabulates their real-time energy savings. 


Appendix E 


MIT Beverage Container Reverse Vending Machine 

Perth and Kinross, Scotland (Pop: 147,780) – During August 2009 residents recycling at the eight 

recycling centres will receive a draw ballot each visit to encourage recycling. Five monthly winners will 

take home the following prizes: £50 towards bicycle equipment, bus travel on Stagecoach buses, one 

month membership at any Perth and Kinross Leisure Centre, book vouchers or gardening vouchers. 

Recyclebank – A private business that rewards homes for recycling. Residential Recyclebank recycling 

containers (35, 64 or 96 gal) have a barcode that is identified by the recycling truck. This program 

supports a single stream (e.g., paper, cardboard, plastic, glass, tin, aluminum) recycling process. On 

average, residents earn $8 a week that is translated into Recyclebank Rewards Points (2.5 points for 

each pound of recyclable material) that residents can use to shop at hundreds of participating stores 

(e.g., Target, Starbucks, Whole Food Markets). Over 250 businesses participate in this program. 

Recyclebank operates in numerous US states and cities including: 

• Albuquerque, NM (pop. 545,852) 

• Carrollton, TX (119,097) 

• Cherry Hill, NJ (71,045) 

• Chicago, IL (2,695,598) 

• Eden Prairie, MN (60,797) 

• Everett, MA (41,667) 

• Hartford, CT (124,775) 

• Glassboro, NJ (19,360) 

• Maple Grove, MN (61,567) 

• Mesa, AR (439,041) 

• Plano, TX (259,841) 

• Revere, MA (51,755) 

• Toledo, OH (287,208) 

• Upper Dublin, PA (25,569) 

• Westville, NJ (4,458) 

• Wichita, KS (382,368) 

• Wilmington, DE (70,851) 

• Woolrich, NJ (3,032) 

Canada Update: 

Recyclebank is in the planning and development stage for expansion into Ontario. It is in negotiations 

with several Greater Toronto Area municipalities and hopes to have firm contracts by the end of 2010. 

In addition to traditional recyclable collection this program is looking at the potential to expand into yard 

waste collection (Nanda, 2009). 

More information on this program is located at http://recyclebank.com/. 

Saskatoon, SK (Pop: 222,189) – The City, in partnership with the Saskatchewan Waste Reduction 

Council, offered $10 rebates to residents for the retail purchase of a backyard composter in 2011. 

Residents needed to fill out a rebate form, attach a copy of the receipt and proof of residency 


Appendix E 


(e.g., utility bill) for the rebate. Bins purchased from the City truckload sale or compost depots were not 

eligible as they were already subsidized by the City. 

Sussex County, England (Pop: 1,245,938) – Pilots were conducted in eight communities to determine 

whether residents would increase their participation in recycling programs if rewarded with vouchers that 

could be redeemed at local shops. The pilots tested a number of factors including: the level of reward, 

varying the reward in relation to the recycling activity of householders, location and type of retailers where 

vouchers could be redeemed and rewarding the community based on overall performance. 

Each pilot tested a different approach, for example in one pilot, residents that placed their recycling 

containers out for collection were given a voucher that could be redeemed at participating local shops or 

a second hand furniture store. In another pilot, the vouchers could only be redeemed at the second hand 

furniture store. The following table lists different pilot programs and the change in participation rates 

experienced during the pilots. 

Sussex County’s Voucher Pilot Programs 

Pilot 

1 1003 

2 969 

3 574 

4 531 

5 845 

6 719 

7 227 

8 800 

Participating 

Households 

Voucher Reward Approach 

Awarded vouchers for recycling – £2.50 

at Green House, 50p at local shops 

Awarded voucher for recycling – £2.50 

Furniture warehouse 

Awarded voucher for recycling – £1.25 

Shops 

Awarded voucher for recycling – 75p 

plus extra 50p if placing out more than 

1/3 container full 

Awarded voucher for recycling – 50p 

Shops 

Awarded voucher for recycling – £1 

Shops 

Awarded voucher for recycling – 25p , 

75p or £1.25 depending on 

performance of all flats in a block, or 

household shops 

All households awarded voucher – 25p, 

75p or £1.25 depending on level of 

recycling for all of the area based on 

weight of recyclables 

Change in Participation 

rates 

58% pre-pilot to 61% pilot 






Not available 

Not available 

(£1 British pound = $1.58 Canadian dollars) 

One innovative pilot tested a variable reward program in which residents were given higher rewards 

for fuller recycling containers. Vouchers were colour coded according to the level of the reward: 

• A recycling container less than one-third full received a red vouchers worth 25p (pence). 

• A recycling container one-third to two-thirds full received an amber voucher worth 75p (pence). 

• A recycling container greater than two-thirds full received a green voucher worth £1.25. 

The results varied considerably from community to community. Residents had a clear preference for 

the vouchers that could be redeemed at different local shops compared with only one specific store. 

The results for the variable reward approach was inconclusive due to problems encountered with the 

distribution of the vouchers. 


Appendix E 


The study concluded that although the vouchers led to an initial increase in participation, by the end 

of most of the pilots recycling activity returned to similar levels as recorded in the baseline survey. 

The voucher system did not appear to sustain participation over time. 

Terracycle – A private business in the United States that runs programs whereby Americans sign up 

to collect waste (e.g., Oreo wrappers, Stonyfield yoghurt cups). Currently, Terracycle donates typically 

$0.02 per waste unit collected to the charity of the collectors choice. The waste material are them made 

into bags, backpacks, pencil cases, Christmas stockings and other products. 

For more information visit http://www.terracycle.net/ 

Toledo, OH (Pop: 287,208) – In 2009 City Council has implemented a $7.00 monthly refuse fee for single 

family dwellings, duplexes, and apartments of up to four units, with a reduced rate of $2 for residents who 

signed a pledge to participate in curbside recycling at least once a month. 

Effective September 1, 2011, Toledo switched to the Recyclebank rewards program for residents. 

Contact 

Dennis Guy 

Project Manager Community Outreach 

City of Hamilton 

120 King Street West, Suite 1170 

Hamilton, ON L8P 4V2 

T: (905) 546-2489 

Dennis.Guy@hamilton.ca 


Appendix E 


Social Media 

Medicine Hat, Alberta 


Definition 

Current and emerging electronic technologies that can be used to promote public awareness of reduction, 

reuse, recycling and composting programs. 

Description 

The City offers a free app that allows users to set up regular reminders for garbage and yard waste 

collection. Residents can view Medicine Hat’s collection schedules and waste management information at 

their fingertips, anytime they want. By using the “my-waste” platform, Medicine Hat’s app lets mobile 

device users view a full range of waste management information currently on the City’s website and the 

annual Waste Management Calendar. Residents can view collection set-out information, identify 

materials and locations for recycling drop-off and look up landfill disposal rates. 

There are currently versions of the app for iPhone/iPad, Android and Blackberry Torch while an app for 

the new generation of RIM smartphones is planned for mid-2012. 

Medicine Hat my-waste App 

For download information visit 

http://www.medicinehat.ca/City%20Government/Departments/Utilities/Environmental%20Utilities/Solid%2 

0Waste/my-waste%20App.asp 


Low direct diversion potential, but can play an important role in public education. 


Banff, AB (Pop: 7,584) – The Town developed and interactive map of recycling facilities in Banff. Click on 

the recycling symbols for information on each drop-off location (e.g., address, materials accepted). 


Appendix E 


Banff Interactive Recycling Facility Map 

To access this map visit http://www.banff.ca/visiting-banff/maps-directions/visitor-maps/recyclinglocations.htm 

Edmonton, AB (Pop: 812,201) – SortItOut! is designed to tie into the Waste in Our World Grade 4 

Science Curriculum, using Edmonton as an example. 

One component of this program offers interactive activities where students can move around a colourful 

city landscape to discover examples of how waste is recycled and reused every day. They can also visit 

an Eco Station and the Edmonton Waste Management Centre. Other activities include a recycling and 

pick it up games. To try the interactive activities visit http://www.sortitout.ca 

SortItOut! City Discovery Activity 

Videos are available online so students can watch bottle recycling, cereal box recycling, composting, 

household hazardous waste, metal recycling and the material recovery facility video clips. To view these 

video clips visit http://www.sortitout.ca/Video.aspx 

In addition to the interactive and video components teachers also receive three posters (an overview of 

the City of Edmonton’s waste system, the facilities and processes at the Edmonton Waste Management 

Centre, and household hazardous waste disposal at an Edmonton Eco-Station and in a small town) that 

are filled with examples of good waste management practices. An activity booklet, aimed at Grade 4 

students, accompanies the posters and contains a number of related activities that can be photocopied as 

worksheet for students. 


Appendix E 


SortItOut! was developed by ACCESS Television and the City of Edmonton, with support from Alberta 

Environment and the Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Corporation. 

Portland, OR (Pop: 583,776) – The City developed a fun, interactive e-training tool to educate employees 

how to recycle at work. To view this e-tool visit 

http://media.ci.portland.or.us/recycle_at_work/index.html#Scene_1 

Portland Recycle at Work E-Tool 

Recycling Council of British Columbia – The free BC Recyclepedia Smart Phone App allows users to 

find their closest recycling depot. This is a quick and simple tool that assists users find over 1,000 drop-off 

locations and recycling options for over 70 materials or products across British Columbia. This App is 

available for iPhones and Androids, provides users a list of the 10 nearest depots based on the phone 

location, as well as a Google map with directions. Both App’s provide the option to call the Recycling 

Council of British Columbia Hotline for additional questions. 

BC Recyclepedia App 

To download this App visit http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/bc-recyclepedia/id500581977?mt=8 

San Francisco, CA (Pop: 805,235) – In order to promote public awareness of the blue cart recycling 

program the City provides a You Tube video advertisement online. To watch this video visit 

http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/topics.html?ssi=3&ti=5 

Surrey, BC (Pop: 468,251) – The City offers a free smart phone app called "my-waste" for iPhone, iPod 

Touch and Android mobile devices. The app includes information on collection dates, materials accepted 

for recycling, composting, disposal, drop-off depots and rates, among others. Personalized alerts such as 

collection day reminders or service change notices due to a holiday can also be set up. 


Appendix E 


Surrey my-waste App 

For download information visit http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/10462.aspx 

University of British Columbia – The University created an interactive map showing all of the buildings 

involved in the organics collection program. Click on the coloured circles for building details. 

University of British Columbia Interactive Organics Collection Map 

To access a copy of this map visit 

http://www.batchgeo.com/map/?i=21511c87ab7bc9e1204112bab61d5eda 

Contact 

Ed Jollymore 

Manager Solid Waste Utilities 

City of Medicine Hat 

580 First Street SE 

Medicine Hat, AB T1A 8E6 

T: (403) 529-8176 


Appendix E 


Zero Waste Special Events 

San Francisco, California 


Definition 

The City requires, as part of special events permits, for organizers to include waste reduction and 

diversion elements. Examples are reusable or compostable dishes and cutlery, and collection programs 

for recyclables and organics. 

Description 

The City's special event ordinance requires that all street fairs and special events show proof of garbage 

and recycling services and a recycling training certificate (or letter from the SF environmental registered 

recycling provider) has been obtained. 

San Francisco Special Events Ordinance No. 73-89 requires any applicant seeking permission for the 

temporary use or occupancy of a public street, a street fair or an athletic event within the city and county 

that includes the dispensing of beverages or which generates large amounts of other materials to submit 

a recycling plan. Recycling plans shall include arrangements for collection and disposition of source 

separated recyclables and/or compostables by a service provider or the event organizer. For effective 

recycling and composting, clearly labeled recycling and composting receptacles must be sited together 

with any trash receptacles in convenient locations. 

Mandates 

• Special Event Ordinance No. 73- 89, (1989) requires all street closures to have a recycling plan. 

• Zero Waste Goal, set by the Board of Supervisors requiring 75% solid waste landfill diversion by 

2010 and Zero Waste by 2020. 

The City provides special event training which event planners must attend. 


Recycling Station at Carnival San Francisco 

Low reduction potential overall. High reduction potential for event. 


Appendix E 


Diversion rates vary from event to event and range from 27% to 80%. The factors that attribute to 

achieving high diversion rates include: 

• Buy in from the Event Producer. 

• Requirement for vendors to use ploy lactic acid products and participation in 

recycling/composting. 

• Well marked recycling stations with good signage. 

• Monitors at recycling stations. 

• Working with an experienced recycling crew. 

• Limit the number of ‘free give-aways’. 


Austin, TX (Pop: 790,390) – Austin Resource Recovery’s Event Recycling Program provides services to 

improve waste diversion at events including free recycling container loans in partnership with Keep Austin 

Beautiful. Additionally, the City offers a rebate of up to $750 for waste reduction/recycling services at 

qualifying events. More information on the rebate is located at 

http://www.austintexas.gov/department/event-recycling 

Bow Valley Waste Management Commission, AB – The Bow Valley Waste Management Commission 

provides recycling equipment and tracking services to area events. In 2012 it provided full support to 28 

Towards Zero Waste Special Events including the Banff Dragon Boat Festival, the Canmore Folk Music 

Festival, the Exshaw Annual Graymont Stampede Breakfast and the Trans Rockies Mountain Bike Race. 

In total, 6,192 kg was recycled giving a 73% diversion rates for the 28 events combined. For a detailed 

listing of diversion for each event visit 

http://www.bvwaste.ca/files/Toward%20Zero%20Waste%20Event%20Summary%202011.pdf 

Jasper, AB (Pop: 4,051) - Jasper has made efforts to host special events as Toward Zero Waste Events, 

and encourages others to do the same. As part of these efforts, the Municipality, together with Parks 

Canada, developed “Towards Zero Waste Events” guidelines that outline how event planners can make 

their event a Zero Waste Event. As an example, the Municipality hosts a Canada Day pancake breakfast 

where participants are encouraged to bring their own plates and cutlery, or can rent reusable plates at the 

event. Any food waste is collected for composting, and only bulk condiments are used. 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – In 2008 Markham Council committed to implementing zero waste at 

special events. Effective January 1, 2009, all food services operations in Town-owned or leased facilities 

and Town-run events are required to conform to this Policy. Additionally, all food services for Townsponsored 

events are prohibited from using polystyrene food serving products in favour of reusable 

plates, cups and utensils. 

Markham Public Events Container 

Markham Public Events Container Inside 


Appendix E 


A copy of the Zero Waste Policy: Food and Catering Services is located at 

http://www.markham.ca/wps/wcm/connect/e1d18e00458fc577a9a4abe7d60a9876/ZeroWastepolicy_01.p 

df?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=e1d18e00458fc577a9a4abe7d60a9876 

San José, CA (Pop: 945,942) – The City formally acknowledges events that strive to reduce 

environmental impacts and help the city achieve its zero waste goals. The city offers three event 

certification levels that demonstrate commitment to green practices. 

Going Green Certification – event organizers arrange for recycling collection service, require vendors to 

use recyclable #1 plastic cups for cold beverages 7oz and larger and ban the use of Polystyrene. Events 

have a goal to achieve a minimum of 25% waste reduction. 

Green Event Certification – in addition to the practices listed for Going Green, event organizers are 

require vendors to use approved compostable service-ware, implement a composting program, provide 

education and environmental awareness and provide adequate recycling staff or volunteers at the event. 

Events have a goal to achieve a minimum of 50% waste reduction. 

Zero Waste Certification – in addition to the best practices listed for Green Event, event organizers 

require all vendors to use only recyclable and compostable materials and collect and recycle cooking oil, 

prohibit single-use plastic water bottles and use water stations, provide an interactive activity to raise 

environmental awareness and implement solar alternatives (panels, generators, stages) to generate 

electricity during the event. Events have a goal to achieve a minimum of 75% waste reduction. 

For each category a Material Diversion Report is due to Environmental Services Department within 10 

days after completion of an event. This allows the City and State to evaluate the type of materials 

collected and the success of events in diverting materials from landfill through waste prevention, 

reduction, recycling and composting efforts. 

San Jose Event Certification Logos 

Detailed information regarding the certification levels is located at http://www.sjrecycles.org/eventsvenues/event-certification.asp 

For each certification a Material Diversion Report is due to Environmental Services Department within 10 

days after completion of an event so that the City and State can evaluate the type of materials collected 

and the success of events in diverting materials from landfill through waste prevention, reduction, 

recycling and composting efforts. 

To assist with the event certification program the City offers an Eco-Station Loan program for local events 

to enable access to recycling and composting collection. Eco-Stations come with corresponding colorcoded 

signs, lids and bags. 


Appendix E 


San José Eco-Station Loan for Special Events 

San José Bag Eco-Station Loan for Special Events 

San José Eco-Station Signage 

Special events held in San José are successful in reducing waste: 

• San José Jazz Festival diverted 92% in 2011. 

• Cinco de Mayo event diverted 78% in 2010. 

• IAHF Italian Family Festa diverted 86% in 2011. 

At this time the City of San José is establishing new certification criteria that will be effective July 1, 2012. 

This information is not yet public and will be placed on the City website later this year. 

St. Louis County, MO (Pop: 998,954) – St. Louis County began collecting recyclables at public 

events early last year. The Department of Health awarded a grant to the non-profit St. Louis Earth Day 

organization to manage recycling at eight county events throughout the year. The program uses singlestream 

collection bins, in which different types of recyclables can be placed. 

The bins are easily portable, clearly marked and hold transparent bags. The program recycles beverage 

containers, cardboard, paper, spent cooking oil, and metal food-prep items from event vendors and 

attendees. In the program's first year, about 11 tons of recyclable material was diverted with eight events. 

The 2008 goal is to bring the program to at least 25 regional events, divert a minimum of 50 tons, and 

impact nearly two million people. 


Appendix E 


Whole Earth Festival – The Whole Earth Festival (WEF) is a public event that takes place over three 

days on the Mother’s Day weekend on the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) campus. The event, 

attracts over 30,000 people and is planned and coordinated by a group of students with the help of Karma 

Patrol volunteers. 

A much emphasized aspect of WEF is the integrated solid waste prevention plan for minimizing waste 

generation at the festival while educating festival goers on ways they can lower their own ecological 

footprint. 

Food waste composting, beverage container and cardboard recycling, reusable dishware and 

compostable dishware (used only if reusable dishware cannot keep up with demand) are some of the 

techniques utilized to achieve 97% diversion in 2008. As list of historical waste diversion is listed below. 

Resources 

Year 

2003 95.5 

2004 96.5 

2005 97.1 

2006 97.4 

2007 98.1 

2008 97.0 

Percent Diverted 

(by Weight) 

(Downey, 2008) 

Auckland City Council – Guideline for Working Towards Zero Waste Events (2008). Visit 

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/whatson/events/organising/docs/zerowasteeventsguide.pdf 

California Integrated Waste Management Board provides a detailed study on Recycling at Special 

Events: A Model for Local Government Recycling and Waste Reduction (2002) located at 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/LocalAsst/31002009.pdf 

Clean Calgary – “Waste Reduction for Events and Festivals” provides tips and resources. Visit 

http://www.greencalgary.org/images/uploads/File/GreenEventsGuide.pdf 

United States Environmental Protection Agency has an It’s Easy Being Green! A Guide To Planning and 

Conducting Environmental Aware Meetings and Events (1996) document available to the public at 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/wycd/grn-mtgs/gm-bklt.pdf 

United States Environmental Protection Agency – The outreach initiative “Recycle on the Go” assists 

government officials establish special events recycling opportunities. For recent success stories including 

the Lowell Folk Festival, National Cherry Blossom Festival, Delaware State Fair and other initiatives visit 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/rogo/venues/events.htm 

Contact 

San Francisco Environment 

11 Grove Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 USA 

T: (415) 355-3700 

environment@sfgov.org 


Appendix E 


Public Spaces Recycling 

Santa Barbara, California 


Definition 

The placement of collection bins for beverage containers, paper and even food-related waste in public 

spaces such as parks and streets. The visible presence of diversion containers in public spaces can 

make and important contribution to the impression of the City as a waste-conscious community. 

Description 

The City of Santa Barbara has approximately 400 public recycling containers collecting clean and dry 

paper, paper bags, newspaper, small boxes, aluminum and steel cans, and plastic and glass bottles in 

place throughout City parks, sidewalks, and parking lots next to waste containers. All containers are 

labeled, encouraging recycling in these areas by ensuring they are well-marked and conveniently placed. 

As part of the recycling/waste haulers contract the hauler must place recycling containers next to garbage 

containers along the routes they collect from that do not already have City owned recycling containers. 

The City owns 150-200 recycling containers while two local haulers own 200-250 temporary recycling 

containers. City staff collect recyclables and waste from a limited number of locations; primarily large City 

Parks. 

The City has very strict historical aesthetic requirements so a limited number of container designs are 

available to be selected from and no advertising takes place on the containers. 

Currently testing ‘scavenger’ containers that allow beverage containers to be collected on the top and 

waste on the bottom. These containers are intended to allow people to take beverage containers easily 

and prevent the hauler from having to pick up after them. 


Low reduction potential. 

City of Santa Barbara Public Recycling Containers 


Appendix E 



• Contamination happens. 

• Have matching collection program for public spaces recycling as residential curbside collection 

(e.g., Santa Barbara kept comingled recyclable collection for public spaces to match residential 

curbside collection). 

• Keep message simple on recycling containers (e.g., mobius loop). 

• Colour coordinated containers, blue for recycling and dark green for waste. 

• Must educate residents about public spaces recycling. 

• Assist education of collectors; black bags for waste and clear bags for recycling. 

• Ensure that collection is transparent; recycling is collected separate from waste and not together. 

If together, it gives the perception that the recyclables are going to be landfilled. 

• In order for recycling to be effective, ensure recycling and waste containers are placed together 

so that residents do not place garbage in recycling container if it is standing alone. 


Barrie, ON (Pop: 135,711) – The City of Barrie has invested in an aggressive Public Space and Special 

Events Recycling Program 1989. Waste/recycling (beverage containers) bins in parks and along 

curbsides are emptied on a weekly basis. 

The City has six years remaining on a 15 year contract with Creative Outdoor Advertising (formerly OMG) 

for 50 bins. The City receives free advertising space on three bins and gets $10/bin from advertising 

revenue. It is also responsible for collecting garbage and recycling from the bins. 

The City also has 150 city-owned bins with no advertising placed throughout Barrie. The Busch Systems 

Two in One and Three in One bins are made of recycled plastic and have either two (garbage/beverage 

containers, approx $500 each) or three openings (2 garbage/1 beverage container, approx $800 each). 

Each year new bins are added to the program by request. 

For more information contact Tracy Quann-Strasser, Waste Reduction Coordinator, at (705) 739-4220 ext 

5822 or tqstraasser@barrie.ca 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – In 1999 the Town of Markham became the first municipality in York 

Region to offer public space recycling to residents. Since this time, the Town has expanded the program 

over 150 locations at transit stops and street corners. Public space recycling bins used in the Town are 

the EcoMedia’s SilverBox which have three slots to collect waste, cans and bottles, and paper 

separately. The current contract ends in April 2012. 

The Town does not pay for this program as it is covered by bin advertising fees and EcoMedia allows the 

Town to advertise 100% of the time on bins located outside of Town facilities for no cost other than ad 

printing. Additionally, the contract stipulates that if the Town has a special campaign they wish to 

advertise (e.g., new diversion program) EcoMedia will allow them a certain percentage of bins throughout 

the Town to advertise on. EcoMedia covers all costs with this program including bins, maintenance and 

collection. 


Appendix E 


Markham Silver Box Public Space Recycling Container 

In Markham over 25% of residents do not receive door-to-door mail delivery and must collect their mail 

at centralized “Super Mailbox” locations. As part of Markham’s anti-litter campaign (ensuring that it goes 

in the right place – recycling), and based on requests from residents, the Town placed 1,500 large mail 

recycling boxes by every Canada Post Super Mailbox. The mailbox recyclables are collected weekly by 

a Town contractor on the same day as the blue box is collected in the area. 

Markham Super Mailbox Recycling Container 

A further expansion of the public space recycling program includes the 250 recycling containers in parks 

and sports fields that accept blue box recyclable’s. Organics containers are also located at leash free dog 

parks for pet waste. 

Markham Park Recycling Container 

In 2011, Markham launched the use of Big Belly solar compactors in its two heritage business 

improvement areas and introduced 12 Big Belly recycling units in each community in order to increase 


Appendix E 


sidewalk recycling options and to keep main streets clean. The Big Belly units take up as much space as 

ordinary recycling receptacles but the capacity is five times greater. 

Big Belly Recycling Container 

New York, NY (Pop: 8,175,133) – The public recycling program placed 626 recycling receptacles 

(316 beverage containers and 310 paper) throughout all five boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, 

the Bronx and Stanten Island. The blue bins collect bottles and cans, beverage cartons, metal and foil 

while the green bins collect newspapers, magazines, and mixed paper. 

New York Public Spaces Recycling Containers 

St. John’s, NL (Pop: 106,172) – St. John’s partnered with OMG Atlantic and Ever Green Recycling in 

October 2002 to undertake a pilot recycling project in the downtown area of St. John’s. 30 stainless steel 

recycling/litter bins were placed throughout the downtown core. Each bin has three containers, one for 

beverage containers, one for paper and one for garbage. The bins are provided at no cost to the City 

other than the City collecting and disposing of the garbage from the bins and giving permission of 

where the bins can be placed. OMG advertising revenues cover the costs of the bins, installation 

and maintenance costs and OMG contracts the recycling collector. 

Residents are quite happy with these bins as they are visually pleasing, and contain recyclables and 

garbage that may otherwise be blowing around with the strong St. John’s winds. At the beginning of this 

program contamination issues were a problem with garbage being placed in the recycling portion and 

vica versa. 

Bin advertising was slow in 2008, and St. John’s is unsure of the program’s future. 


Appendix E 


Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – The quantity of newsprint in the subway system increased significantly 

in August 2000 with the introduction of free commuter newspapers. Although the City had blue 

newspaper bins in the subway system, these bins were no longer as effective at capturing cans/bottles 

and additional newsprint because they were not located next to waste containers. 

To capture more newsprint and other recyclables, in 2005 the City installed a new style recycling centres 

that use the single stream recycling concept similar to the City’s Blue Bin program. 

Resources 

Toronto Subway Recycling Centre 

United States Environmental Protection Agency – The outreach initiative “Recycle on the Go” assists 

government officials establish public spaces recycling including parks, stadiums, convention centres, 

airports and other transportation hubs, shopping centers. Visit 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/rogo/index.htm 

Contact 

Thomas Oretsky 

Environmental Specialist 

City of Santa Barbara 

1221 Annacapa Street, 2 nd Floor 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

T: (805) 564-5669 

toretsky@santabarbaraca.gov 


Appendix E 


Packaging Education 

Capital Regional District, British Columbia 


Definition 

Reduction programs can include focused education on the potential to reduce packaging (e.g., plastic 

bags, polystyrene) through purchasing choices. 

Description 

The Plastic Bag Pledge is an education program where residents register online at 

http://www.crd.bc.ca/waste/recycle/plasticbags.htm to refuse plastic bags and receive a free 

reusable tote. 

Capital Regional District Plastic Bag Pledge 

All Capital Regional District education programs promote the 4Rs of refuse, reduce, reuse and recycle. 

The hierarchy applies to plastic bags as follows: refuse and reduce by utilizing reusable bags, reuse 

plastic bags as often as possible and recycle excess bags. 


Appendix E 


Refuse and Reduce 

Reuse 

Recycle 

• Take along cloth bags when heading out shopping (to the mall too!) 

– store your reusable bags in your car or backpack 

– make a reminder sticky for yourself (place on fridge or dash of car) 

– hang cloth bags on your front door handle to remind you to bring them along 

• Reuse any plastic bags you accumulate 

– next time you shop, use your bag for items from more than one store 

– to line your garbage can 

– to pick up pet litter 

– as a receptacle for cooled fats, oils and grease from cooking 

• Recycle clean, dry and empty excess bags 

– take back to grocery stores for recycling 

– take shopping bags and your film plastic to a recycling depot 


Low reduction potential if not accompanied by incentives. 


CalRecycle – CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board) provides 

detailed website information that focuses on packaging waste diversion 

(http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ReduceWaste/Packaging/). It presents case studies, design, educational 

degrees, manufacturers and information on various packaging materials including metal, paper, plastic, 

retail and wood. 

Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, BC (Pop: 31,138) – The Regional District of Kootenay 

Boundary (RDKB) has adopted zero waste as a goal. “Bring the Old Bag Shopping” is one of their 

campaigns, designed to reduce the number of plastic shopping bags used by their residents. The catchy 

(“sticky”) slogan got people’s attention. The region also spent considerable effort getting the local retailers 

on board. They started with one natural food market in Rossland, where using cloth bags seemed 

consistent with the values of the customers. They moved on to a local grocery chain, who liked that the 

bags distinguished them from the national chains. Then they began approaching other food stores. They 

provided the bags at cost for the retailers to sell and offered 50¢ per bag for the chance to put their Zero 

Waste logo on retailers’ existing reusable bags. The retailers made their own campaigns, such as offering 

free cookies if customers used reusable bags. Over 15,000 bags have been sold in RDKB (and many 

given away as well). 


Appendix E 


RDKB “Bring the Old Bag Shopping” Campaign Graphic 

Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME) – CCME's Extended Producer 

Responsibility Task Group (EPRTG) is currently responsible for providing guidance on the development 

and implementation of initiatives to address packaging. Past CCME efforts on packaging include 

development and endorsement of the National Packaging Protocol (NaPP) in 1990, a voluntary 

agreement with industry to reduce waste. NaPP achieved a 51 percent reduction in the weight of 

packaging waste sent for disposal by 1996, four years ahead of schedule. In addition, CCME has 

prepared reports, guidelines and codes of practice to help industry and jurisdictions achieve the reduction 

targets. Copies of these reports are located at www.ccme.ca/publications/list_publications.html#link8 

A study was completed in March 2008 on sustainable packaging initiatives, definitions and guidelines 

which is located at http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1405_sp_inventory_e.pdf 

The EPRTGs current activities focus on developing a framework for a Canada-wide strategy for 

sustainable packaging. 

Contact 

Capital Regional District 

625 Fisgard Street 

Victoria, BC V8W 1R7 

T: (250) 360-3078 


Appendix E 


References 

City of Richmond, 2001. Environmental Purchasing Guide. 138 pgs. 

http://www.richmond.ca/services/Sustainable/environment/policies/purchasing.htm 

City of Spruce Grove, 2005. Purchasing Policy. 6 pgs. 

http://www.sprucegrove.org/Assets/pdf/policies/purchase_policy_10000.pdf 

McKenzie-Mohr, D. and W. Smith, 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based 

Social Marketing. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC. 160 pgs. www.cbsm.com 

Resort Municipality of Whistler, 2006. Purchasing Policy (F-29). 2 pgs. 

http://www.whistler.ca/sites/default/files/purchasing_policy.pdf 

Zero Waste International Alliance, 2004. Standards. Zero Waste Definition. 

http://zwia.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=5 


Appendix F: 

Residential Waste Reduction Examples 

Backyard Composting 

Fredericton, New Brunswick 


Definition 

Some municipalities aggressively promote backyard composting, with some hosting sales of subsidized 

composters to their residents to encourage backyard composting. Education of residents purchasing the 

composters is important to ensure they have an understanding of how to properly use the bin. 

Description 

The City of Fredericton in cooperation with the Fredericton Backyard Composters (FBYC) offers an 

annual one-day subsidized composter sale in May to residents for $30/composter. Remaining Earth 

Machine composters are available on a first come first served basis until sold. In 2008, the composters 

were purchased wholesale for $33/unit plus taxes from Norseman Plastics in Ontario. 

Both organizations have a permanent joint backyard composting display that provides examples of 

various types of backyard composters and information on successful backyard composting at the 

Fredericton Regional Sanitary Landfill. 

The City of Fredericton facilitates and finances FBYC volunteer group. In 2008, $13,000 was allocated to 

the group for purchasing composters and all communication and education activities. 

The FBYC present Master Composter training every second year and also provide workshops and 

presentations to schools and service groups. Seventy community members have been trained as master 

composters and in exchange for the free training each Master Composter provides 40 hours of volunteer 

time to backyard composting related activities. For instance, composter display site clean-up day, 

residential education, and when the one-day backyard composter sale started, the FBYC called owners 

12 months after the purchase of the composter regarding use, comments and concerns. It was 

determined through these surveys that the City of Fredericton was on the right track offering composters 

to residents. 


Low to medium reduction potential depends on subsidy level and supporting education. Works well in 

conjunction with Master Composter type program. 

The first backyard composter sale took place in 1992 with 2,000 composters sold during the early years. 

The number of composters eventually decreased to 600 and in 2008, 250 composters were ordered. 


• Beware if considering subsidized backyard composter sale that is being funded by residents that 

residents from other communities close by that do not have this program may purchase 

composters. Not a problem if City receives provincial funding, then program can be open to all 

residents. One option is to request to see drivers’ license before purchasing composter. 

• One-day sale complements FBYC Master Composter program. 

• Good relationship to have City fund program an FBYC volunteers staff one-day sales. Be 

prepared that City staff may need to fill in if not enough volunteers are available. 


Appendix F 


• Consider if City should be in the business of selling composters or if this should be something 

that the private sector sells. 

• Consider using a debit machine at the sale to allow payment choice to residents. 

• Beware that volunteer group numbers dwindle over time and there is the constant need to have 

fresh faces with new ideas. 


Brantford, ON (Pop: 93,650) – On May 5, 2012 the City of Brantford will hold a one day Composter Sale 

to all City residents (proof of residency is required). Composters will be sold for $20. 

Boulder County, CO (Pop: 294,567) - Boulder County is hosting a one day backyard composter sale on 

Earth Day, April 22, 2012. Soilsaver compost bins will be sold for $50 at the Boulder County Recycling 

Center. To support the sale the County is offering compost workshops throughout the County: April 19 

(Broomfield), April 22 (Boulder), April 26 (Longmont), April 28 (Lafayette) and May 1 (Boulder). 

Calgary, AB (Pop: 1,096,833) – The City of Calgary, in partnership with Norseman Plastics and the 

Clean Calgary Association, offered residents a one-day truckload backyard composter sale. On June 21, 

2008 6,000 Earth Machine composters were sold at six locations throughout the city for a subsidized rate 

of $25 (GST included). 

This program began in 1999 and to date over 65,000 composters have been sold to Calgarians. 

Calgarians can purchase composters year round for $35 at the Calgary Online Store 

(https://cityonline.calgary.ca/Pages/Category.aspx?cat=CITYonlineDefault&category=EnvironmentalProd 

ucts) or the Clean Calgary Association EcoStore. 

A backyard composting fact sheet is available on the City website at 

http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/WRS/Documents/WRS-Documents/fact_sheet_composting.pdf 

Chilliwack, BC (Pop: 77,936) – The City of Chilliwack in cooperation with Fraser Cheam Soil & Fibre Ltd. 

sell Earth Machine backyard composters year round at the Parr Road Green Depot for $44 plus tax. 

County of Olmsted, MN (Pop: 144,248) – A one day backyard composter and rain barrel truckload sale 

took place at the Olmsted County Fairgrounds in June 2010. Earth Machines were sold for $40 and 

Systern Rain Barrels for $45. To avoid lineups residents could preorder a composter or rain barrel. 

County of Olmsted Composter and Rain Barrel Sale Promotion 

Guelph, ON (Pop: 121,688) – In the past, The City of Guelph Waste Resource Innovation Centre hosted 

three Eco Days (May 19, August 4 and October 13, 2008) each year to promote e-waste recycling, 

recycling facility tours, goods exchange weekends and rain barrel and backyard composter sales. 


Appendix F 


Earth Machine backyard composters can also be purchased at the Waste Resource Innovation centre 

throughout the year for $40/composter. 

Regional District of North Okanagan, BC (Pop: 81,237) – In 2006, the Regional District offered a preorder, 

pre-pay program for Earth Machine backyard composters for $25. The order deadline was Friday, 

April 14 th and residents picked-up their composters at two locations on Saturday, April 22 nd . 

Saskatoon, SK (Pop: 222,189) – The City of Saskatoon hosted an Earth Machine backyard compost bin 

sale on May 1, 2010. The bins were sold for $45. 

Contact 

Julie Baker 

Landscsape Horticulturist 

City of Fredericton 

Parks & Trees Division 

P.O. Box 130 

Fredericton, NB E3B 4Y7 

T: (506) 460-2447 (W) 

T: (506) 470-1469 (C) 

julie.baker@fredericton.ca 


Appendix F 


Master Composter / Recycler Program 

Green Action Centre – formerly Resource Conservation Manitoba (Winnipeg, MB) 

Definition 

An effective way to promote backyard composting and other waste reduction activities is to implement a 

Master Composter program, where citizen leaders are trained in composting and recycling, 

and subsequently provide education to their local community. Potential exists to work with an 

environmental non-government organization for program delivery. 

Description 

Green Action Centre (formerly Resource Conservation Manitoba) is a non-profit centre for applied 

sustainability. In an effort to promote composting to the residents of Manitoba, the Compost Action 

Project of Green Action Centre has trained over 70 Master Composters in Winnipeg through a compost 

education and volunteer program. 

To obtain Master Composter status, a participant attends a training course that covers the basics and 

technical aspects of composting as well as communication skills for public outreach. Classes are taught 

through interactive instruction combined with hands on demonstrations and tours if possible. Afterwards, 

the participants commit a minimum of 30 hours of volunteer work over the next two years as an advocate 

in the community or at work. There is no cost to the participant for the Master Composter course. 

As a volunteer, participants will increase their knowledge and skills in composting, gain personal 

satisfaction and have an opportunity to meet new people while gaining visibility in the community as an 

advocate and resource person about composting. Participants receive a Master Composter Certificate 

issued by Green Action Centre, a free training manual and resource kit, a seasonal Master Composter 

Newsletter, recognition for 30 hours of volunteer work and other volunteer milestones, and invitations to 

educational activities and events. 

This program is targeted towards teachers, staff or volunteers of environmental nongovernmental and 

environmental advocacy organizations, gardening groups, landscapers, students of environmental 

programs, environmental education coordinators and turf managers from the public works department, as 

well as private citizens. 

The last course took place from September 30 – October 15, 2011. No courses are scheduled for 2012 at 

this time. 

The Master Composter program website is located at 

http://greenactioncentre.ca/content/master-composter-program/ 


Low to medium reduction potential, depending on numbers and quality of supporting education. 


Edmonton, AB (Pop: 812,201) – The City of Edmonton, Waste Management Branch hosts the Master 

Composter/Recycler Training Program once a year. This award winning program is hosted in partnership 

with the J.W. Grant MacEwan Environmental Studies Program at Grant MacEwan College. 

Over a three week course schedule volunteers learn about environmental stewardship in Edmonton 

including history of Waste Management in Edmonton, home composting, household hazardous waste, 

vermicomposting and residential recycling. This course offers in-class instruction as well as several field 

trips to various City facilities. 

After finishing the course, graduates complete 35 hours of volunteer activity promoting the 

four Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle and recover. Graduates become important resources in their communities 


Appendix F 


as they broaden awareness about the importance of composting and recycling. Examples of volunteer 

activities include: 

• Help with Reuse Fairs (one-day community event where unwanted but reusable household items 

are collected and passed on). 

• Helping friends and neighbours with composting problems. 

• Public education display booths. 

• Assisting with programs and maintenance at the City Compost Education Centres. 

• Assisting at various demonstration gardens. 

• Public and school presentations. 

In 2011, 37 Master Composter/Recyclers were trained bringing the total number close to 700 since 1991. 

Applications are currently being accepted for the April 2012 Master Composter/Recycler Training 

Program. 

King County, WA (Pop: 1,931,249) – The Master Recycler Composter program provides free community 

education about waste reduction, recycling, home composting, alternatives to household hazardous 

waste and solid waste impacts on climate change. The next training session will be held in 2013 and 

is open to King County residents only. 

Seattle, WA (Pop: 608,660) – The Master Composter/Soil Builder (MC/SB) Volunteer Program is a key 

partner in Seattle’s waste reduction and recycling efforts. This initiative is part of the Natural Soil Building 

Program, managed by Seattle Tilth and sponsored by Seattle Public Utilities. 

The primary goal of the MC/SB program is to increase resource conservation efforts by City residents 

through community outreach, demonstrations and educational support. Residents are encouraged to 

recycle organic wastes in their backyards to build urban soils and create healthy landscapes 

throughout Seattle. 

MC/SB training teaches participants to assess personal carbon footprints and develop a climate change 

action plan that starts in their own backyard. Soil building with compost and mulch is an easy way to take 

carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and place it back in the ground. 

As a MC/SB, participants learn importance of: 

• Understanding the climate change connection. 

• Assessing personal carbon footprint. 

• Growing beautiful natural gardens. 

• Building healthy soil with compost and mulch. 

• Reducing pesticide use. 

• Conserving water and protect water quality. 

MC/SB training is an in-depth, four week program that is next scheduled for March 2012. This training is 

valued at $500 per volunteer, which includes training, manuals, educational materials and compost bins. 

A $150 deposit upon program acceptance is required. The deposit is refunded when 35 hours 

of volunteer outreach is completed. Outreach hours must be completed within 12 months of training 

completion to be eligible for the refund. 

Contact 

Dave Elmore 

Backyard Composting Coordinator 

Green Action Centre 

3rd Floor, 303 Portage Avenue 

Winnipeg, MB R3B 2B4 

T: (204) 925-3776 

dave@greenactioncentre.ca 


Appendix F 


Grasscycling / Xeriscaping 

Montgomery County, Maryland 


Definition 

Grasscycling is the concept of leaving grass clippings on the lawn while mowing. 

Xeriscaping focuses on landscaping in a way that does not require supplemental watering, for instance 

using native vegetation and minimizing turf areas. 

Description 

The State of Maryland bans yard waste material from being disposed, while Montgomery County has 

taken this one step further by listing yard trimmings as a mandatory recyclable material under Executive 

Regulation 15-04 AM: Solid Waste and Recycling. 

In 1994, the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection launched an exhaustive 

outreach campaign to encourage homeowner grasscycling. 

The grasscycling initiative had two major elements, including a Grass Recycling Tag requirement where 

residents affixed a 1.5" X 8.5" neon green grass recycling sticker on every grass container (e.g., paper 

bags or reusable trash cans) set out for collection. Ten stickers were mailed to each home, with additional 

stickers available for no charge at retail centers. Residents were informed that although grass tags were 

free in 1994, they would cost one dollar in 1995. The stated intent of the stickers was to remind 

homeowners that grasscycling is the easiest, best way to handle clippings. 

Public education was the second and most dynamic element. Key to the success of the campaign was a 

telephone research survey of 1,100 homes to determine habits and attitudes towards yard trimmings 

recycling, especially at-home practices of composting and grasscycling. The results were essential in 

developing an overall marketing strategy. 

It was determined that residents did not grasscycle as almost 54% of those surveyed believed that 

leaving clippings behind hurt the lawn and 14% thought clippings caused thatch. Lawn health became the 

major focus of the residential campaign centering on clippings contained valuable nutrients and organic 

matter and enhanced lawn health and vigor. In addition, grasscycling saves time, money, avoids or 

reduces the need for fertilizer and lawn chemicals, bagging and tagging, and conserves water and other 

resources, in addition to other practical and environmental benefits. 

The campaign included efforts in the fall for composting and leaf recycling and was delivered through: 

• 80 paid radio ads and numerous public service 

announcements 

• Six direct mailings 

• Transit advertising on buses and subway 

• Publicity events (e.g., press conferences, press 

articles, radio and television interviews) 

• 550 paid cable television ads and 100 public 

service spots 

• 12 print ads (Washington Post, etc.) 

• Movie theater ads 

• Video production (17-minute video for cableaccess, 

libraries, and rental stores) 

Specialized outreach events also took place including: 540 workshops on composting and grasscycling 

utilizing Department of Environmental Protection staff and Master Composters (County-trained 

volunteers), weekly hands-on demos at 35 grasscycling demonstration lawns, a school poster contest, 

retail-based outreach (over 50 information kiosks), numerous brochures and publications, special events 

(e.g., Earth Day and County Fairs) and a compost distribution network. 

In 2007, Montgomery County conducted a telephone survey on grasscycling. Some residents recalled the 

1994 campaign, while the majority did not understand the grasscycling term or process. Results from this 


Appendix F 


survey led to a board-based marketing strategy, including backyard composting, that took place over two 

years (fall 2007 – fall 2009). Direct mail outs were distributed in the fall of 2007 for backyard composting 

and in the spring of 2008 a grasscycling brochure was sent to every household. Radio and cable TV 

media campaigns took place along with public education at special events. 

The County is working on expanding this program to their business and multi-family sector. 

Part of today’s program is website based education that is found at 

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/swstmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/solidwaste/yardtrim/grasscycling/ind 

ex.asp 

Montgomery County Grasscycling Poster 

Montgomery County Grasscycling Magnet 


Low to medium reduction potential if not accompanied by ban. 

Overall, the Montgomery County campaign cost over $400,000. However, the success of the program 

established that expenditure as an important investment in positive, long-term behavior modification. By 

the end of 1994, only 54,000 tons of material entered the recycling stream, more importantly, less than 

9,000 tons of grass was set at the curb, a reduction of 27,000 tons due to grasscycling. With grass 

reduced, an additional 11,000 tons of shredded wood mulch (brush) were given back to residents free at 

neighborhood sites. Only 43,000 tons of trimmings needed to be composted and over 8,000 compost bins 

were sold to residents which contributed significantly to a decrease in anticipated leaf volume. 

Additionally, a November 1994 follow-up survey indicated that less than 16% of residents now think that 

clippings are unhealthy for lawns and only 6% associate clippings with thatch, 70% of residents now 

grasscycle most of the time with 27% starting in 1994. 


• Most significant lesson learned in the 1994 campaign is that an investment in education to 

properly change residential attitudes and behavior provides long-term benefits: once a 

homeowner discovers that grasscycling is the easiest, best way to manage a lawn, they will never 

go back to bagging clippings. 

• This $400,000 campaign saved $2.5 million initially, but will continue to pay dividends in the years 

to come. 

• Future education efforts can and will be conducted at a steadily reduced level, just enough to 

reinforce good behavior and lead into additional source reduction strategies such as home 

composting, mulching and landscape alteration. 


Appendix F 



Boulder, CO (Pop: 97,385) – In 2009 a ‘Let it Go’ campaign was promoted on Boulder buses and 

Channel 8 that encourages residents to leave grass clippings on the lawn after mowing to save money, 

time and fertilizer. 

As part of the City of Boulder xeriscaping program the City offered a pilot to residents in a selected area 

of Boulder during 2006 and 2007. Residents had the opportunity to apply for a zero-interest loan for 

$1,000-$3,000 for re-landscaping high water use areas and/or installing water-efficient indoor appliances. 

Up to 100% of the project may be financed over three years. 

In 2007, the City also offered a series of seminars including: Xeriscape: an Introduction, Xeriscaping to 

Meet Your Water Budget: Plant Selection, Irrigating to Meet Your Water Budget, Garden-In-A-Box and 

Trees Across Boulder. Additionally, the City website provided information on lawn watering, drought 

plans, water conservation tips and links to other xeriscaping websites. 

Contra Costa County, CA (Pop: 1,049,025) – From April-September 2007, Contra Costa County offered 

residents a $70 rebate on a Craftsman Electric Mower to help reduce yard waste and air pollution. A $50 

price discount was provided by OSH Complete Home and Garden while the remaining $20 was from the 

County. 

The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste provides basic grasscycling website information at 

www.wastediversion.org/grasscycling.htm 

Corinth, TX (Pop: 20,981) – In 2007, Ordinance No. 07-03-15-08 was passed that recognizes it is 

desirable to accommodate xeriscape practices by using these principals within the City. Each xeriscaping 

principle outlined must be considered during the planning phase and design phase, as the sequence of 

installation is important to ensure a successful xeriscape. The City of Corinth also has an approved plant 

list to go along with this Ordinance. A notice of violation will be given to owners that do not follow the 

Ordinance. 

District of Summerland, BC (Pop: 11,280) – The Turf Some Turf Program, a local business and the 

District of Summerland initiative, encourages homeowners to remove lawn and replace it with water 

saving alternatives. 

• Summerland Rental Centre offers 10 to 20 percent off sod-cutter rental and trickle irrigation 

supplies. 

• Summerland Builders’ Mart offers discounts off several hardscape products. 

• Grasslands Nursery offers 10 to 20 percent discounts off design services, plant material and bulk 

landscaping supplies. 

• Summerland Public Works offers 10 to 20 percent off municipal compost. 

• Summerland Parks and Recreation offers a one month adult health club pass to the first fifty 

memberships. 

The level of discount depends on the area removed. 

Edmonton, AB (Pop: 812,201) – Between April and October Edmonton waste collectors see an 84% 

increase in the amount of waste set at the curbside for disposal. An extensive grasscycling social 

marketing campaign was conducted in 2005-2006. 

The City decided to use social marketing tools as an alternative to information campaigns in order to 

change residential behaviour. Barriers to grasscycling were identified followed by the development of a 

strategy using behaviour change tools, a pilot took place including evaluation and then community-wide 

implementation. 

Behaviour change strategies utilized for the grasscycling campaign included: 

• Two pilots (direct mail and home visits, direct mail and demonstration yard) 


Appendix F 


• Product tags 

• Promotions (draw) 

• Television and transit advertising 

• Media interviews 

After implementing the behaviour change strategies for grasscycling the participation rate increased from 

26% to 39% by the end of 2006 and the grasscycling web page hits increased from 546 in 2005 to 5,771 

in 2006. 

Tips for applying social marketing tools to waste diversion programs from the City of Edmonton are: 

• Every waste activity requires a unique social marketing program 

• Research is essential 

• Do not rely on a single communication vehicle 

• Repeat, repeat, repeat 

• Measure behaviour 

Today, the program is in a maintenance phase with public education provided on the City website. This 

includes the benefits to grasscycling, how to grasscycle and frequently asked questions. A grasscycling 

brochure is linked to the website along with a television commercial, transit advertisement and radio ads. 

Grasscycling information is located at 

http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/garbage_recycling/grasscycling.aspx 

Edmonton Grasscycling Poster 

Glendale, AZ (Pop: 226,721) – Glendale has an extensive water conservation program that includes 

access to numerous related brochures and publications, landscape education classes, free on-site 

landscape consultations, a free self-guided audio wand tour of a xeriscape demonstration garden at the 

Main Library and landscaping rebates. 

Landscape rebates are an incentive program that encourages residents to reduce the amount of water 

used for landscaping and in turn decreases the amount of grass that is managed by homeowners. 


Appendix F 


By installing a low-water use xeriscape landscape for new homes, a $200 rebate is available from the City 

of Glendale Water Conservation Rebate Program. Meanwhile for existing homes, up to a $750 rebate can 

be received for converting grass to a low-water use landscape. Rebate amounts for conversions are 

listed below: 

Rebate Amount 

Amount of Grass to be Removed 

$150 500-1,500 ft 2 

$300 1,500-2,500 ft 2 

$450 2,500-3,500 ft 2 

$600 3,500-4,500 ft 2 

$750 4,500 ft 2 and more 

(City of Glendale, 2012) 

Website information on water conservation is located at www.glendaleaz.com/waterconservation/ 

Kamloops, BC (Pop: 85,678) – A Xeriscape Demonstration Garden in McArthur Park assists with 

educating residents about xeriscaping practices. The City also hosts xeriscaping seminars. 

Niagara Region, ON (Pop: 431,346) – Niagara Region offers website education on xeriscaping and 

grasscycling as part of the Smart Gardening Program. Information on both of these topics are located at 

www.regional.niagara.on.ca/government/initiatives/smartgardening/default.aspx 

Regional District of Central Okanagan, BC (Pop: 179,839) – The Regional District provides general 

website information on grasscycling and in the past offered ‘going natural garden parties’. The parties 

were similar to other home parties and guests learned about grasscycling, composting and xeriscaping in 

a fun casual setting at home or at the Compost Education Garden. 

Regional Municipality of Halton, ON (Pop: 501,669) – Halton Region does not accept grass clippings in 

garbage, bulk, Blue Box, yard waste or GreenCart in Halton Hills, Milton or Oakville. In Burlington, grass 

clippings will not be collected with yard waste from June to October. Backyard composting and 

grasscycling are promoted by the Region. Minor grasscycling information is located at 

http://www.halton.ca/cms/one.aspx?portalId=8310&pageId=12167 

Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – The City of Toronto has always encouraged residents to grasscycle, 

use clippings as mulch or to compost them in their backyard composter. Effective April 1, 2001, the City 

stopped collecting grass clippings from garbage collection. To assist with public education a Lawn 

Improvement Hotline (416-397-LAWN) exists along with factsheets on organic lawn care, grass seeding 

tips, alternative groundcovers, xeriscaping, outdoor watering, mulch options, soil type and pesticide 

elimination. Based on 2010 residential Waste Diversion tonnages, approximately 16,054 t of grass was 

diverted through the collection ban/grasscycling which attributes to 2% of the total waste stream (City of 

Toronto, 2010). Grasscycling information is found at www.toronto.ca/compost/grasscycle.htm 

Township of Langley, BC (Pop: 104,177) – During the summer of 2008 residents nominated friends for 

the Natural Garden Contest. The winner was determined based on the following evaluation criteria: 

• Reduction of lawn size, letting lawns ‘go golden’ in the summer, using water-efficient irrigation 

practices, choosing drought resistant grass species, or converting lawns to water-thrifty 

groundcovers. 

• Collection of rainwater, reducing irrigation and when watering is needed, using spring-loaded 

nozzles and watering in the early morning to reduce evaporation. 

• Use of compost or mulch. 

• Avoidance of herbicides and pesticides. 

• Use of drought-tolerant plants or native species while controlling the growth of invasive plants. 

• Aesthetics and functionality. 


Appendix F 


Up to ten digital or hard copy pictures must be included with submission. Nominated gardens were toured 

by judges at the end of August. 

Contact 

Alan Pultyniewicz 

Recycling Coordinator 

Montgomery County 

101 Monroe Street, 6 th Floor 

Rockville, MD 20850 

T: (240) 777-6480 

F: (240) 777-6465 

alanpultyniewicz@montgomerycountymd.gov 


Appendix F 


Multi-family Programming 

North Vancouver, British Columbia 


Definition 

Multi-family housing requires different approaches to waste reduction and diversion than single-family 

programs. Although multi-family residents may have access to existing drop-off programs, their 

participation is typically low, requiring specific programs designed for this sector of the residential 

population to achieve any significant results. 

Description 

The North Shore Recycling Program offers and administers a North Vancouver multi-family blue cart 

recycling program. In June 2008, the program won the Recycling Council of British Columbia’s Public 

Sector and Education Award. 

This three blue cart program is available for newspaper, mixed paper and mixed containers (e.g., cans, 

bottles, yoghurt containers) from apartments, condominiums and townhouses. 

Three simple steps lead multi-family blue cart recycling: 

1) Find a residential storage spot. Baskets, boxes and stackable options in a central location are 

ideal. Blue multi-family recycling tote bags are also available from The North Shore Recycling 

Program. 

2) Separate newspaper, mixed paper and mixed containers into appropriate basket/box/bag in the 

residence. 

3) Take sorted recyclables to building recycling carts and drop into the designated blue cart. Carts 

are typically placed near the building garbage dumpster. 

For a detailed list of materials accepted visit 

http://nsrp.bc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177&Itemid=495 

This recycling program is paid for in building property taxes/utility charges so property managers and 

owners can contact North Shore Recycling Program to start this initiative anytime. 


Appendix F 


North Vancouver Apartment, Condo and Townhouse Recycling Guide 




Arlington County, VA (Pop: 207,627) – Multi-family dwellings collect separated newspaper, glass bottles 

and jars and metal food and beverage cans. Plastic bottle and jugs can also be separated. 

Barrie, ON (Pop: 135,711) – Paper (e.g., newspaper, mixed paper, boxboard, telephone books, 

cardboard) and container (e.g., plastics #1 - #7, glass bottles and jars, aluminum trays, food and 

beverage containers) carts are located in multi-residential buildings for recycling. 

Burnaby, BC (Pop: 223,218) – Multi-family units are offered recycling for newspaper, paper products 

(e.g., boxboard, magazines, office paper, telephone books) and containers (e.g., glass food and beverage 

containers; tin and aluminum cans; #1, #2, #4 and #5 plastic containers) in separate carts. Cardboard is 

also accepted if flattened and placed by carts or placed in dumpster bin. 

The City also provides yard and garden waste collection service for multi-family units. 

Capital Regional District, BC (Pop: 359,991) – The Capital Regional District developed an 

apartment/condominium (5 or more units) recycling program in 2000 that provides funding to building 

owners and managers to help pay for private collection services for recyclables. In 2005, the program 

expanded by providing free bin decals to all service providers to ensure that consistent information and 

signage for collection containers and in 2006, reusable recycling tote bags were available for residents. 


Appendix F 


Capital Regional District Reusable Bag 

The District pays the following fees for private recycling services to building owners and managers: 

Building Size Funding per Unit 1 Minimum Maximum 

5 to 10 units $17.69 $88.45 $176.90 

11 to 30 units $12.16 $176.90 $364.80 

31 to 75 units $9.40 $364.80 $705.00 

More than 75 units $7.74 $705.00 − 

1 The District may, in its sole discretion, change the funding per unit on July 1 st of each 

renewal term of the Recycling Services Agreement 

(Capital Regional District, 2012) 

For more information on this program visit http://www.crd.bc.ca/waste/recycle/apartments.htm 

Davis, CA (Pop: 65,622) – The City of Davis provides apartment buildings (10 or more units) with 

recycling carts that are located by waste containers. One is for mixed paper and the other for plastic, 

glass and metal containers. Cardboard is also accepted if it is flattened and stacked next to the 

recycling carts. 

Hallandale Beach, FL (Pop: 37,113) – Comingled multi-family (five or more units) collection of 

cardboard, mixed paper, metal cans, glass and plastic bottles. 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – More than 80% of apartment buildings are serviced through the Town of 

Markham’s weekly Multi-residential Recycling Program (e.g., apartments, condominiums and some types 

of townhouses). 

Each unit is given one reusable Blue Bag to assist residents store recyclables. This bag belongs to the 

Town of Markham and must remain with the apartment unit in the event of a move-out. Buildings have 

blue containers for single stream recycling of paper, newspaper, milk and juice cartons, boxboard, 

cardboard, glass and plastic bottles and jars, aluminum and steel cans, books and empty aerosol cans. 

Residents can also take blue bag recyclables to a central drop-off facility which accepts other items such 

as, cell phones, fluorescent tubes and bulbs, ink cartridges, scrap metal, Styrofoam and tires. 


Appendix F 


Markham Blue Bag 

Melbourne, FL (Pop: 76,068) – 90 gal carts are used for multi-family residents recyclable collection which 

includes aluminum, steel and tin cans; glass bottles and jars; paper products; and plastic bottles and 

containers. This is a comingled program and materials do not have to be separated. 

New Westminster, BC (Pop: 65,976) – Recyclables are sorted into mixed paper and cardboard, 

newspaper and mixed containers (glass and tin) carts. 

Orillia, ON (Pop: 30,586) – Recycling is mandatory for the 130 apartment complexes with six or more 

dwelling units. For larger apartments, the City provides a 360 L recycling cart while smaller apartments 

may utilize the regular Recycling Box Program. Paper (e.g., newspaper, phone books, office paper, 

boxboard) is placed loose or in a clear plastic bag in the paper cart and containers (e.g., metal food and 

beverage cans, plastic bottles, tubs and lids, glass bottles and jars) are to be placed loose in the 

container cart. Plastic shopping bags are requested to be placed in a separate bag in the paper cart and 

clean Styrofoam is also collected in the paper cart if it is placed in a bag. 

Apartments with six or more dwelling units can set out up to eight bundles of cardboard without a garbage 

tag. Bundles must not be larger than 75 cm x 120 cm x 25 cm (30” x 48” x 10”) and must be placed next 

to the recycling carts. 

The Apartment Recycling Handbook for Superintendents and Property Managers is located at 

http://www.orillia.ca/en/livinginorillia/resources/AptRecyclingHandbook.pdf 

Owen Sound, ON (21,688) – The Apartment Blue Bin Recycling Program started in the late 1990’s and 

accepts sorted recyclables in five carts: cans and plastics, clear glass, paper, coloured glass and 

boxboard. Collection takes place weekly on the same route as business recycling collection. 

Corrugated cardboard is picked up separately every Wednesday for downtown multi-family buildings and 

one Monday per month for multi-family buildings throughout the rest of the city. 

Port Moody, BC (Pop: 32,975) – Multi-family residences are offered three stream recycling collection. 

One toter accepts glass, metal and plastic containers, the second one is for newspaper and the third one 

is for paper, cardboard, magazines and telephone books. 

Richmond, BC (Pop: 190,473) – Each multi-family complex has a recycling depot consisting of several 

360 L (95 gal) blue recycling carts. Newsprint, paper products and containers are separated into different 

carts. Cardboard is bundled and placed next to the carts. 

The City of Richmond also requires that all multi-family residential and mixed-use buildings have 

adequate storage for garbage and recycling through Building Code Regulations section 3.5.2. 


Appendix F 


Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – To assist multi-unit owners/managers increase recycling, the city is 

providing free in-unit recycling containers to owners/managers to give to residents. Options include a blue 

box or blue bag as seen below. 

Toronto Hard-shell Blue Box With Handle 

Toronto Soft-shell Blue Bag with Handles 

Vancouver, BC (Pop: 603,502) – The City’s Apartment Recycling Program has been operating since the 

Summer of 1999. The program includes more than 156,000 residential suites and 4,800 multi-family 

buildings in Vancouver. Most multi-family buildings are supplied with wheeled carts for newsprint, mixed 

paper products and mixed containers. Each residential suite receives a reusable tote bag for storing and 

transporting recyclables to the wheeled cart for weekly collection. 

Contact 

Vancouver Multi-Family Recycling Collection Calendar 

North Shore Recycling Program 

148 East 2 nd Street 

North Vancouver, BC V7L 1C3 

T: (604) 984-9730 

F: (604) 984-3563 

enquiries@nsrp.bc.ca 


Appendix F 


Expanded Curbside Organics Collection/ Enhanced Curbside Recycling 

Port Coquitlam, British Columbia 


Definition 

Collection of recyclables and/or organics at the curb through boxes, bags or automated carts. 

Description 

Cart collection for recycling, yard waste and garbage started in 2004 in Port Coquitlam. Carts have 

colour coded lids, the blue lid is for recycling, green lid for green waste and grey lid for garbage. 

Effective July 14, 2008, kitchen waste was added to the green lid cart. 

Port Coquitlam Garbage, Recycling and Yard Waste Carts 

Biweekly co-mingled recycling, alternating with green waste, is offered to residents for newspaper, 

boxboard, magazines, telephone books, plastics (#1-#5), tins cans, milk jugs and paper. It is requested 

that plastic bags be bagged and placed in the cart and the same goes for shredded paper. All recyclables 

must fit in the cart, no bundles will be collected beside the cart. 

Glass is not part of the curbside program. Residents are requested to take glass for refunds where 

applicable and or to use the City Glass Recycling Depots for non-refundable glass containers. 

The City offers biweekly collection of yard (e.g., grass clipping, leaves, prunings, plant trimmings and cut 

flowers, twigs and branches) and kitchen (e.g., coffee grinds/filters, tea bags/leaves, vegetable and fruit 

peels and cooked vegetables) waste from single family residences receiving City garbage pick-up. 

Annual fees for larger/extra carts are listed below. 

Cart Type 

120 L 

Cart 

240 L 

Cart 

360 L 

Cart 

Extra 

240 L 

Cart 

Extra 

360 L 

Cart 

Recycling N/A $0 $10 $20 $30 

Green/Food Waste N/A $65.28 $75.28 $20 $30 

Garbage $81.02 $111.02 $141.02 $60 $90 

Residents who require additional capacity above the standard issued carts pay a one-time administrative 

fee of $50. This fee is waivered in 2010 for recycling, green/food waste carts. 


Appendix F 



High reduction potential. 

50% diversion (2008 collection data: 7,493 t garbage, 3,478 t recycling, 3,865 t green waste). 


• Ensure that appropriate garbage cart size is selected. 

• Consider if collecting yard waste is the best option if it can be managed on site. Conduct 

extensive education program for backyard composting and grasscycling. 

• If collecting kitchen waste, collection once a week is optimal to reduce odour concerns and 

residential complaints. 


Brantford, ON (Pop: 93,650) – Weekly Blue Box recycling is offered. Residents are encouraged to use 

the “2 SORT” recycling method, where plastic, metal or glass containers are placed in one Blue Box and 

paper, junk mail and boxboard are placed in a second Blue Box. Old corrugated cardboard may be 

placed beside the first Blue Box. Yard waste collection is from April to November with a spring/summer 

maximum of 10 bags and a fall maximum of 30 bags. 

Devon, AB (Pop: 6,510) – In May 2008, the Town of Devon started weekly blue bag comingled collection 

of containers (e.g., tin cans, clear glass jars, milk cartons/jugs), mixed paper and heavy paper. Large 

pieces of flattened cardboard are also accepted. At the same time, seasonal (May–October) brown paper 

bag collection of leaves and grass clippings started. 

Drayton Valley, AB (Pop: 7,049) – Biweekly blue bag collection for mixed paper, clean mixed containers, 

boxboard and flattened cardboard. 

Kamloops, BC (Pop: 85,678) – A city-wide curbside cart (245 L) collection program started in March 

2008. Mixed recyclables (e.g., paper, cardboard, #1 - #7 plastics, and glass and metal containers) are 

collected weekly on the same day as garbage collection. 

Leduc, AB (Pop: 24,279) – Biweekly blue bag collection takes place on the same day as waste 

throughout the year. Seasonal clear bag collection of yard waste occurs for six weeks in the spring and 

six weeks in the fall on the same day as waste collection. 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – Weekly blue box and green bin collection takes place throughout the 

year while leaf and yard waste is collected every other week from late March to early December. 

Markham Curbside Recycling and Kitchen Waste Collection 

Olds, AB (Pop: 8,235) – Biweekly yard and food waste and cat litter and feces green cart (240 L/65 gal) 

fixed day collection takes place from April to October while monthly collection takes place November to 

March. 


Appendix F 


Orillia, ON (Pop: 30,586) – Weekly blue box collection of separated paper products and containers takes 

place along with weekly year round green bin/yard waste collection. Four cardboard bundles placed next 

to the blue boxes are allowed per week. 

These curbside programs are funded through property taxes and additional funding from industry through 

the Blue Box Waste Diversion Program (industry pays for 34-37% of residential recycling blue box 

program). 

Owen Sound, ON (Pop: 21,688) – Three streams of recyclables are collected every other week. 

Containers (e.g., plastics #1 - #7, glass bottles and jars, empty aerosol cans, food cans) are placed in a 

blue box, paper (e.g., newspaper, mixed paper, magazines, telephone books, paperback books) in a 

plastic bag and in a paper bag or boxboard carton are drinking boxes, milk and juice cartons, boxboard, 

wax and plastic coated cups and frozen food cartons. 

Corrugated cardboard is picked up on Monday once a month for households and can be delivered to the 

City Recycling Depot free of charge throughout the month. 

Peterborough, ON (Pop: 78,698) – Weekly two stream Blue Box recycling is provided by the City. 

Residents place containers in one box and paper in the second box. Blue Boxes must be no greater than 

22 kg/50 lb in weight. Yard waste is collected in kraft paper bags or containers with “Green Waste” labels 

weekly from April to November. 

Port Moody, BC (Pop: 32,975) – Currently bi-weekly comingled cart (240 L) recycling and weekly green 

waste cart (240 L) curbside collection takes place. 

Red Deer, AB (Pop: 90,564) – Weekly blue box collection on the same day as waste throughout the year. 

Seasonal yard waste collection (April – October) in plastic garbage cans, paper yard waste bags or 

bundles. 

Red Deer Blue Box Recycling 

San Francisco, CA (Pop: 805,235) – Residents receive weekly recycling (clean paper, bottles, cans 

and most plastic – no plastic bags, wrappers or Styrofoam) and compost (food scraps, soiled paper, 

yard waste) collection. For a detailed list of accepted materials visit 

http://www.recologysf.com/residentialServices.php. 

Weekly collection of a 32 gallon black cart is $27.55 per month while the 20 gallon mini-can is $21.21. 

Blue and green carts are picked-up at no additional charge. 


Appendix F 


San Francisco Curbside Collection Program 

Spruce Grove, AB (Pop: 26,171) – Blue bag program accepts boxboard, cardboard, containers 

(e.g., tin cans, clear glass jars, plastic bottles and tubs) and mixed paper. Biweekly recyclable 

collection takes place on the same day as black cart garbage collection. 

Organics green cart (240 L / 64 gal) collection for both kitchen and yard waste takes place weekly from 

April to November. Additional organics can be set out in Bag-to-Earth kraft bags by the green cart for 

collection as required. For more information visit 

http://www.sprucegrove.org/services/garbage/household.htm 

St. John’s, NL (Pop: 106,172) – Biweekly residential Blue Bag (transparent) collection started October 

2010. Containers are placed in one bag, paper in the second bag and cardboard can be bundled and 

placed at the curb. Bags must weight 50 lb or less. 

In order to assist residents in learning the correct way to sort, bag and curb their recycling, stickers were 

placed on bags of recyclables or garbage when something was incorrect. 

St. John’s Curbside Recycling Education Stickers 

Stony Plain, AB (Pop: 15,051) – Residential recyclable collection takes place biweekly on the same day 

as garbage collection. Containers (e.g., tin cans, clear glass jars, and plastics #1, #2, #3 and #5) are 

placed in blue bags, while mixed paper and newsprint is placed in a grocery bag and cardboard is 

collapsed and bundled. 

Organics green cart collection for both kitchen and yard waste takes place weekly from April to October 

on the same day as garbage. Additional organics can be set out in kraft bags or a rigid container (50 lb 

maximum) for collection. For more information visit 

www.stonyplain.com/admin/contentx/default.cfm?PageId=7660 


Appendix F 


Strathcona County, AB (Pop: 92,490) – Residents receive weekly blue bag collection for recyclables 

and biweekly green cart collection for yard and food waste. For more information visit 

http://www.strathcona.ab.ca/departments/Utilities/Waste_collection_recycling/waste-collection-andrecycling.aspx 

Vancouver, BC (Pop: 603,502) – The City’s Blue Box program was implemented city-wide in 1990 and 

now provides service to over 100,000 households. Each residence is supplied with a blue box (metal, 

glass and plastic containers), a reusable yellow bag (mixed paper products) and a reusable blue bag 

(newsprint). The annual 2012 collection fee is $32 for a single family for weekly service. 

The City offer yard trimmings collection to residents. Food scraps (uncooked fruit and vegetable scraps, 

coffee grounds and filters, teabags and eggshells) can also be added. Annual 2012 yard trimming fees 

are $46 for 120 L container, $54 for 180 L container, $61L for a 250 L container and $75 for 360 L 

container for biweekly service. 

City crews remove leaves on a scheduled basis from October to January. Residents place leaves in cans 

or paper bags where regular curbside collection takes place. 

Whitecourt, AB (Pop: 9,605) – Blue bag program accepts mixed paper, newspaper, boxboard, shredded 

paper, magazines, milk cartons, clear glass and plastics (#1-7). 

Contact 

John Dundee 

Manager Common Services 

City of Port Coquitlam 

1737 Broadway Street 

Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2M9 

T: (604) 927-7021 

dundeej@portcoquitlam.ca 


Appendix F 


User-Pay / Volume Limitations 

Orillia, Ontario 


Definition 

Expand user pay system by reducing bag limit to one, residents pay for every bag/container disposed or 

introducing a variable rate system that charges residents for all waste disposed by bag or cart. 

Description 

The City of Orillia’s partial user pay program was implemented in July 1997. Residents were sent 35 tags 

(part of property taxes) for use from July to December. After this, one tag per week was mailed to each 

household in 50 tag lots. This worked out to 52 tags per year. 

Starting July 1, 2000, the number of free tags mailed out to households was reduced from 52 to 40 tags 

per year. Council then allowed residents to pick up an additional five free tags per year. In order to claim 

the free tags, residents were required to come to City Hall to pick up the tags and had to answer a 

mandatory survey as to why they were picking up the free tags. Very few residents, only 17% came for 

the free tags and they were mostly large families or wanted 52 tags to cover year. The free tag initiative 

was discontinued July 2004. 

With the induction of the kitchen organics curbside program in 2009 the City now provides residents with 

30 garbage tags annually. The tags are mailed out in early June as the tag year runs from July 1 to June 

30 of the following year. Additional garbage tags can be purchased at numerous retailers for $8.25 for a 

set of five ($1.65 each – $1.10 for disposal and $0.55 for collection). 

Residents may put out tagged garbage bags no larger than 95 cm x 80 cm, garbage containers no larger 

than 133 L with the topmost piece of waste tagged, or tagged bundles for weekly collection. A weight limit 

of 20 kg applies. 

The system was chosen over a bag limit because bag limits would require that the collection drivers keep 

long lists on locations that have more than one household (e.g., duplexes, basement apartments) in order 

to effectively enforce the bag limit at each location. Issuing tags to all residents and requiring that all bags 

be tagged ensures everyone is treated the same way, and encourages residents to reduce their waste. 



The tag program has proven to be very successful in encouraging waste reduction. One year after the 

start of the program a 25% by weight reduction of garbage was observed along with a 35% increase by 

weight for recycling. 


• There was resistance to begin with when switching to a partial user pay system. After education 

efforts residents liked the program as they are not paying for collection and disposal of their 

neighbors’ garbage. 

• Ensure that adequate residential diversion programs are available with significant education prior 

to or in conjunction with tag implementation. 

• Be wary of counterfeit tags that residents print on home printer and tags that have been cut in half 

and then wrapped around bag neck. The City now uses non-tear paper and ink that does not run. 


Appendix F 



Airdrie, AB (Pop: 42,564) – Residents have a weekly two garbage unit limit. Garbage stickers for 

additional units are purchased for $3.00/sticker. One garbage sticker per unit is needed up to a maximum 

of five units per household. 

Airdrie Over-the-Limit Sticker 

Athens, GA (Pop: 116,714) – The Athens-Clarke County unified government provides Athens residents 

with a variety of container size options and variable rates for garbage collection. 

Curbside Roll-Cart 

Container Type 

Rate/Month 

20 gallon* $15.60 

32 gallon $17.60 

64 gallon $21.60 

96 gallon $28.60 

128 gallon (two-64 gallon containers) $37.60 

160 gallon (one 64 gallon and one 96 gallon container) $50.60 

Backyard Container* 

1-32 gallon garbage can $32.60 





*Residents must provide their own containers for the 20-gallon curbside and for backyard services 

Colour coded garbage stickers are distributed by Athens-Clarke County that indicate service level. 

Overflow stickers are required for all garbage bags left outside of the garbage can. These can be 

purchased at the Solid Waste Department Office or the Water Business Office for $2 each. 

Curbside recycling services are included for residential garbage customers at no additional charge. 

Barrie, ON (Pop: 135,711) – The weekly curbside allowance per residential dwelling is one bag/can per 

week with a 20 kg (45 lb) maximum weight per bag/can. Extra garbage bag tags can be purchased for $2 

per tag. 

In 1996 the City of Barrie had no bag limit. In 1997 a two bag limit was announced with $1 fee for extra 

garbage tags. In the Fall of 2005 the extra garbage bag tag increased to $2/tag followed by the one bag 

limit and introduction of the kitchen organics program in May 2006. A significant lesson learned moving to 

a one bag limit is to be proactive about a strong educational program before the limit is implemented and 

to ensure that significant staff is available to answer residential questions in a timely manner. 

For more information contact Tracy Quann-Strasser, Waste Reduction Coordinator, at (705) 739-4220 ext 

5822 or tqstraasser@barrie.ca 


Appendix F 


Brockville, ON (Pop: 21,870) – Residents may place out for collection one bag/container (maximum of 

22.5 kg/50 lbs and 98.4 L/26 gal) per week comprising of refuse or yard waste or properly tied brush and 

hedge trimmings. Excess waste bag tags can be purchased for $3.00 per tag. 

Burnaby, BC (Pop: 223,218) – The City provides weekly variable rate waste collection for 120 L, 180 L, 

240 L and 360 L carts. 

This service is funded from the general property tax. To promote greater waste reduction and to create 

incentives, this program offers residents the flexibility to choose which size garbage container meets their 

needs best. A pricing structure based on the size of the carts selected is used. 

Container Size 

(Litres) 

Garbage Container Size and Collection Costs 

Equivalent Standard 77 

Litre Can or Bags (approx.) 


Container Cost 

120 1.5 $40/year reduction in property taxes 

180 2.3 Default size; cost neutral 

240 3.2 $120/year extra in property taxes 

360 4.7 $295/year extra in Property taxes 

Chilliwack, BC (Pop: 77,936) – One container of garbage (121 L and 25 kg/55 lbs maximum) and 

recycling collection is $14.04 per month. Seniors (over 65) with biweekly pick-up of recycling and one 

container of garbage is $6.97 per month. The weekly fee for optional yard trimming collection is 

$8.32/month (up to 25 kg) for a minimum two month subscription. 

Tag-a-Bag stickers can be purchased for $1.25 for garbage and $1.00 for yard trimmings in excess of the 

weekly allotment. 

For more information contact Janet Demarcke, Environmental Services Manager, at (604) 793-2958. 

County of Simcoe, ON (Pop: 266,100) – Effective September 29, 2008, County Council approved a one 

bag per week limit for waste, introduction of the new green bin program and also an expanded recycling 

program. 

Each bag or can must not weight any more than 20 kg (44 lbs) and the maximum volume is 77 L (17 gal). 

Additional waste can be disposed of by purchasing tags for $3 per tag. 

Residents may dispose of two bags or containers on their next scheduled collection day following: 

Thanksgiving, Christmas and Victoria Day. Over the limit waste must have County garbage tags affixed to 

each additional bag/container. 

Coweta County, GA (Pop: 127,317) – Residents drop-off garbage at one of 12 compactor sites. A 32 gal 

bag is $2 and it is $1 for a 16 gal bag. The cost of garbage bags covers the bag, operation of the manned 

compactor/recycling centers and the cost for garbage disposal. 

Citizens whose income is below the federal poverty level and receive benefits from the Department of 

Family and Children’s Services may purchase bags from the Business License Office for $.10 each. 

Senior citizens who qualify for a reduction in their gas, phone or electrical bills may also purchase bags at 

the exemption price of $.10 each. A limited number of bags are sold at this price based on the number of 

household members. 

Craven County, NC (Pop: 103,505) – Garbage stickers are $2.50 each and the number of stickers used 

correlates to the garbage container size, for instance: 

• Up to 33 gallons, not more than 50 lbs, is one sticker. 

• 34-64 gallons, not more than 100 lbs, is two stickers. 

• 65-90 gallons, not more than 150 lbs, is three stickers.

Appendix F 


Durham Region, ON (Pop: 617,975) - A four bag/container limit exists per household with a maximum 

weight of 44 lbs. Garbage bag tags can be purchased for $1.50 each at municipal facilities for 

bags/containers that are over the limit. 

Durham Region Extra Bag Tag 

Edson, AB (Pop: 8,475) - In March 1998, the Town of Edson started a two-bag or container maximum for 

weekly residential collection. The maximum garbage bag size allowed is 30” x 36”, while the garbage can 

maximum size is 80 litres. Either container has a maximum weight of 40 lbs. Each bag or container in 

excess of two requires the purchase of a $2 tag from the Town Office or Leisure Centre. 

Edson Extra Garbage Sticker 

Georgina, ON (Pop: 43,517) – Each household is permitted to set out one free garbage bag or container 

with a 22 kg (50 lb) maximum every other week. Disposable bags cannot exceed 76 cm x 122 cm (30” x 

48”) for bags, boxes are to be closed and no larger than 76 cm x 122 cm x 30.5 cm (30” x 48” x 12”) and 

refuse cans/containers are to be reusable metal or plastic, no larger than 50 m (20”) in diameter and 90 

cm (36”) in height and have handles and a lid. Additional garbage tags can be purchased from the Civic 

Centre, local library and most grocery and convenience stores for $1 per tag with a maximum of four tags 

used each collection. ‘Spring and Fall Waste Exemption Week’ take place in May and September when 

the city allows residents to place up to five garbage bags/containers out without having to pay for extra 

garbage tags. This assists residents with spring and fall clean-ups. 

Hamilton, ON (Pop: 519,949) – A one container limit with a maximum weight of 23 kg (50 lbs) and 

volume of 135 L (30 gal) started March 31, 2008. The phase-in process that the City is following is 

outlined below. 

A special considerations policy has been developed for medical circumstances, families with three or 

more children under the age of five, registered home day cares and agricultural businesses with a need to 

put out more bags or garbage cans. Those receiving special consideration are allowed to place up to 

three containers at the curb each week, if needed. 

Orangeville, ON (Pop: 27,975) – Effective July 1, 2007 one bag or item may be set out for weekly 

collection, excluding recyclable materials. Stickers costing $2 each can be purchased for items / bags in 

excess of the limit. 

Oxford County, ON (Pop: 102,756) – All garbage must have a County of Oxford Garbage Bag Tag. 

There is no limit to the number of bags set out as long as they are tagged. The self-adhesive bag tags 

cost $1.50 and are sold at over 70 vendors across Oxford County. The number of tags required for 

various bag/container/bundle sizes are listed below. 


Appendix F 


Service Maximum Capacity and Size Number of Tags 

Bag 20 kg (44 lbs), 76 cm x 96 cm (30” x 36”) One 

Rigid container 20 kg (44 lbs), up to 128 L One 

Bundle 

20 kg (44 lbs), no longer than 96 cm, 

securely bound 

One 

Bag Larger than, 76 cm x 96 cm (30” x 36”) Two 

Rigid container 20 kg (44 lbs), 129 L – 240 L Two 

Rigid container Larger than 240 L Three 

Poquoson, VA (Pop: 12,150) – Residents can select from the following plans: 

Plan A – 

Plan B – 

Plan C – 

35 gallon cart ($23 bimonthly fee) 

65 gallon cart ($38 bimonthly fee) 

Two, 65 gallon carts ($70 bimonthly fee) 

Plan D – 35 gallon cart for homeowners age 65 and older (service every two weeks) ($14 

bimonthly fee) 

Plan E – 

No cart (continued use of City disposal bags), plus cost of bags ($8 bimonthly fee) 

Green plastic bags (30 gallon) bearing the City’s seal can be purchased at local stores for $1.75/bag for 

extra garbage that does not fit into the containers. 

Prince George, BC (Pop: 71,974) – In 2004, the City of Prince George implemented a variable cart 

collection system. Prior to the implementation of the program, a survey found that residents placed, on 

average, 3.18 cans/bags out on each collection day. With this information, City staff developed a system 

that defaulted to a medium cart size equivalent to three bags of garbage. The current rates and cart sizes 

are provided in the table below. 

Cart Litre Size Bag Volume 

Annual Collection 

Fee 1 

Subscription 

Level 

Small 135 L/35 gal 1.5 – 2 $129 10% 

Medium 250 L/65 gal 3 $169 80% 

Large 360 L/95 gal 4 – 5 $207 10% 

1 Includes 10% discount for paying utility bill on time. 

The City provides additional information on its website showing residents what the cost works out to on a 

per-collection basis: 

• Small cart (135 L), $2.58 per collection. 

• Medium cart (250 L), $3.38 per collection. 

• Large cart (360 L), $4.14 per collection. 


Appendix F 


Prince George Garbage Cart Options 

Residents are billed every six months through the utility bill and receive a 10% discount for paying on 

time. Earlier in the program, the City permitted residents to exchange the size of their cart free of charge, 

but recently changed the policy whereby residents are permitted to downsize their cart free of charge but 

must pay $20 to switch to a larger size cart. The introduction of this fee has helped to curtail 

cart exchanges. 

The City provides the carts, which remain the property of Prince George, making it easier to manage the 

containers and any repairs. 

The City does not use tags for additional bags of garbage but, rather, encourages residents to use 

transfer stations. Crews do not collect carts that are overflowing with garbage, such that the lid on the cart 

will not close. 

Regional District of Nanaimo, BC (Pop: 146,574) – Basic service provides for one standard size 

container collected per week or two standard size containers for customers with biweekly collection. 

Customers that need to put out extra garbage containers can do so by purchasing $2 garbage tags for 

each additional standard size container with a maximum of two per collection day. A standard size is 

considered to be 100 L. 

Seattle, WA (Pop: 608,660) – Weekly waste collection is available to residents with the following rates 

effective January 1, 2011. 

Service Level 

Curb or Alley 

Cost (per month) 

Backyard 

Micro-can (12 gal) $17.55 Not available 

Mini-can (20 gal) $21.55 Not available 

One can (32 gal) $28.05 $39.25 

Two 32 gal cans 

One 64 gal cart 

Three 32 gal cans 

One 96 gal cart 

$56.10 $78.50 

$84.15 $117.75 

Additional (per can) $28.05 $39.25 

Extra garbage (per bundle) $8.60 $8.60 

A vacancy rate of $6.85/month ($13.70/bill) may be granted for a single-family residence that will not be 

occupied or used as a residence for at least 60 consecutive days. Garbage and recycling must not be set 

out for collection during this time. 


Appendix F 


South Berwick, ME (Pop: 7,220) – Pay per bag system starting January 1, 2009. Blue bags with the 

Town seal will be sold for $7.50 (five 33 gal bags) or $5.00 (five 15 gal bags) for $5.00 at Town Hall and 

local retailers. 

St. Albert, AB (Pop: 61,466) – All households subscribe to a pay-as-you-throw cart waste management 

system that offers a range of sizes of carts based on desired capacity. The following table outlines 

services offered and fees effective June 1, 2011. 

Service 

Cost/Month 

60 L waste cart $1.10 



Refuse tag 

$2.15 per tag 

Stratford, ON (Pop: 30,886) – Residents pay directly for the cost of collecting and disposing of garbage 

at the landfill site. The pay as you waste system treats garbage like a utility where decreased usage 

means decreased costs. All garbage placed out for pick-up needs to be tagged for collection. Rates 

effective February 1, 2011 are listed in the following table. 

Type of Garbage 

Set Out 

Capacity and Size 

Cost 

(number of tags 

needed) 

Plastic Bag Up to 30x38” or 76x96cm, 85 L $2.35 (1 tag) 

Plastic Bag 

(Grocery Bag) 

Standard plastic grocery bag with 

two handles 

(1/2 tag cut lengthwise) 

Rigid Container Up to 128 L $2.35 (1 tag) 

Bundle (must be tied) 

129 to 240 L ‘Carts Ahoy’ $4.70 (2 tags) 

241 to 360 ‘Carts Ahoy’ $7.05 (3 tags) 

22 kg or 50 lbs, 100x50x50cm or 

39x20x20” 

$2.35 (1 tag) 

Landfill Drop-off Bag or can (up to 5 bags or cans) $2.75 per bag or can 

Landfill Drop-off 

Loose loads of garbage (or more 

than 5 bags or cans) 

$73.50 per tonne 

$15 minimum fee 

Sunshine Coast Regional District, BC (Pop: 28,619) – Residents are allowed to put out one 77 litre 

can of garbage each week. Extra garbage stickers can be purchased for $2.50 each. 

Vancouver, BC (Pop: 603,502) – A variable rate cart collection program started in 2005 with full 

implementation by 2007. 


Appendix F 


Garbage 

Cart Size 

Suggested For 

Maximum 

Weight 

2012 Garbage 

Fee (annual) 

75 L Family of 1-2 30 kg $99 

120 L Family of 3 or less 50 kg $117 

180 L Family of 3-5 75 kg $142 

240 L Family of 5 or more 100 kg $166 

360 L Large extended family or a 

secondary suite 

150 kg $216 

Variable Garbage Cart Sizes in Vancouver 

Extra bag stickers are available for $2 each at City locations and at Safeway. 

Vancouver Extra Bag Sticker 

Victoria, BC (Pop: 80,017) – Basic service allows one regular container, made of galvanized steel or rigid 

plastic with two open handles at the top of the rim with a removable watertight lid). Containers must not 

exceed 100 L (22 gal) in volume and 25 kg (55 lb) in weight. The City enables residents to purchase tags 

for excess garbage at a cost of $3.50 per tag, which covers the cost of collection and disposal. The extra 

garbage container must not weight any more than 15 kg (33 lbs). 

Wrentham, MA (Pop: 10,955) – One 34 gal/40 lb bag or barrel of waste and one bulky item (e.g., 

furniture, mattress, carpet) is allowed per week per household. If additional waste needs to be disposed 

residents must purchase purple Town of Wrentham Pay-as-you-throw bags (40 lb maximum) for $2 at 

Town Hall or retail outlets. The Town also offers an annual $20 sticker fee to drop off yard trimmings 

material at the compost site. 

Other Communities: 

Austin, TX (Pop: 790,390) – Variable rate cart system. 

Belleville, ON (Pop: 49,454) – Pay for every bag. Purchase tags. 

Charlottesville, VA (Pop: 43,475) – Pay for every bag. Purchase bags. 


Appendix F 


Dryden, ON (Pop: 7,617) – Pay for every bag. Purchase tags. 

Fort Collins, CO (Pop: 143,986) – Variable rate bag/can and cart system. 

Greater Napanee, ON (Pop: 15,511) – Pay for every bag. Purchase tags. 

Kamloops, BC (Pop: 85,678) – Variable rate cart system with extra bag tags. 

Kirksville, MO (Pop: 17,505) – One bag/can limit with extra bag tags. 

Mankato, MN (Pop: 39,309) – Variable rate cart system with extra bag tags. 

Marathon, ON (Pop: 3,863) – Pay for every bag. Purchase tags. 

Pitts Meadow, BC (Pop: 17,736) – One bag/can limit with extra bag/can tags. 

Plymouth, MA (Pop: 56,468) – Pay for every bag starting July 1, 2009. Purchase bag. 

Seattle, WA (Pop: 608,660) – Variable rate can and cart system. 

Shrewsbury, MA (Pop: 36,608) – Pay for every bag. Purchase bags. 

St. Marys, ON (Pop: 6,293) – One bag limit with extra bag tags. 

Vancouver, WA (Pop: 161,791) – Variable rate cart system. 

Contact 

Greg Preston 

Superintendent of Waste Management 

City of Orillia 

50 Andrew Street South, Suite 300 

Orillia, Ontario L3V 7T5 

T: (705) 325-2444 

gpreston@city.orillia.on.ca 


Appendix F 


Multi-family Programming 

North Vancouver, British Columbia 


Definition 

Multi-family housing requires different approaches to waste reduction and diversion than single-family 

programs. Although multi-family residents may have access to existing drop-off programs, their 

participation is typically low, requiring specific programs designed for this sector of the residential 

population to achieve any significant results. 

Description 

The North Shore Recycling Program offers and administers a North Vancouver multi-family blue cart 

recycling program. In June 2008, the program won the Recycling Council of British Columbia’s Public 

Sector and Education Award. 

This three blue cart program is available for newspaper, mixed paper and mixed containers (e.g., cans, 

bottles, yoghurt containers) from apartments, condominiums and townhouses. 

Three simple steps lead multi-family blue cart recycling: 

1) Find a residential storage spot. Baskets, boxes and stackable options in a central location are 

ideal. Blue multi-family recycling tote bags are also available from The North Shore Recycling 

Program. 

2) Separate newspaper, mixed paper and mixed containers into appropriate basket/box/bag in the 

residence. 

3) Take sorted recyclables to building recycling carts and drop into the designated blue cart. Carts 

are typically placed near the building garbage dumpster. 

For a detailed list of materials accepted visit 

http://nsrp.bc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177&Itemid=495 

This recycling program is paid for in building property taxes/utility charges so property managers and 

owners can contact North Shore Recycling Program to start this initiative anytime. 


Appendix F 


North Vancouver Apartment, Condo and Townhouse Recycling Guide 




Arlington County, VA (Pop: 207,627) – Multi-family dwellings collect separated newspaper, glass bottles 

and jars and metal food and beverage cans. Plastic bottle and jugs can also be separated. 

Barrie, ON (Pop: 135,711) – Paper (e.g., newspaper, mixed paper, boxboard, telephone books, 

cardboard) and container (e.g., plastics #1 - #7, glass bottles and jars, aluminum trays, food and 

beverage containers) carts are located in multi-residential buildings for recycling. 

Burnaby, BC (Pop: 223,218) – Multi-family units are offered recycling for newspaper, paper products 

(e.g., boxboard, magazines, office paper, telephone books) and containers (e.g., glass food and beverage 

containers; tin and aluminum cans; #1, #2, #4 and #5 plastic containers) in separate carts. Cardboard is 

also accepted if flattened and placed by carts or placed in dumpster bin. 

The City also provides yard and garden waste collection service for multi-family units. 

Capital Regional District, BC (Pop: 359,991) – The Capital Regional District developed an 

apartment/condominium (5 or more units) recycling program in 2000 that provides funding to building 

owners and managers to help pay for private collection services for recyclables. In 2005, the program 

expanded by providing free bin decals to all service providers to ensure that consistent information and 

signage for collection containers and in 2006, reusable recycling tote bags were available for residents. 


Appendix F 


Capital Regional District Reusable Bag 

The District pays the following fees for private recycling services to building owners and managers: 

Building Size Funding per Unit 1 Minimum Maximum 

5 to 10 units $17.69 $88.45 $176.90 

11 to 30 units $12.16 $176.90 $364.80 

31 to 75 units $9.40 $364.80 $705.00 

More than 75 units $7.74 $705.00 − 

1 The District may, in its sole discretion, change the funding per unit on July 1 st of each 

renewal term of the Recycling Services Agreement 

(Capital Regional District, 2012) 

For more information on this program visit http://www.crd.bc.ca/waste/recycle/apartments.htm 

Davis, CA (Pop: 65,622) – The City of Davis provides apartment buildings (10 or more units) with 

recycling carts that are located by waste containers. One is for mixed paper and the other for plastic, 

glass and metal containers. Cardboard is also accepted if it is flattened and stacked next to the 


Hallandale Beach, FL (Pop: 37,113) – Comingled multi-family (five or more units) collection of 

cardboard, mixed paper, metal cans, glass and plastic bottles. 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – More than 80% of apartment buildings are serviced through the Town of 

Markham’s weekly Multi-residential Recycling Program (e.g., apartments, condominiums and some types 

of townhouses). 

Each unit is given one reusable Blue Bag to assist residents store recyclables. This bag belongs to the 

Town of Markham and must remain with the apartment unit in the event of a move-out. Buildings have 

blue containers for single stream recycling of paper, newspaper, milk and juice cartons, boxboard, 

cardboard, glass and plastic bottles and jars, aluminum and steel cans, books and empty aerosol cans. 

Residents can also take blue bag recyclables to a central drop-off facility which accepts other items such 

as, cell phones, fluorescent tubes and bulbs, ink cartridges, scrap metal, Styrofoam and tires. 


Appendix F 


Markham Blue Bag 

Melbourne, FL (Pop: 76,068) – 90 gal carts are used for multi-family residents recyclable collection which 

includes aluminum, steel and tin cans; glass bottles and jars; paper products; and plastic bottles and 

containers. This is a comingled program and materials do not have to be separated. 

New Westminster, BC (Pop: 65,976) – Recyclables are sorted into mixed paper and cardboard, 

newspaper and mixed containers (glass and tin) carts. 


dwelling units. For larger apartments, the City provides a 360 L recycling cart while smaller apartments 

may utilize the regular Recycling Box Program. Paper (e.g., newspaper, phone books, office paper, 

boxboard) is placed loose or in a clear plastic bag in the paper cart and containers (e.g., metal food and 

beverage cans, plastic bottles, tubs and lids, glass bottles and jars) are to be placed loose in the 



Apartments with six or more dwelling units can set out up to eight bundles of cardboard without a garbage 

tag. Bundles must not be larger than 75 cm x 120 cm x 25 cm (30” x 48” x 10”) and must be placed next 

to the recycling carts. 

The Apartment Recycling Handbook for Superintendents and Property Managers is located at 

http://www.orillia.ca/en/livinginorillia/resources/AptRecyclingHandbook.pdf 

Owen Sound, ON (21,688) – The Apartment Blue Bin Recycling Program started in the late 1990’s and 

accepts sorted recyclables in five carts: cans and plastics, clear glass, paper, coloured glass and 

boxboard. Collection takes place weekly on the same route as business recycling collection. 

Corrugated cardboard is picked up separately every Wednesday for downtown multi-family buildings and 

one Monday per month for multi-family buildings throughout the rest of the city. 

Port Moody, BC (Pop: 32,975) – Multi-family residences are offered three stream recycling collection. 

One toter accepts glass, metal and plastic containers, the second one is for newspaper and the third one 

is for paper, cardboard, magazines and telephone books. 

Richmond, BC (Pop: 190,473) – Each multi-family complex has a recycling depot consisting of several 

360 L (95 gal) blue recycling carts. Newsprint, paper products and containers are separated into different 

carts. Cardboard is bundled and placed next to the carts. 

The City of Richmond also requires that all multi-family residential and mixed-use buildings have 

adequate storage for garbage and recycling through Building Code Regulations section 3.5.2. 


Appendix F 


Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – To assist multi-unit owners/managers increase recycling, the city is 

providing free in-unit recycling containers to owners/managers to give to residents. Options include a blue 

box or blue bag as seen below. 

Toronto Hard-shell Blue Box With Handle 

Toronto Soft-shell Blue Bag with Handles 

Vancouver, BC (Pop: 603,502) – The City’s Apartment Recycling Program has been operating since the 

Summer of 1999. The program includes more than 156,000 residential suites and 4,800 multi-family 

buildings in Vancouver. Most multi-family buildings are supplied with wheeled carts for newsprint, mixed 

paper products and mixed containers. Each residential suite receives a reusable tote bag for storing and 

transporting recyclables to the wheeled cart for weekly collection. 

Contact 

Vancouver Multi-Family Recycling Collection Calendar 

North Shore Recycling Program 

148 East 2 nd Street 

North Vancouver, BC V7L 1C3 

T: (604) 984-9730 

F: (604) 984-3563 

enquiries@nsrp.bc.ca 


Appendix F 


Biweekly Garbage Collection 

Prince Edward Island 


Definition 

Reduction of garbage collection to biweekly, alternating with recyclables and/or organics. 

Description 

Island Waste Management Corporation (IWMC) is the service provider that oversees all aspects of waste, 

recyclable and organics collection along with other Prince Edward Island (PEI) diversion programs 

including Christmas tree collection, spring and fall cleanup and household hazardous waste collection. 

PEI has biweekly black cart (140 L/37 gal or 240L/64 gal) garbage collection that alternates with green 

cart organics (kitchen and yard waste) collection. In addition to the black cart, two clear transparent 

plastic bags or rigid containers can be set out for collection but must not weight over 75 lbs. The 

maximum weight for each black cart is 220 lbs. Blue bag recyclables are collected monthly on PEI. 

Carts are to be placed within six feet of the curb. During the winter months, they may be placed at a 

reasonable distance from the curb to accommodate for snow plows. 

Residential waste that is accepted in the black cart includes: 

Non-Recyclable Plastic 

• Styrofoam 

• stretch wrap from meats, dairy, and other foods 

• cereal, cracker, and cookie box liners 

• snack food packaging (chips, chocolate bars) 

• plastic dishes and cutlery 

• bubble packaging 

• Empty motor oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid 

containers 

Glass and Ceramics 

• all glass other than container glass 

• drinking glasses 

• light bulbs (not fluorescent) 

• window and mirror glass 

• all dishes including Pyrex 

Textiles, Leather and Vinyl 

• clothing 

• boots and shoes 

• pantyhose and stockings 

• purses 

Other Waste 

• pet food bags (with plastic liners) 

• sanitary products 

• disposable diapers 

• chewing gum 

• toothpaste tubes 

• cotton swabs 

• vacuum bags and contents 

• cigarette butts, COLD 

• dryer sheets/lint 

• foil and cellophane gift wrap 

• bows, ribbon and string 


Appendix F 


The three stream collection for garbage, organics and recyclables is placed on residential tax bills. Annual 

program costs are $205/household and seasonal services for cottages; $95/cottage (June 1 to Sept 30) 

and $120/extended cottage (mid-May to end of October). This fee also includes Christmas tree collection, 

spring and fall cleanup and household hazardous waste collection. Residents that move to PEI 

throughout the year receive prorated fees. 

Although carts are assigned to residential properties, they remain the property of IWMC. Carts are under 

warranty and if repairs or parts are required, residents are to contact IWMC. 


Low to medium reduction potential. 


Didsbury, AB (Pop: 4,957) – Biweekly garbage cart collection alternating with organics. 

Durham Region, ON (Pop: 617,975) – Biweekly garbage collection of bags/containers with weekly 

collection of recycling and kitchen waste. A four bag/container limit exists per household with a maximum 



East Hants, NS (Pop: 22,111) – Biweekly garbage bag collection with a five bag limit. 

Georgina, ON (Pop: 43,517) – Each household is permitted to set out one garbage bag or container with 

a 22 kg (50 lb) maximum every other week. Additional items, up to four, require a garbage bag tag. 

Halifax Regional Municipality, NS (Pop: 390,096) – The Regional Municipality provides biweekly 

garbage pick-up in a bag or can that alternates with organics. Garbage collection is on the same day as 

recycling collection. A six bag/can limit exists with a maximum weight of 55 lb/bag and 75 lb/can. 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – Biweekly garbage collection in a bag or can takes place on the same day 

as organics and recycling collection. A three bag/can limit exists with a 40 lb maximum weight 

per bag/can. 

Oak Bay, BC (Pop: 18,015) – The municipality offers biweekly garbage tote collection. 

Oak Bay Public Works sell residents totes. 

Olds, AB (Pop: 8,235) – Biweekly black cart (360 L /96 gal) garbage collection alternating with organics. 

Oshawa, ON (Pop: 152,000) – Biweekly bag/can garbage collection the same day as recycling. A four 

bag/can limit exists with a 22 lb bag/can maximum weight. 

Owen Sound, ON (Pop: 21,688) – Biweekly garbage collection on the same day as recycling. Four 

bag/container limit with a 40 lb maximum. 

Portland, OR (Pop: 583,776) – On October 31, 2011 Portland moved from weekly garbage collection to 

biweekly pick-up. Recycling and organic waste are collected weekly. 

Port Coquitlam, BC (Pop: 56,342) – The City moved to biweekly garbage collection started January 14, 

2010. Garbage collection alternates with recycling. 

Port Moody, BC (Pop: 32,975) – Biweekly cart waste collection alternating with recycling collection. 


container (100 L/22 gal, 23kg/50 lbs) collected per week or two standard size containers for customers 

with biweekly collection. Customers that need to put out extra garbage containers can do so by 

purchasing $2 garbage tags ($3 for customers served by the District of Lantzville) for each additional 

standard size container with a maximum of two per collection day. 


Appendix F 


Regional Municipality of Halton, ON (Pop: 501,669) – Biweekly collection started April 7, 2008, 

with a six bag/can limit of 23 kg (50 lbs) each . 

Richmond Hill, ON (Pop: 185,541) – Biweekly bag/can garbage collection is available to residents. 

A four bag/can limit exists with a 18 kg maximum. Extra garbage tags are purchased for $2 each and 

only sold in quantities of five. 

Strathcona County, AB (Pop: 92,490) – Biweekly automated black cart (240 L/65 gal) waste collection 

alternates with organic green cart (240 L/60 gal) collection started June 16, 2008. 

Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – Biweekly bag/can garbage collection that alternates with recycling and is 

on the same day as kitchen waste collection. A six bag/can limit exists. 

Vancouver, WA (Pop: 161,791) – Offers biweekly waste collection for 20, 32 and 64 gal carts. 

Contact 

Prince Edward Island Government 

Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry 

Jones Building, 4th Floor 

11 Kent Street, PO Box 2000 

Charlottetown, PEI C1A 7NB 

Island Waste Management Corporation 

110 Watts Avenue 

Charlottetown, PEI C1E 2C1 

T: (902) 368-5024 

F: (902) 368-5830 

T: (888) 280-8111 

T: (902) 894-0330 

F: (902) 894-0331 

info@iwmc.pe.ca 


Appendix F 


References 

Capital Regional District, 2012. Recycling Services Agreement. 6 pgs. 

http://www.crd.bc.ca/waste/recycle/documents/fundingagreementfor2009.pdf 

City of Glendale, 2012. Water Conservation Landscape Rebates. 

http://www.glendaleaz.com/WaterConservation/landscaperebates.cfm 

City of Toronto, 2010 Residential Waste Diversion. 1 pg. 

http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/residential-diversion.htm 

Nanda, A., 2009. President. RecycleBank Canada. Telephone Communication. February 6, 2009. 

T: (905) 304-6789, C: (905) 339-6752. 


Appendix G: 

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional 

Waste Reduction / Recycling Examples 

Waste Diversion Assistance 

Metro Vancouver, British Columbia 

Population: 2,313,328 

Definition 

Government or organization provides technical assistance to businesses in terms of information that 

helps organizations implement waste reduction programs. 

Description 

Launched in 2004, the SmartSteps program is Metro Vancouver’s (formerly the Greater Vancouver 

Regional District) program of technical assistance, tools and information to help businesses become more 

eco-efficient. The program helps businesses find specific, cost-effective actions to become more efficient, 

protect profits and add value to the community. This program provides businesses with a program of 

tools, technical assistance and information to help businesses divert waste and implement other 

environmental initiatives. 

The SmartSteps sustainable business program works to promote eco-efficiency and sustainable work 

practices that take into consideration social, financial and environmental elements. Key elements of the 

program include: waste reduction and recycling, water conservation, energy efficiency, air quality control 

and sewer use discharge reduction. This program targets small and medium sized industrial, commercial 

and institutional businesses within Metro Vancouver and aims to provide ICI businesses with information, 

technical assistance and tools to help make the business case for sustainability. 

SmartSteps provides information and tools as both web and print-based materials on the following topics: 

• Business Guide to Eco-Efficiency 

• Sustainable Purchasing Guide 

• Sector Guides 

• Case Studies 

• Tools 

– Products and services directory 

– Business case TCA (total cost assessment) 

– Sustainable Purchasing Guide 


Appendix G 

ICI Waste Reduction / Recycling Examples 

Smart Steps Business Guide to Eco-Efficiency 

More information on the SmartSteps program is located at 

http://www.metrovancouver.org/smartsteps/Pages/default.aspx 


Low to medium reduction potential. Depends on extent of assistance. 


Austin, TX (Pop: 790,390) – WasteSMART is a City of Austin Solid Waste Services program that 

recognizes businesses for making efforts in the workplace to reduce and recycle waste and to buy 

recycled products. Businesses that become a WasteSMART Partner have the business name listed on 

the city website, are allowed to use the WasteSMART logo on business communications and can place 

WasteSMART decals at door entries or in other public areas. 

The City provides waste assessments through the Waste Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP). This 

voluntary service gives businesses hands-on business specific assistance on recycling, waste reduction 

and purchasing environmentally preferable products that is confidential and free of charge. 

More information on the WasteSMART is located at http://www.austintexas.gov/department/wastesmart 

For more information on the Waste Reduction Assistance Program visit 

http://www.austintexas.gov/department/waste-reduction-assistance-program-wrap 

CalRecycle – CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery), formerly 

the California Integrated Waste Management Board, has assisted businesses since 1993 with a variety 

of Business Waste Reduction Programs. CalRecycle gathers and disseminates information directly to 

businesses or through local governments who offer modest assistance grants to either establish or 

enhance reuse within California. At this time the business program is at a low-level maintenance stage; 

CalRecycle continues to match businesses with recycling providers and develops business kits for 

individual businesses upon request. In the past, on-site visits were offered to businesses along with 

workshops and presentations at conferences and association meetings. These services are rarely 

requested today as most businesses are well aware of recycling opportunities as this program has 

been in place for fifteen years. 


Appendix G 


In addition to basic technical assistance CalRecycle developed two programs, the Waste Reduction 

Awards Program and the California Materials Exchange, to complement its business waste diversion 

initiative. 

Fact sheets, case studies, posters, signs, and information on awards, government contacts, market 

development, purchasing, and prevention and recycling are available on the CalRecycle website. 

More information on the CalRecycle Business Waste Reduction Programs is located at 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ReduceWaste/Business/ 

Green Star® – Green Star® is an Alaska non-profit organization that started in 1990 and encourages 

businesses and organizations to practice waste reduction, energy conservation and pollution prevention. 

Green Star® provides assistance with green events, site assessments and administers the Green Star 

Award. 

For more information on GreenStar® visit www.greenstarinc.org 

King County, WA (Pop: 1,931,249) – The King County Solid Waste Division focuses on workplace waste 

prevention and diversion activities through website education. Information on workplace recycling, waste 

prevention activities and property managers recycling is located at 

http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/business/workplace.asp 

Portland, OR (Pop: 583,776) – Recycle at Work, provided by Metro Portland, is a resource center that 

offers free tools and assistance to help businesses reduce, reuse and recycle. From giving a single 

recycling presentation and conducting an on-site evaluation by a business recycling specialist to 

developing a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling program, services are customized to meet the 

specific business needs. 

Free Recycle at Work services include: 

• Starting or expanding a waste prevention or recycling program 

• On-site evaluation of waste to determine what major items are and how to reduce, reuse or 

recycle them 

• Free desk-side recycling containers 

• Information on waste prevention, recycling and purchasing recycled-content products 

• A detailed report summarizing current waste-reduction practices with recommendations for 

improvement 

• Employee educational materials and presentations including free posters and videos 

• Help finding appropriate options for disposing of hard-to-recycle items in this region 

For more information on Recycle at Work visit www.recycleatwork.com 


Appendix G 


Portland Recycle at Work Central 

Collection Box 

Portland Recycle at Work Desk-side Box 

Portland Container Recycling Poster 

Portland Mixed Paper Recycling Poster 

Portland Composts! provided by the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, helps 

businesses start or improve their organics diversion. Posters and stickers are available along with 

assistance with employee training. 

Portland Composts! Poster 

For more information visit http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41682& 

New Jersey (Pop: 8,821,155) – The New Jersey WasteWise Business Network is a free, voluntary 

program established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, States are encouraged to 


Appendix G 


set up WasteWise programs to help businesses reduce their waste by registering as a partner or 

endorser (sign up others). Partners receive technical assistance, access to a free helpline, information, 

tool kits and other resources. 

More information on the New Jersey WasteWise Business Network is located at 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/recycling/wastewise/brbn03.htm 

New York, NY (Pop: 8,175,133) – Waste Less in NYC is New York City’s one-stop waste prevention and 

recycling resource. The site was written and produced by the New York City Department of Sanitation’s 

Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling. It provides information for businesses, agencies and 

schools, and households. 

Business and agencies and schools information focuses on waste prevention, recycling opportunities, 

green building, product stewardship, case studies and measurement tools. 

For business information visit http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/wasteless/wasteless_nyc.shtml 

Seattle, WA (Pop: 608,660) – The Resource Venture program, sponsored by Greater Seattle Chamber of 

Commerce in partnership with Seattle Public Utilities, promotes waste prevention and green procurement 

in businesses and provides free information and technical assistance to improve environmental 

performance of their operations. 

A variety of publications are available online at www.resourceventure.org/free-resources/getstarted/recycling-publications/recycling-publications. 

These include an employee education guide book called 7 Steps to a Successful Business Recycling 

Program, a Small Business Recycling publication and a factsheet called Buying Recycled Products. 

Resource Venture also features prominently in Seattle’s commercial food waste diversion program by 

providing information and assistance to businesses to start up a commercial food waste diversion 

program. 

More information on the Resource Venture Program is located at www.resourceventure.org 

Contact 

Metro Vancouver 

Smart Steps Program 

4330 Kingsway 

Burnaby, BC 

V5H 4G8 

T: (604) 432-6200 general info 

T: (604) 451-6575 SmartSteps 

F: (604) 436-6811 

business_services@gvrd.bc.ca 


Appendix G 


Waste Diversion Promotion 

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery; formerly the California 

Integrated Waste Management Board) 

Definition 

Public acknowledgement of businesses and institutions that achieve significant waste reduction goals to 

encourage similar programs within other organizations, while reinforcing positive behaviours associated 

with these accomplishments, and helping to raise the public profile of participating businesses. 

Description 

CalRecycle coordinates the Waste Reduction Awards Program (WRAP) which provides the opportunity 

for California businesses to gain public recognition for their outstanding efforts to reduce waste. 

Businesses do not compete against each other as each business is judged independently based on 

individual accomplishments. Successful applicants receive an award certificate from the State of 

California along with a camera-ready WRAP WINNER logo and window decal. The logo can be used on 

products, advertising and business websites to publicize waste reduction efforts. In addition, CalRecycle 

publicizes WRAP winners via local and statewide press releases and are listed on the CalRecycle WRAP 

website. 

WRAP Logo 

The following lists examples of how the WRAP winner logo is being promoted: 

• AT&T Yellow Pages, a multi-year winner, places the logo on the back cover of all California white 

and yellow page telephone directories. 

• Dole Fresh Vegetables printed the logo on its invoices. 

• Nissan Motor Corporation printed the logo on a ceramic coffee cup 

• Bayer Corporation uses the logo in newsletters and/or advertisements 

Annually CalRecycle recognizes five of the best examples of nonhazardous waste reduction efforts for 

the ‘WRAP of the Year’ award. These businesses serve as waste management models for the rest of 

their industry. 

For more information on the WRAP program visit http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WRAP/ 


Low to medium reduction potential. Depends on extent of assistance. 

Since 1993, more than 17,500 awards have been given to over 4,000 California businesses, many being 

multiple-year winners. 


Appendix G 



Bay Area Green Business Program (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San 

Mateo, SantaClara, Solano and Sonoma Counties), CA - The Bay Area Green Business Program 

verifies that businesses meet higher standards of environmental performance. Partnerships between 

government agencies and utilities helps local businesses comply with all environmental regulations and 

take actions to conserve resources, prevent pollution, and minimize waste. Over 1,000 businesses and 

public agencies have been certified since 1997. 

The program was developed by Bay Area local governments in collaboration with US EPA, Cal EPA 

Department of Toxic Substances Control and the business community. The Association of Bay Area 

Governments coordinates the Program, which is implemented by Green Business Coordinators in nine 

participating counties. 

The Green Business Standards presented below define what a business or public agency must achieve 

to be certified ‘green’. Businesses in over 20 different industries, including auto repair shops, printers, 

hotels, restaurants, landscapers, wineries, janitorial and laundry services, grocery and retail stores, home 

remodelers, attorneys, architects, engineers, gift services, and a variety of office and home-based 

businesses, have successfully met the standards and are now recognized as Bay Area Green 

Businesses. 

Four components are evaluated as part of the Green Business Program, solid waste reduction and 

recycling, water conservation, energy conservation and pollution prevention. 

The solid waste reduction and recycling section requests the implementation of the following measures: 

• Reduce paper waste in five different ways 

• Incorporate waste reduction methods into your business in five ways 

• Segregate and recycle or reuse five types of materials from your solid waste streams 

• Purchase three recycled or used materials/products for your business 

Upon receiving Green Business certification recognition is received through: 

• The Green Business Program website at http://www.greenbiz.ca.gov/ 

• City and agency newsletters 

• Press coverage, promotional events and special recognition 

• Window decals, certificates and promotional materials for business 

• Green Business logo to use in business advertising 

Comox Valley Regional District, BC (Pop: 63,538) – The Comox Strathcona Waste Management 

(CSWM) service is a function of the Comox Valley Regional District. The CSWM provides 

businesses/organizations and residents the option to sign the Solution to Zero Waste Pledge and to be 

added to a directory where you have access to resources information and have the chance to win prizes. 

For more information visit http://www.zerowastepledge.ca/. 

Green Star® – Organizations are eligible for the Green Star Award upon meeting ten standards ranging 

from reducing solid waste disposal, to water and energy consumption reduction, encouraging alternative 

transportation and providing measures of success. As of February 2012, over 250 organizations are 

Green Star Award Certified. Recertification occurs every two years. 


Appendix G 


Green Star Award Logo 

For more information on GreenStar® visit www.greenstarinc.org 

Massachusetts (Pop: 6,587,536) – Supermarkets in the State of Massachusetts can acquire certification 

by providing a comprehensive recycling and reuse program. Certification exempts supermarkets from 

undergoing the State's routine comprehensive inspections at disposal sites and transfer stations for 

banned materials in loads, it also can save money and provides positive recognition. 

This is a voluntary approach to encourage individual supermarkets to develop sustainable recycling 

programs before taking the step of requiring them through regulation. 

The onus is on supermarkets to apply for certification biennially and ensure that comprehensive recycling 

and reuse programs are in place. Through this process an individual supermarket can obtain a 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Supermarket Recycling Program 

Certification (SRPC) and qualify for certain regulatory relief. Waste loads from a supermarket with SRPC 

status are exempt from MassDEP’s routine comprehensive inspections at disposal and transfer facilities 

for the presence of paper (including cardboard), glass, metal and plastic containers, leaves and yard 

waste. 

Supermarkets that may apply for certification are defined as grocery stores or supermarkets selling at 

retail a full line of dry grocery, canned goods, perishable and non-perishable items, with service deli, 

bakery, and seafood sections, and annual sales of $2 million or more. 

To participate in this program, a supermarket must certify to MassDEP that it has a comprehensive 

recycling or reuse program in place for the following materials: 

• Cardboard – old corrugated containers made from unwaxed paper with a ruffled (corrugated) 

inner liner. 

• Organic Materials – for donation: edible but non-saleable prepared, perishable, and 

nonperishable foods. For diversion: produce, edible and inedible food, wet and waxed cardboard, 

paper, plants, flowers, and wood boxes. 

• Shrink and Plastic Wrap – thin plastic film, either Low Density or Linear Low Density 

Polyethylene, used for packaging pallets or dry product. 

Certified supermarkets must maintain records to verify that they are meeting program requirements. 

If 80 percent of the stores owned and operated by a particular company achieve and maintain SRPC 

status, that company will receive a company-wide certification. MassDEP may change the criteria and/or 

benefits of certification from year to year in consultation with the Massachusetts Food Association and 

individual supermarkets. 

MassDEP provides handbooks and materials to assist supermarkets in developing effective recycling, 

composting, and diversion programs including: the Supermarket Composting Handbook which is a stepby-step 

manual for setting up a composting program in a supermarket. 


Appendix G 


MassDEP estimates that there are over 400 supermarkets in the state generating an estimated 

90,600 tons of organic material per year. 

As of July 2010, over 225 stores from seven major chains (Big Y Foods, Hannaford Bros., Roche Bros., 

Shaw’s, The Stop & Shop Supermarkets Co. LLC, Walmart Supercenters and Whole Foods Markets) 

were diverting organics to reuse and recycle and saving between $3,000 and $20,000 per location per 

year in disposal costs. 

More information regarding this program is located www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/supermkt.htm 

Contact 

CalRecycle 

1001 I Street 

PO Box 4025 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

T: (916) 341-6604 

wrap@calrecycle.ca.gov 


Appendix G 


ICI Food Waste Collection 

Seattle, Washington 


Definition 

Diversion of food waste, particularly from restaurants and grocery stores through City and/or private 

sector collection. 

Description 

Seattle launched its Food Scrap Collection Program in August 2005. The City offers a voluntary 

commercial compost collection program for all businesses that collects food scraps at 32% lower rates 

than garbage rates. 

Commercial Compost Container Monthly Rates (effective January 2011) 

Service Type Each Container, Weekly Pickup Special Pickups, Per Container 

32 Gal $25.91 $7.78 

60 Gal $50.65 $15.20 

90 Gal $59.48 $17.92 

1 Yd $107.17 $32.18 

1.5 Yd $140.89 $42.30 

2 Yd $174.60 $52.42 

3 Yd $242.03 $72.66 

4 Yd $309.45 $92.91 

6 Yd $444.31 $133.40 

8 Yd $579.16 $173.88 

This food scrap collection service, saves money for businesses that generate significant amounts of food 

waste, such as restaurants, grocery stores, bakeries, hotels, schools and flower shops. 

Through the commercial compost program the following materials are collected: 

• Food scraps 

– Meat, fish and dairy 

– Shells and bones 

– Eggshells, nutshells (paper carton) 

– Fruit and vegetables 

– Pasta and rice 

– Bread and grains 

• Food-soiled paper 

– Coffee grounds, filters and tea bags 

– Paper bags, towels and newspaper 

– Greasy pizza boxes and waxed cardboard 

– Uncoated paper plates and napkins 

• Plant and weed scraps 

• Approved Compostable Packaging 


Appendix G 


The City provides the Food and Compostables Flyer in a variety of languages to businesses and 

organizations including: English, Amharic, Cambodian, Chinese, Korean, Laotian, Oromo, Russian, 

Somali, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai, Tigrinya, and Vietnamese. 

Seattle Compostable Items Flyer 

Seattle is working with private waste haulers to offer organics collection. The contracted waste hauler will 

provide a compost collection container and collection service. The City announced that as of Oct. 1, 2007 

Allied Waste Services will be the only contracted compost service provider for the City although 

businesses can still choose to contract with another private hauler that provides the service (there are 

three including Allied). 

The program is part of Seattle’s larger Resource Venture Program which provides free technical 

assistance, training and advice on how to collect food waste and compost within a business location. 

The program also encourages businesses to donate packaged food and food that has not been served to 

customers to be donated to a local food bank. 

Administrative Rule SPU-DR-01-04 states that businesses are prohibited from disposing of significant 

amounts (more than 10% by volume of container) of paper, cardboard and yard debris in garbage as of 

January 2005. Allied Waste Services offers businesses yard and landscape debris recycling services for 

an additional charge. Effective in 2006, business owner and property manager ban enforcement will 

consist of city inspectors sending account holder up to two warning notices before a $50 fine is imposed. 



More than 1,300 Seattle area restraunts, grocery stores, hotels, food processors, churches, schools, 

businesses and others compost their food scraps through the City of Seattle’s Commercial Compost 

Program. 

In 2009, these organizations diverted nearly 39,000 tons of food and yard waste from landfill. 


Halifax Regional Municipality, NS (Pop: 390,096) – Organic material (food and yard waste), fibre 

recyclables and blue box recyclables are unacceptable for landfill disposal. A source separation for these 


Appendix G 


materials is required by law (By-law No. S-600) at all commercial properties in the Regional Municipality 

of Halifax. 

The commercial sector, businesses and institutions must take part in an organics collection program 

along with recycling and garbage collection. Property owners are to contact their waste hauler to review 

source separated collection services. Food and yard waste along with boxboard, soiled paper, sawdust 

and wood shavings are collected in green carts. 

Effective November 5, 2007 pursuant to an amendment to Section 12.2 of By-Law No. S-600, signage of 

sufficient size and number is required to be posted to provide occupants with specific recycling and 

organics instructions for proper sorting of organic material, and fibre and blue bag recyclables. 

Jasper, AB (Pop: 4,051) - Hotels and restaurants have the option to order a compost collection cart 

which is picked up by the town. Currently there are 19 restaurants/hotels/grocery stores that participate in 

the organics collection program, and more businesses are interested in signing on. 

Organics Bin Outside a Jasper Grocery Store 

Portland, OR (Pop: 583,776) – The City provides food waste collection targeting restaurants, hotels and 

grocery stores recognizing that 75% of waste that goes to the landfill comes from businesses. Studies 

show that food waste, food contaminated paper and waxy corrugated cardboard make up nearly 30% of 

that total. Roughly 54,000 tons of food waste and food-contaminated paper enter the commercial waste 

stream each year. 

This is a voluntary program called Portland Composts! Businesses in the City of Portland can contract 

with waste haulers to collect food waste and food-soiled paper for composting. 

The City of Portland provides technical assistance, training for your employees, communications and 

marketing materials and more. 

Regional District of Nanaimo, BC (Pop: 146,574) – In April 2005, the Regional District of Nanaimo 

Board of Directors approved a commercial food waste diversion program. Effective December 1, 2005, 

the Board implemented a ban of ICI organics, affecting approximately 800 businesses and institutions, 

at the landfill when the International Composting Corporation in vessel composting facility opened near 

Duke Point. 

Banned compostable materials include: 

• Fruits and vegetables 

• Soiled paper plates and cups 

• Meat, fish, shellfish, poultry and bones 

• Soiled paper towels and napkins 

• Dairy products 

• Soiled waxed paper 

• Bread, pasta and baked goods 

• Food soiled cardboard and paper 

• Tea bags, coffee grounds and filters 

• Egg shells 

• Wooden stir-mix 


Appendix G 


By-law 1428 imposed a ban on all food and organic waste from commercial sources including food 

services, food and beverage stores, hospitals, educational institutions with food services, nursing and 

residential homes, community food services. Examples of this are kitchen waste receptacles in 

restaurants, waste bins in grocery store produce departments and bags of damp paper towels from 

commercial restrooms. This ban also included yard waste. 

The Regional District worked with haulers to provide alternative organic collection options and provided 

stakeholder sessions prior to implementation of the by-law and ban. 

An estimated 6,000 t of commercial organics is diverted per year through this program. By 2010, the 

Regional District hopes to divert 75 per cent of food waste from landfill to licensed composting facilities. 

Businesses are required to pay for collection and processing of the organic food waste as well as the 

bins. 

Towards the end of 2008 the Regional District is planning to revisit education/communication options for 

the ICI sector including site visits and bylaw compliance. 

San Francisco, CA (Pop: 805,235) – The City offers a variety of programs to divert food waste from the 

commercial sector including redistribution of food to food banks, recovering food processing waste by 

farmers as animal feed, collection of grease and meat for rendering, on-site composting pilots and 

offering food waste collection services provided by the City’s two franchised haulers. 

More than 1,800 San Francisco restaurants and other food-related businesses are providing food scraps 

and other compostable material to San Francisco's food scrap compost program. These food scraps are 

made into nitrogen rich compost and used by vineyards in the heart of California's wine country, including 

Napa, Sonoma, El Dorado and Mendocino Counties. 

To encourage commercial sector food recovery, the city contracts with a consultant to assist program 

development and analysis. The consultant also provides training, monitoring, follow-up, and outreach to 

food waste generating customers with commercial food collection service (provided by the city’s haulers). 

The city has also funded indoor sorting containers to assist participants. In addition, the city and county 

have provided more than $350,000 in grant money to help build the edible food recovery infrastructure. 

Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – Part of the commercial Yellow Bag Program includes organics 

collection of: 

• Fruit and vegetable scraps 

• Meat and fish products 

• Dairy products 

• Cake, cookies and candy 

• Indoor plants (no pots or baskets) 

• Diapers and sanitary products 

• Pasta, bread and cereal 

• Egg shells 

• Coffee grinds and filters 

• Tea bags 

• Soiled paper food packaging, towels, napkins, 

tissues and wet paper 

Organics and recycling collection is provided at no charge only to customers in the Yellow Bag Program 

and using authorized yellow bags for City garbage collection. 

Organics are collected in 35-gallon or 95-gallon carts that are purchased from the City for $62.15 and 

$96.05 respectively, including taxes. 

Depending on the business location, organics collection service will take place once or twice per week. 

Large organics generators, for instance restaurants and green grocers, can apply for five or six 

collections per week for a prepaid fee. 

Yosemite National Park, CA – Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts initiated a comprehensive 

composting program for Yosemite National Park in 2009 to complement its longstanding recycling efforts 


Appendix G 


at the park. Through November 2010, the composting initiative diverted 216 tons of organic waste 

including food waste and paper products from Yosemite’s kitchens and restraunts to Mariposa County’s 

composting facility (an enclosed in vessel system, including an air and odor control system and a water 

re-circulation system). This represents about 10 percent of the 2,100 tons of solid waste that Yosemite 

sent to landfill during the same period (Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts, 2011). 

The composting program started at four locations, The Ahwahnee, Yosemite Lodge at the Falls, 

Degnan’s Deli and The Loft and subsequently expanded to include kitchens at Curry Village, Village Grill, 

White Wolf Lodge, Tuolumne Meadows Lodge and the High Sierra Camps. In each kitchen, Delaware 

North placed separate garbage containers and organic containers with a compostable material liner. 

In October 2010 the National Parks Service at Yosemite joined the initiative by collecting organic waste at 

its housing complex in Yosemite Valley. During the spring of 2012 Delaware North expanded the program 

to its housing facilities. 

With the continued expansion of this initiative there is the potential to divert 1,400 tons of waste (half of 

Yosemite’s waste stream) from being landfilled (Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts, 2011). 

Additionally, Delaware North worked closely with Mariposa County to test the ability of plastic and paper 

alternatives to biodegrade at the County composting facility. Containers made of plant starches, potato 

starch products for dishware and paper products made with recycled paper were identified as the best 

options. By using biodegradable dinnerware and packaging more organic waste is diverted from the 

landfill. 

As a result of this program, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts received a top 2011 

environmental achievement award from the National Park Service for initiating this comprehensive 

composting program in Yosemite National Park. 

Contact 

Seattle Public Utilities 

Seattle Municipal Tower 

700, 5 th Avenue, Suite 4900 

Seattle, WA 98124-4018 

USA 

T: (206) 684-3000 


Appendix G 


ICI Recycling Collection 

Toronto, Ontario 


Definition 

Businesses receive collection of recyclables by either the City or private sector. This program can be 

linked to residential recycling programs. 

Description 

The Yellow Bag Program started in September 2002 to encourage Toronto’s commercial customers to 

decrease garbage while increasing recycling and organics collection. Generally commercial 

establishments of less than four floors and less than 500 square meters ground space, qualify for this 

program. Eligible customers place garbage in special yellow bags for pick-up. Bags and tags (for bundles 

up to 120 x 80 x 80 cm) are available at Toronto Canadian Tire locations for $3.10 each. This covers the 

cost of collection and disposal of garbage. 

Toronto Yellow Bag Collection Program 

The City collects recyclable materials and organics from businesses at no extra cost; it is included in the 

$3.10 per bag garbage collection fee. Food waste and recyclables (e.g., metal, glass and plastic bottles, 

jars, tubs, milk/juice cartons, cardboard, office paper, magazines, newspaper, telephone books) are 

collected twice a week at night in high commercial areas and weekly for other commercial businesses. 

Organics are collected in 35 gal green carts purchased from the City for $62.15 (including tax) while it 

is recommended that recyclables are collected in 95 gal blue carts purchased from the City for $96.05 

(including tax). Commercial recyclables are also accepted in blue boxes and clear plastic bags. It is up 

to the business to decide how many carts meet their collection needs. 

Night time crews collect garbage, recycling and organics from businesses. 


Medium to high reduction potential. 

An estimated 4,000 – 5,000 businesses take part in the Yellow Bag Program. 

No current statistics available for the Yellow Bag Program. 


Appendix G 



• Even though businesses must meet defined program criteria and must apply for City of Toronto 

collection services, many businesses purchase Yellow Bags from Canadian Tire and 

automatically think that they will receive pickup even though they do not meet program criteria or 

have not applied for collection service. 

• Businesses tend that think that the City will pick up items that do not fit in Yellow Bags for no cost. 

More education is required so that businesses realize that a Yellow Tag can be used in place of a 

Yellow Bag for larger items. 

Community/Organizations with Similar Program 

Examples below are municipal business collection programs. The private sector typically offers cardboard 

collection, at a minimum, for businesses. Contact private haulers or recycling collection businesses to 

determine local options. 

Barrie, ON (Pop: 135,711) – Blue (glass, plastic, metal containers) and grey (paper products) recycling 

boxes are collected weekly. Large cardboard under 75 cm x 75 cm x 20 cm is requested to be flattened 

and placed next to boxes with a one bundle per week maximum for businesses. This is considered to be 

a City service and is paid for through business taxes. 

Boise, ID (Pop: 205,671) – The City offers commercial recycling service to all businesses, non-profit 

organizations, churches, schools and multi-family complexes. Newspapers and inserts, aluminum and tin 

cans, mixed paper and plastics (#1-#7) are collected in either blue bins, wheeled carts and green 

dumpsters. Daily, weekly or monthly collection is available by Allied Waste. 

Hamilton, ON (Pop: 519,949) – Businesses that are along existing residential collection routes can 

participate in recyclable curbside collection. One blue box is for containers (e.g., pop cans, cardboard 

cans, empty aerosol cans, aluminum trays, plastic bottles #1 & #2, plastic tubs #5, Tetra-Pack items) and 

the other is for paper products (e.g., boxboard, magazines, newspaper, paper, cardboard). 

London, ON (Pop: 366,151) – Curbside recycling collection, on a six work day cycle, is available to 

businesses located on existing residential collection routes at no charge. Quantities are limited to five 

blue boxes (e.g., food, beverage and liquid containers) and not weighing more than 18 kg/40 lbs and two 

bundles of cardboard per collection. 

Noetix Corp. – this 60 employee software provider in Redmond, WA set up a food composting program 

in the lunch room to facilitate proper disposal of coffee filters, corn based plates and utensils and food 

waste. Waste Management started business food waste curbside collection in 2009 and Noetix receives 

twice a week collection from this hauler. Eco bags are used to line the food waste container in the lunch 

room and are removed nightly by the cleaning staff. Food waste is taken to Cedar Grove Composting for 

processing and sold back to the public. Some employees that do not have residential food waste 

collection bring home food waste to the office to be diverted. Noetix had their first zero waste event, 

a summer picnic in 2009, which included food waste diversion. 

Orillia, ON (Pop: 30,586) – For larger businesses, the City provides 360 L recycling carts while smaller 

businesses may utilize the regular Recycling Box Program. Paper (e.g., newspaper, phone books, office 

paper, boxboard) is placed loose or in a clear plastic bag in the paper cart and containers (e.g., metal 

food and beverage cans, plastic bottles, tubs and lids, glass bottles and jars) are to be placed loose in the 



Businesses and institutions are limited to four bundles of cardboard without a garbage tag. Bundles 

must not be larger than 75 cm x 120 cm x 25 cm (30” x 48” x 10”) and must be placed next to the 


Owen Sound, ON (Pop: 21,688) – Businesses are given five blue carts (65 gal) by the City to collect 

separated recyclables (e.g., cans and plastics, clear glass, paper, coloured glass and boxboard). 


Appendix G 


Collection takes place weekly on the same route as multi-family recycling collection. This is a tax base 

service. 

Corrugated cardboard is picked up separately every Wednesday for downtown businesses and one 

Monday per month for businesses throughout the rest of the city with the exception of the Industrial Park. 

Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Pop: 507,096) – Region of Waterloo businesses are eligible to 

receive blue box recycling collection only if the business is located on an existing municipal curbside 

collection route. Businesses not meeting this criteria must hire their own contractors for recycling 

collection. 

A maximum of three blue boxes and three bundles of corrugated cardboard are allowed per eligible 

business weekly. Note: corrugated cardboard must be broken down to no larger than 75 cm x 75 cm x 

20 cm (30" x 30" x 8") and tied. 

University of Victoria – The University offers a voluntary Office Composting Program to help academic 

and support units on campus divert organic waste (coffee grounds and filters, paper coffee cups, tea 

bags, fruit peels and pits, leftover meals including meat and dairy, wooden stir sticks or chopsticks, sugar 

packets, paper napkins, paper plates and paper cups, and plants or cut flowers) from the landfill. In 2008, 

UVic had almost 200 offices/units participating in the program. 

UVic provides an Office Composting kit consisting of a 10 L compost bin, a supply of BioBags and 

information signs. Six centralized compost stations (240 L green carts) are on campus proper, two in 

operation buildings and 18 residence stations exist. Compost station carts are collected by ReFUSE and 

transported to the Fisher Road Recycling Facility (40 km north of Victoria) for in-vessel processing. 

Contact 

Sandra Zavaglia 

Supervisor of Operational Support 

City of Toronto 

505 Richmond Street West 

Toronto, Ontario M5V 1Y3 

T: (416) 392-6892 


Appendix H: 

Waste Collection Examples 

Biweekly Garbage Collection 

Prince Edward Island 


Definition 

Reduction of garbage collection to biweekly, alternating with recyclables and/or organics. 

Description 

Island Waste Management Corporation (IWMC) is the service provider that oversees all aspects of waste, 

recyclable and organics collection along with other Prince Edward Island (PEI) diversion programs 

including Christmas tree collection, spring and fall cleanup and household hazardous waste collection. 

PEI has biweekly black cart (140 L/37 gal or 240L/64 gal) garbage collection that alternates with green 

cart organics (kitchen and yard waste) collection. In addition to the black cart, two clear transparent 

plastic bags or rigid containers can be set out for collection but must not weight over 75 lbs. The 

maximum weight for each black cart is 220 lbs. Blue bag recyclables are collected monthly on PEI. 

Carts are to be placed within six feet of the curb. During the winter months, they may be placed at a 

reasonable distance from the curb to accommodate for snow plows. 

Residential waste that is accepted in the black cart includes: 

Non-Recyclable Plastic 

• Styrofoam 

• stretch wrap from meats, dairy, and other foods 

• cereal, cracker, and cookie box liners 

• snack food packaging (chips, chocolate bars) 

• plastic dishes and cutlery 

• bubble packaging 

• Empty motor oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid 

containers 

Glass and Ceramics 

• all glass other than container glass 

• drinking glasses 

• light bulbs (not fluorescent) 

• window and mirror glass 

• all dishes including Pyrex 

Textiles, Leather and Vinyl 

• clothing 

• boots and shoes 

• pantyhose and stockings 

• purses 


Appendix H 


Other Waste 

• pet food bags (with plastic liners) 

• sanitary products 

• disposable diapers 

• chewing gum 

• toothpaste tubes 

• cotton swabs 

• vacuum bags and contents 

• cigarette butts, COLD 

• dryer sheets/lint 

• foil and cellophane gift wrap 

• bows, ribbon and string 

The three stream collection for garbage, organics and recyclables is placed on residential tax bills. Annual 

program costs are $205/household and seasonal services for cottages; $95/cottage (June 1 to Sept 30) 

and $120/extended cottage (mid-May to end of October). This fee also includes Christmas tree collection, 

spring and fall cleanup and household hazardous waste collection. Residents that move to PEI 

throughout the year receive prorated fees. 

Although carts are assigned to residential properties, they remain the property of IWMC. Carts are under 

warranty and if repairs or parts are required, residents are to contact IWMC. 


Low to medium reduction potential. 


Didsbury, AB (Pop: 4,957) – Biweekly garbage cart collection alternating with organics. 

Durham Region, ON (Pop: 617,975) – Biweekly garbage collection of bags/containers with weekly 

collection of recycling and kitchen waste. A four bag/container limit exists per household with a maximum 



East Hants, NS (Pop: 22,111) – Biweekly garbage bag collection with a five-bag limit. 

Georgina, ON (Pop: 43,517) – Each household is permitted to set out one garbage bag or container with 

a 22 kg (50 lb) maximum every other week. Additional items, up to four, require a garbage bag tag. 

Halifax Regional Municipality, NS (Pop: 390,096) – The Regional Municipality provides biweekly 

garbage pick-up in a bag or can that alternates with organics. Garbage collection is on the same day as 

recycling collection. A six bag/can limit exists with a maximum weight of 55 lb/bag and 75 lb/can. 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – Biweekly garbage collection in a bag or can takes place on the same day 

as organics and recycling collection. A three bag/can limit exists with a 40 lb maximum weight 

per bag/can. 

Oak Bay, BC (Pop: 18,015) – The municipality offers biweekly garbage tote collection. 

Oak Bay Public Works sell residents totes. 

Olds, AB (Pop: 8,235) – Biweekly black cart (360 L /96 gal) garbage collection alternating with organics. 

Oshawa, ON (Pop: 152,000) – Biweekly bag/can garbage collection the same day as recycling. A four 

bag/can limit exists with a 22 lb bag/can maximum weight. 

Owen Sound, ON (Pop: 21,688) – Biweekly garbage collection on the same day as recycling. Four 

bag/container limit with a 40 lb maximum. 


Appendix H 


Portland, OR (Pop: 583,776) – On October 31, 2011 Portland moved from weekly garbage collection to 

biweekly pick-up. Recycling and organic waste are collected weekly. 

Port Coquitlam, BC (Pop: 56,342) – The City moved to biweekly garbage collection started January 14, 

2010. Garbage collection alternates with recycling. 

Port Moody, BC (Pop: 32,975) – Biweekly cart waste collection alternating with recycling collection. 


container (100 L/22 gal, 23kg/50 lbs) collected per week or two standard size containers for customers 

with biweekly collection. Customers that need to put out extra garbage containers can do so by 

purchasing $2 garbage tags ($3 for customers served by the District of Lantzville) for each additional 

standard size container with a maximum of two per collection day. 

Regional Municipality of Halton, ON (Pop: 501,669) – Biweekly collection started April 7, 2008, with a 

six bag/can limit of 23 kg (50 lbs) each . 

Richmond Hill, ON (Pop: 185,541) – Biweekly bag/can garbage collection is available to residents. A 

four bag/can limit exists with a 18 kg maximum. Extra garbage tags are purchased for $2 each and only 

sold in quantities of five. 

Strathcona County, AB (Pop: 92,490) – Biweekly automated black cart (240 L/65 gal) waste collection 

alternates with organic green cart (240 L/60 gal) collection started June 16, 2008. 

Toronto, ON (Pop: 2,615,060) – Biweekly bag/can garbage collection that alternates with recycling and is 

on the same day as kitchen waste collection. A six bag/can limit exists. 

Vancouver, WA (Pop: 161,791) – Offers biweekly waste collection for 20, 32 and 64 gal carts. 

Contact 

Prince Edward Island Government 

Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry 

Jones Building, 4th Floor 

11 Kent Street, PO Box 2000 

Charlottetown, PEI C1A 7NB 

T: (902) 368-5024 

F: (902) 368-5830 

Island Waste Management Corporation 

110 Watts Avenue 

Charlottetown, PEI C1E 2C1 

T: (888) 280-8111 

T: (902) 894-0330 

F: (902) 894-0331 

info@iwmc.pe.ca 


Appendix H 


Automated Garbage Collection 

Kamloops, British Columbia 


Definition 

Automated garbage collection incorporates equipment that picks up specially-designed garbage carts 

from residential streets, and dumps them into the holding area of the truck without the driver ever having 

to leave the vehicle. 

Description 

In January 1, 2006, the City of Kamloops removed garbage collection service charges from residential 

property taxes and applied a fee on the Utility Bill. City Council wanted to give residents a variety of 

service options available, so in July 1, 2006, the City introduced a variable rate container system which 

enables residents to choose from one of four sizes of containers ranging from 120 L to 360 L. The 2012 

rates are based on the size of the container as listed below. 

Litre Size 

Bag Volume 

Annual 

Collection Fee¹ Lease Total 

120 L 1.5 Bags $71 + $7 $78 

180 L 2.3 Bags $95 + $8 $103 

245 L² 3.2 Bags $109 + $10 $119 

360 L 4.7 Bags $156 + $11 $167 

¹ Collection Service Charges apply to all residents, whether they lease or own. Lease 

rates do not apply to residents providing their own City compliant containers. 

² Default container size based on average household. 

With the introduction of city-wide curbside recycling collection in March 2008, residents were permitted 

once to downsize their subscription container free of charge until July 31, 2008. Effective August 1, 2008 

a $50 administration fee was applied to change the cart size. 

All residents are charged for garbage and recycling services on their utility bills and residents receive a 

10% discount for pre-deadline payments. 

Extra garbage stickers can be purchased for $2 per sticker and must be placed on extra garbage bags, 

which are placed on the ground beside the wheeled cart. 

The City owns and leases the carts, which provides them with control over the carts and eliminates issues 

about replacing old and damaged carts, which the City does free of charge. However, at the time of the 

program’s implementation, the City implemented a policy enabling residents to use their own wheeled 

container, if approved by the City. In order to receive approval, the resident must request an appointment 

whereby a member of the staff (two full-time collection crew – over several months) will go to the 

resident’s home to look at the containers and see if they meet the City’s specifications. If the cart meets 

spec, then the resident will be issued a special sticker which must appear on the cart in order to have it 

collected. Currently, the City has 3,000 (out of 24,000), or about 13%, approved residentially-owned carts. 

Those residents that have approval to use their own wheeled cart do not pay the rental fee on their 

utility bill. 


Low 


Appendix H 



Brandon, MB (Pop: 46,061) – An automated refuse collection system started October 14, 2008. Black 

carts (45 gal and 95 gal), each with a serial number for tracking purposes, are collected weekly. No extra 

garbage bags are collected. 

Burnaby, BC (Pop: 223,218) – The City of Burnaby provides weekly automated cart collection to 

residents for 120 L, 180 L, 240 L and 360 L carts. 

Lethbridge, AB (Pop: 83,517) – The City of Lethbridge offers residents weekly automated 250 L (65 gal, 

three bag, $11.85/month) or 360 L (95 gal, five bag, $13.60/month) cart collection. A $25 Cart Change 

Administration fee is charged to residents wishing to switch their cart size and the cost to replace the cart 

is $100. 

Medicine Hat, AB (Pop: 60,005) – Residential garbage is collected weekly in automated carts for $15.80 

per 360 L/96 gal unit. Carts are assigned to an address by a serial number that is hot-stamped on the 

cart. 

Olds, AB (Pop: 8,235) – Biweekly black cart (240 L/65 gal) collection by the Mountain View Regional 

Waste Management Commission alternates with organics. The base rate for garbage and compost 

collection is $18.87 monthly. Extra black carts are available for $18.87/month (max 2 extra carts per 

household). 

Port Moody, BC (Pop: 32,975) – The City provides residents with weekly automated cart collection for 

garbage. The standard cart size is 120 L and residents have the option to upgrade to a 240 L for a onetime 

$35 administration fee. 

Prince Edward Island (Pop: 140,204) – Biweekly automated black cart waste collection, with a maximum 

cart capacity of 100 kg/220 lbs, is available to residents through the Island Waste Management 

Corporation. 

Prince George, BC (Pop: 71,974) – In 2004, the City of Prince George implemented its automated 

variable cart collection system for 135 L, 250 L and 360 L carts. 

The City does not use tags for additional bags of garbage but, rather, encourages residents to use 

transfer stations. The City does not collect carts that are overflowing with garbage, such that the lid on the 

cart will not close. 

Saskatoon, SK (Pop: 202,408) – Automated cart (100 gal) collection takes place weekly from April to 

October, biweekly from November to mid-December, weekly from mid-December to the end of December 

and biweekly from January to March. No extra garbage bags are collected. 

Spruce Grove, AB (Pop: 26,171) – Residents receive weekly automated collection of black cart (240 L/ 

65 gal). Extra bag (15 kg/33 lb max) tags are $1 each. 

St. Albert, AB (Pop: 61,466) – Automated weekly collection for 120 L, 240 L and 360 L carts is available 

to residents from Waste Management. Extra waste tags can be purchased for $2.15. 

Strathcona County, AB (Pop: 92,490) – Black cart (240 L/65 gal) biweekly collection started in June 

2008 for Strathcona County residents. Automatic waste collection alternates with organics. Extra waste 

carts are available for an additional fee. 

Vancouver, BC (Pop: 603,502) – Automated cart collection started in 2005 with full implementation 

by 2007. Weekly collection of 120 L, 180 L, 240 L and 360 L carts is available for residents. Extra bag 

stickers are available for $2 each at City locations and at Safeway. 


Appendix H 


Other Communities: 

Port Coquitlam, BC (Pop: 56,342) – Automated waste collection for 240 L or 360 L carts. 

Regional District of Central Okanagan, BC (Pop: 179,839) – Automated waste collection program started 

Spring 2009. 

Vancouver, WA (Pop: 161,791) – Automated waste collection for 20 - 96 gal carts. 

Contact 

Glen Farrow 

Environmental Services Supervisor 

City of Kamloops 

955 Concordia Way 

Kamloops, BC V2C 6V3 

T: (250) 828-3802 

Gfarrow@kamloops.ca 


Appendix H 


Bulky Waste 

Brandon, Manitoba 


Definition 

Service offered to assist resident’s dispose of items that are too large for regular garbage collection (e.g., 

couches and mattresses). 

Description 

The Bulky Item Collection Program is a user-pay system that operates year round, one week per month. 

Items are limited to 25 kg and a maximum of one meter in dimension in any one way. Furniture and 

appliances are exempt to weight and size restrictions along with tree branches and/or wood that must be 

bundles that do not exceed 2 meters in length or 25 kg per bundle. One $5 tag is required per item or 

bundle. Bulky items tags are purchased at the Civic Services Complex or at City Hall – Treasury. 

A copy of this policy is located at http://brandon.ca/images/pdf/Sanitation/bulkyItemDisposal.pdf 


None 


Barrie, ON (Pop: 135,711) – The City of Barrie and Habitat for Humanity-Huronia ReStore have 

partnered to provide a bulky item collection program to residents for $25 per item. 

Brantford, ON (Pop: 93,650) – Residents can call to have their bulky materials collected at the curb twice 

a year for no charge, once between January to June and once between July and December. They must 

call the City at least seven days in advance for items to be collected on their regular collection day. 

Brockville, ON (Pop: 21,870) - Large item pick-up is available weekly on regular garbage collection day 

for $10 per item. 

Fort Saskatchewan, AB (Pop: 19,051) – Large household item pick-up by Waste Services Inc. for 

residents only, one week in the spring, April 23-27, 2012. 

Hamilton, ON (Pop: 519,949) – Three bulky waste collection periods take place annually, July 18 – 

September 10, 2011; December 5 – January 6, 2012 and January 23 – March 30, 2012. Residents must 

call the City at least one week before regular waste collection to arrange for bulky goods collection. Four 

items are permitted per collection with a maximum weight of 23 kg (50 lbs) each. 

Leduc, AB (Pop: 24,279) – Large item pick-up in the spring. 

Lethbridge, AB (Pop: 83,517) – Every Saturday, year-round, residents can dispose of up to 250 kgs of 

additional household and bulky waste items at the Waste and Recycling Centre for free. 

Markham, ON (Pop: 301,709) – Bulky items (chairs, sofas, mattresses, furniture) are collected on 

garbage day; an appointment is not required. Appliances and scrap metal items are collected by 

appointment only. Appliances are $10 per item while scrap collection is free. 

Montreal, QC (Pop: 1,649,519) – Bulky item collection takes place one Friday per month, in each sector 

of the Borough. A maximum of five bulky items are allowed per collection. Items can also be taken to the 

borough Ecocentre. 


Appendix H 


Orangeville, ON (Pop: 27,975) – Large items such as mattresses and furniture may be placed at the curb 

provided that they have a large item sticker on them that has been purchased for $15 form the Town or 

local retail outlets. 

Oxford County, ON (Pop: 102,756) – Oxford County provides free large article collection for residential 

and farm properties in September (no tags required). 

Items must be placed out by 7:00 am on the Monday of collection week and can weigh no more than 45 

kg (100 lbs). The County has problems with residents placing unwanted bulky waste at the curb weeks in 

advance of the scheduled collection, which becomes an eyesore in the neighbourhood. 

Peterborough, ON (Pop: 78,698) – Two large article events per year are scheduled, one in the Spring 

and one in the Fall. Tags must be purchased in advance from the Public Works Yard or City Hall. The first 

item is $15 and each additional item is $5. Building materials, automobile parts, televisions and monitors 

are not accepted at the curb. For safety reasons, all appliance doors must be removed and placed 

beside the appliance for collection. Freon items must have the Freon removed prior to collection. 

Port Moody, BC (Pop: 32,975) – The city hired a contractor to remove residential large items. This user 

pay program started September 1, 2011. 

Item 

Large Item Collection Program Fees 

Furniture (excluding items with glass mirrors or door) $75 

Appliances, including stoves, washing machines and dishwashers (excluding 

items containing CFCs) 

Toilets $35 

BBQ (propane tank must be removed) $35 

Push mowers (oil and gas must be removed) $35 

TV’s, desktop computers, computer terminals, computer monitors, desktop 

printers, fax machines, DVD and VCR players 

Mattress and boxsprings – must be dry and relatively clean $40 

Fee 

$50 

$35 up to three items 

For more information http://www.portmoody.ca/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=878 

Seattle, WA (Pop: 608,660) – Residents are required to call Customer Service to request a bulky item 

collection and to set up a collection schedule. The resident will be charged on their next utility bill for bulky 

item collections as follows: $25 per item, not containing CFCs and $31 per item for items containing 

CFCs (such as refrigerators). 

Spruce Grove, AB (Pop: 26,171) – Large item pick-up in June, day after waste collection day. 

Stony Plain, AB (Pop: 15,051) – Large item pick-up in May. 

Stratford, ON (Pop: 30,886) – The City of Stratford currently collects large bulky items on regular 

garbage collection days as long as they have a special large item tag attached. The tag can be 

purchased at the City Hall Engineering Department. Large item tags cost $10.00. The city also collects 

large appliances or white goods on a monthly collection basis. Residents pay $35 for an appliance that 

contains or may have contained freon and $22 for one that does not contain freon. 

Strathcona County, AB (Pop: 92,490) – Large item collection in April and October. 


Appendix H 


St. John, NB (Pop: 70,063) – If households receive residential waste collection from the City they are 

eligible for free bulky item collection. Residents call the City and are assigned a collection date. Two 

pickups per year are allowed per single or multi-unit (2-4 units) complexes. Up to three items are allowed 

per single unit and up to six for multi-units per pickup. 

If households receive residential waste collection from the City they are also eligible to drop-off white 

goods in May and October. Residents call the City to register and find out where the drop-off location. A 

maximum of five white goods are permitted per residential property each year. 

Wetaskiwin, AB (Pop: 12,525) – Large item collection in May and September/October. 

Contact 

Ian Broome 

Director of Public Works 

City of Brandon 

900 Richmond Avenue East 

Brandon, MB R7A 7M1 

T: (204) 729-2282 

l.broome@brandon.ca 


Appendix I: 

Regulations 

Differential Tipping Fees 

Vancouver, British Columbia 


Definition 

Differential tipping fees are applied to loads of waste containing designated recyclables and compostable 

materials – contaminated loads cost more to dispose. 

Description 

Garbage is inspected at the Vancouver Landfill and South Transfer Station for high percentages of 

prohibited and recyclable materials. Loads that arrive at the disposal sites containing more than 5 per 

cent (by volume) of recyclable items will incur a 50 percent surcharge. Recyclable items include all blue 

box items(newsprint; boxboard; cardboard; mixed paper; telephone books; #1, 2, 4, 5 plastic containers, 

cans, aluminum pie plates and foil) plus drywall of gypsum, yard waste and beverage containers. The 

2012 garbage tipping fee is $107/tonne. 

Loads that contain one or more materials recycled through other disposal or take-back recycling 

programs are charged an additional $50. Take-back programs include: 

• Lead-acid (car batteries) 

• Electronic waste 

• Paints, solvents and flammable liquids, gasoline, pesticides and other household hazardous waste 

• Vehicle tires 

• Oil, oil filters and empty containers 

• Beverage containers (all except milk cartons) 

• Medications/pharmaceuticals 


Low, medium to high diversion potential, depending on degree of enforcement, the materials targeted and 

how far away other disposal options are. 


Bow Valley Waste Management Commission, AB – The Commission, which includes Bighorn, Banff 

and Canmore, operates the Francis Cooke Regional Class III Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre. In 

order to increase diversion of recyclable materials, the Commission implemented a differential rate fee for 

C&D loads received at the main landfill face. Mixed waste loads that contain recyclable materials are 

charged $190 per tonne, whereas loads containing no recyclables are charged $100. The Resource 

Recovery Centre at the landfill receives loads of source segregated recyclable materials, such as wood 

and metals. Rates vary for these types of materials but are typically significantly lower than the landfill 

disposal rates (i.e., from $14/tonne for metals to $52/tonne for clean drywall/gypsum and asphalt 

shingles). Recycling rates for unsorted drywall/gypsum and asphalt shingles are considerably higher 

at $250/tonne. 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

This “incentivized” program is working well and the construction industry has embraced the savings at the 

landfill scale. The Commission is working towards 80% diversion; in 2011, 74% diversion was achieved. 

For more information visit http://www.bvwaste.ca/ 

Orillia, ON (30,586) – The waste diversion site accepts C&D related materials for no charge for scrap 

metal to $250/tonne for mixed loads (mixed building and demolition materials, 10 or more oil filters, and/or 

more than 10% recyclable or compostable items that could be separated; mixed building and demolition 

mterials). Other accepted items include: shingles/flat roofing materials – $110/tonne; and asphalt, 

cardboard, concrete, gypsum drywall and sorted wood (brush, tree wood, stumps, building and demolition 

wood) – $80/T. 

Regional District of Central Kootenay, BC (60,651) – C&D related tipping fees range from $5 for 

residential garden waste/tree trimmings per pickup truck to $200/tonne for mixed C&D waste. Other 

accepted items include rubble and scrap metal for $40/tonne while wood waste is $50/tonne. It is also 

noted that loads containing more than 20% recyclable material (e.g., cardboard, glass, milk jugs and 

plastics, mixed paper, newspaper, tin and aluminum, and yard and garden waste) will be charged twice 

the unit price. 

Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, BC (32,864) – The Regional District of Kootenay Boundary 

(RDKB) has invoked differential tipping fees for a variety of C&D related materials to provide customers 

an incentive to separate C&D materials. 

Additionally, in January 2006, the RDKB District implemented a “five times” penalty for mixed construction 

and demolition loads containing banned materials to encourage source separation and diversion of 

recyclable materials. Prior to January, the RDKB charged only two times the penalty. It found the double 

(two times) penalty did not work well enough as a disincentive to promote diversion. Businesses would 

rather pay the penalty than source separate. 

If mixed construction and demolition loads arrive with 10% or more material that is recyclable, the entire 

load is subject to a tipping fee five times the regular rate. 

McKelvey Creek Regional Landfill Tipping Fees, 

Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, BC 

Material 

Clean Wood Waste (unpainted wood, branches and woody 

plant waste) 

Rubble (gravel, brick, concrete, asphalt and rock or a 

mixture thereof) 

Construction/Demolition/Land Clearing Waste 

Mixed Construction Loads containing banned recyclable 

material 

Tar, gravel roofing, asphalt shingles 

Rate 

$50/tonne 

$50/tonne 

$150/tonne 

$750/tonne* 

$50/tonne 

Mixed Refuse $95 /T 

Yard or Garden Waste (grass clippings, leaves) 

$3/load 

*Loads containing 10% or more of banned recyclables materials (yard and garden waste, glass food 

containers, tin cans, #1 to #7 plastic containers, paper, cardboard, newspaper, magazines, phone books, 

office paper) are charged five times the regular tipping fee. 

Regional District of Nanaimo, B.C (146,567) – C&D waste is a $5 flat rate for 0-50 kg; $115/tonne for 

51 kg or greater; $340/tonne for loads containing gypsum, recyclable cardboard, paper, metal or tires or 

wood waste; and $230/tonne for gypsum at Church Road Transfer Station. Gypsum, wood waste, 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

recyclable cardboard, paper, metal, plastic containers, tires and organic waste from commercial sources 

are prohibited from landfill disposal. 

Simcoe County, ON (446,063) – In 2001, Simcoe County introduced differential tipping fees at its landfill 

sites to encourage source separation and diversion of targeted materials. The differential tipping fees use 

a three-tier approach to encourage source separation of divertable materials (e.g., brush, metal, wood, 

cardboard, tires, leaf and yard waste, drywall, shingles, and curbside recyclables including paper, glass, 

boxboard, steel and aluminum cans, newspaper, cardboard and magazines). The tipping fee for 

separated shingles, drywall and wood is $75/tonne and $135/tonne for waste loads. Loads containing 

divertable materials are called mixed waste loads and are penalized with a doubling of the regular tipping 

fee to $270/tonne. 

Contact 

Material Description 

Simcoe County Differential Tipping Fees 

Tonnage Rate 

$/tonne 

Volume Rate 

$/unit 

General waste (without divertable materials) $135/tonne $21/m 3 

Mixed waste loads (loads containing divertable materials) $270/tonne $50/m 3 

Asphalt shingles, drywall and wood waste $75/tonne $35/m 3 

Mattresses and boxsprings $135/tonne $21/m 3 

Brush, leaves, yard waste, scrap metal and textiles No charge No charge 

Blue box recyclables No charge No charge 

City of Vancouver 

Engineering Services 

507 W Broadway 

Vancouver, BC V5Z 1E6 

T: (604) 872-7000 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

Residential Mandatory Recycling / Organics Collection or Source Separation 

Seattle, Washington 


Definition 

Residents are required by bylaw to participate in recycling/composting programs. 

Description 

City of Seattle Ordinance #121372 prohibits the disposal, effective January 1, 2005, of significant 

amounts (more than 10% by volume of container) of certain recyclables from residential, commercial and 

self-haul garbage. Administrative Rule SPU-DR-01-04, “Prohibition of Recyclables in Garbage” details 

how the City ordinance is to be carried out. A copy of this Administrative Rule is located at the end of this 

section. 

Recyclable items to be diverted from garbage include: 

For Residents (single and multi-family) 

• Paper 

• Cardboard 

• Glass bottles and jars 

• Plastic bottles and jars 

• Aluminum and tin cans 

• Yard debris (prohibited from residential garbage since 1989) 

For Businesses 

• Paper 

• Cardboard 

• Yard debris 

A three step program took place for implementing the recycling requirements: 

1) Outreach and Education in 2004 – Seattle Public Utilities conducted an educational outreach program 

through direct mail to residents and businesses. A new, automated (206) RECYCLE phone number was 

established to answer basic questions about the recycling requirements for single-family residents, 

apartment dwellers, businesses and self-haul customers to the City’s Recycling and Disposal Stations. 

2) Educational Tagging in 2005 – Contractors and inspectors placed educational notice tags on garbage 

cans and dumpsters which contained significant amounts of recyclables. Transfer station customers 

received educational notices. 

3) Enforcement in 2006 – Effective January 1, 2006, the City of Seattle began enforcing the mandatory 

recycling ordinance ‘with consequences’. 

• Single-family Residents – The City’s contractors do not pick up garbage cans that have significant 

amounts of recyclables. A tag is left on the can instructing customers to separate out the 

recyclables and place the container out at the curb for collection the following week. A copy of the 

single-family enforcement tag is located at the end of this section. 

• Apartment Owners or Property Managers – City inspectors mail to the garbage account holder up 

to two warning notices before a $50 surcharge is added to the apartment building’s garbage bill. 

A copy of the apartment owners/business owners/property managers enforcement tag is found at 

the end of this section. 

• Business Owners or Property Managers – City inspectors mail to the garbage account holder up 

to two warning notices before a $50 fine is imposed. 

• Recycling and Disposal Station Customers – Self-haul customers are asked to separate out 

recyclable paper and cardboard as well as yard debris from their loads and not to dispose of such 

material in the garbage pit. 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

Recycling and yard waste collection programs exist to assist residents and businesses with meeting the 

requirements of this ordinance: 

• All single-family households have a free, curbside recycling service. 

• Apartments are also eligible for the City’s free recycling service. 

• Pickup of yard trimmings at the curb is available to all City residents who chose to subscribe and 

backyard composting has long been promoted as another alternative. 

• The City’s Recycling and Disposal Stations accept recyclables for free and yard trimmings for a 

fee less than garbage. 

• Interested business can sign up to receive the City’s free, biweekly curbside recycling service. 

• Businesses can contact the Resource Venture to obtain information on other private commercial 

recycling services where the pickup service is more frequent and revenue might be received for 

large quantities of recyclables as office paper. 

• Private commercial recycling pickup services are also available for yard trimmings. 



Two months after Seattle began enforcing the mandatory recycling ordinance, garbage haulers and city 

inspectors found few violations of the law that some feared would be difficult to enforce and follow. When 

enforcement first started out, more than 90 percent of apartment and businesses complied with the 

new ordinance. In January 2006, 71 apartment tags were handed out and 44 in February. Commercial 

business tags went from 10 in January to two in February, and 227 household garbage cans were left 

behind in January and 133 in February. Seattle collects 150,000 household garbage cans a week 

(Langston, 2006). 


Arlington County, VA (Pop: 207,627) – Through Ordinance 93-22, 11-13-93 property managers or 

owners of multi-family properties are required by County Code to: 

• Establish and maintain a recycling program for residents to recycle newspapers, glass bottles and 

jars, and metal food and beverage containers. The recycling collection system must be separate 

from garbage collection. Properties are encouraged to include additional recyclable materials 

such as plastic bottles and jugs, magazines, mixed paper and corrugated cardboard. 

• File a Multi-family Recycling Plan Form upon receiving a Certificate of Occupancy (within 30 

days). 

• Submit an updated Multi-family Recycling Plan Form by February 1st of every third year. Note: 

Next Filing of Updated Plans is by February 1, 2012. 

• Disseminate educational materials periodically to inform residents, employees and any business 

tenants about the program. 

A recycling toolkit is available to assist with the mandatory recycling at 

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/SW/page84173.aspx 

Single-family dwelling also abide by mandatory recycling of newspaper, glass bottles and jars and metal 

food and beverage cans. 

Brant County, ON (Pop: 34,415) – Yard waste and grass clippings are not accepted at the curb. 

The County encourages residents to recycle and compost yard waste. 

Cheltenham Township, PA (Pop: 36,793) – Mandatory recycling guidelines apply to all Cheltenham 

residents who have trash collection. Recyclables collected include: cans, cardboard, glass, paper and 

plastics. Households that participate in the Township’s recycling program are offered free 6-gallon and 

14-gallon recycling containers. 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

Edson, AB (Pop: 8,475) – Through the Waste Management Bylaw No. 1858 (Town of Edson, 1998) 

cardboard and similar crating materials, newsprints, paper products, lawn clippings, garden waste and 

other recyclable products accepted the Recycling Depot are excluded from waste collection. If these 

materials are found in the garbage they will be left behind with a green sticker that states that these 

materials should be taken to the Recycling Depot. Only wet waste materials (e.g., kitchen and bathroom 

waste) are accepted for curbside collection or at the landfill. A two bag/container limit is also in place, 

additional garbage will be collected when $2.00 tags are purchased. 

Griffin, GA (Pop: 23,643) – Griffin has had a mandatory residential curbside recycling program that 

collects glass, plastic, newspaper, paper and cardboard, magazines, telephone books, metal cans and 

aluminum cans since March 2007. This is the only mandatory curbside program in Georgia. 

Chapter 74 (Solid Waste), Sec 74-76 (Residential Recycling Program) of the Code of Griffin states 

“It shall be the responsibility of all residential solid waste customers of the city to dispose of recyclable 

materials in an approved recycling container. No item that that has been classified as recyclable material 

shall be disposed in a customer's solid waste container. All recyclable materials may be commingled 

(mixed) in the same recycling container. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the right of any 

individual, organization or other entity to donate any recyclable material for proper disposal, if such 

disposal does not violate any laws or this article” (City of Griffin, 2009a). 

Kamloops, BC (Pop: 85,678) – In March 2008, the City expanded its Residential Curbside Recycling 

Pilot Program to a mandatory city-wide curbside recycling program. The pilot program demonstrated that 

customers receiving curbside recycling services reduced the volume of garbage they place at the curb 

by 25% to 50%. Under the curbside recycling program, residents are provided with 245 L carts and are 

charged an annual fee of $125. The City received a grant from the provincial government to purchase 

recycling trucks and containers which kept the costs low (without the grant the recycling fee would 

have doubled). 


dwelling units. 

Peel Region, ON (Pop: 1,296,814) – Mandatory residential recycling. 

San Francisco, CA (Pop: 805,235) – On June 23, 2009 the City of San Francisco signed the first law 

in the United States that requires all residents and businesses separate their recycling and compost 

material from garbage. 

For a copy of the Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance visit 

http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/sf_mandatory_recycling_composting_ordinance.pdf 

South Berwick, ME (Pop: 7,220) – Mandatory residential recycling. 

South Kingstown, RI (Pop: 30,639) – The Town has a licensing program that requires all private haulers 

to be licensed by the Town and a condition of that license is that haulers are required to collect curbside 

residential recyclables. Haulers that do not meet this condition are not allowed to collect waste in the 

Town. 

Wallingford, CT (Pop: 44,736) – Residents are mandated to recycle glass, metal food and beverage 

containers, plastics (#1-2), newspaper, magazines, catalogs, junk mail, and corrugated cardboard 

through curbside collection or dropping off at the recycling center. They are also mandated to recycle 

lead-acid batteries, leaves/brush, scrap metals and major appliances, used motor oil and white 

office paper. 

Contact 

Seattle Public Utilities 

Seattle Municipal Tower 

700, 5 th Avenue, Suite 4900 

Seattle, WA 98124-4018 USA 

T: (206) 684-3000 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

ICI Mandatory Recycling / Organics Collection or Source Separation 

Sacramento County, California 


Definition 

Businesses must participate in recycling and organics programs/or must divert designated materials 

through a recycling program. 

Description 

California State law requires communities achieve 50% diversion. 

The Business Recycling Ordinance requires that businesses in the Region generating more than 4 cubic 

yards of garbage per week must participate in waste diversion and provide on-site source separated 

recycling of designated recyclables such as cardboard, office paper and beverage containers. 

Implementation of the plan began in January 2007. 

Reason for the Ordinance - For ten years, franchised commercial waste haulers have been required to 

recycle 30 percent of what they collect. The current commercial recycling rate is estimated to be only 15 

to 20 percent. Almost all homes now have a recycling program available, but only one in five businesses 

have a recycling program available. We need much more recycling from the business community. For 

these reasons, SWA has adopted a new Business Recycling Ordinance. 

The new Business Recycling Ordinance is being implemented in the following phases, with early 

emphasis on education. 

Phase 1: 

Phase 2: 

Phase 3: 

Inventory of commercial waste generators. 

Ongoing education and outreach about the ordinance and service options. 

Site inspections with education as the primary objective. 

The County’s environmental department will conduct site inspections to educate the business community 

about what is required to comply with the program and to provide information about the options available 

to establish recycling programs. Administration of this ordinance will be funded through the existing 

commercial hauler franchise fees. 

All food or Beverage Service Establishments (e.g., restaurants, delicatessens, bars, caterers, cafeterias, 

etc.) must recycle: 

• Aluminum and steel container 

• Empty steel & aerosol cans 

• All colors of empty glass food and beverage containers 

• All empty plastic food and beverage containers 

• #1 – #7, including water bottles 

• All cardboard and boxes 

Food service establishments must provide clearly labeled recycling containers where customers can 

place recyclable items listed above. 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

All other Businesses must recycle: 

• All clean and dry paper, whole or shredded, including: 

– Newspaper 

– Cardboard 

– Magazines 

– Catalogs 

– Phone books 

– Computer paper 

– Junk mail 

• All clean and empty plastic food and beverage containers 

• # 1 – 7, including water bottles. 

• Empty aluminum cans and scrap metal 

• Wood Pallets 

In any business where customers or clients regularly discard designated recyclables, you must provide 

a way for them to recycle. Businesses must post notices and place labeled recycling containers near 

garbage bins in customer areas, same as for your employees. 

Responsibilities: 

• Businesses are required to keep items such as cardboard, office paper and beverage containers 

separate from the garbage. 

• Businesses must post signs and place recycling containers in work areas. 

• Businesses need to have separate and labeled collection containers for recyclables. 

• Simple employee training about the recycling program must be provided. 

• Businesses must arrange for collection of their recyclables by using a Franchised Hauler, an 

Authorized Recycler or by hauling the recyclables themselves to a recycling facility. 

• Businesses must ensure that the material is being taken to a recycling facility for processing. 


High reduction potential depending on targeted materials. 


Arlington County, VA (Pop: 207,627) – Every business and non-residential property is required by 

County Code to: 

• Establish and maintain a recycling program to recycle the two materials it generates annually in 

the greatest quantities. The recycling collection system must be separate from trash/ refuse 

collection. 

• File a Business Recycling Plan Form upon receiving a Certificate of Occupancy (within 30 days). 

• Submit an updated Business Recycling Plan Form by February 1st of every third year. 

• Disseminate educational materials to inform employees and business tenants about the program. 

A recycling toolkit is available to assist with the mandatory recycling at 

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/SW/page84173.aspx 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

County of Santa Barbara, CA (Pop: 423,895) – Effective September 1, 2003 the County implemented a 

mandatory recycling program for businesses in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. Under 

this program, materials currently accepted in the single family residential recycling program (excluding 

green waste) were prohibited from being disposed in the garbage. 

Blowing Rock, NC (Pop: 1,425) – Businesses must participate in Town recycling program that collects 

cardboard and glass from small businesses. Large businesses must use a private collection service for 

cardboard and glass. 

Griffin, GA (Pop: 23,643) – Griffin invoked mandatory commercial recycling of old corrugated cardboard 

containers in March 2007. Chapter 74 (Solid Waste), Sec 74-77 (Commercial Recycling, Policies and 

Reporting Requirements) states that: 

“All commercial waste generators within the city shall be required to recycle old corrugated 

cardboard containers (OCC). OCC shall not be disposed of in the generator's solid waste 

container. OCC shall be separated and properly recycled. Commercial generators may 

provide their own bailers or containers to store and collect OCC. Arrangements for storage, 

collection and recycling of OCC shall be made with the city's solid waste department 

and must be approved by the director” 

(City of Griffin, 2009b). 

Minneapolis, MN (Pop: 382,578) - Effective September 1, 2011, Minneapolis businesses, workplaces 

and places of worship are required to recycle after a new ordinance took effect. Ordinance 174.435 

requires: 

• Regular recycling collection (at least twice a month) for all recyclables generated on-site including 

paper, cardboard, metal cans, plastic bottles, and glass bottles and jars 

• Recycling containers 

• Recycling collection and storage areas 

• Written recycling information and instructions sent to tenants and/or employees annually or 

posted 

• A written recycling plan 

Offenders who fail to follow the ordinance will receive a written warning notifying them that they have 10 

days to comply, with further violations leading to fines. 

A copy of the Ordinance is located at 

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11490&stateId=23&stateName=minnesota&ds=174.435+ 

business+recycling 

Ontario (Pop: 12,851,821) – Even though they have not been enforced, the 3Rs Regulations are still on 

the books in Ontario. 

Ontario Regulation 103/94 focuses on the requirement for the establishment of source separation 

programs for designated waste materials from the ICI sector, including construction and demolition and 

multi-unit residential buildings. 

A copy of Ontario Regulation 103/94 is located at www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940103_e.htm 

Owen Sound, ON (Pop: 21,688) – Following Ontario Regulation 103/94, Bylaw No. 2006-001 Regulates 

the Collection, Handling and Recycling of Waste and Recyclable Materials in Certain Premises on the 

City of Owen Sound (http://www.owensound.ca/documents/Mandatory_Recycling_By_Law.pdf). 

This is essentially a by-law for mandatory recycling in the commercial/industrial sector. 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

Rancho Cordova, CA (Pop: 64,776) – On October 20, 2008, the Business and Multi-Family Recycling 

Ordinance (No. 20-2008) was passed. This Ordinance requires owners and/or business operators and 

multi-family complex (with five or more units) that subscribe to four cubic yards per week or more of 

garbage collection service to implement an on-site recycling program for mixed paper, newspaper, 

magazines, junk mail, cardboard, plastic containers (#1–#7), glass containers and aluminum and tin cans. 

San Francisco, CA (Pop: 805,235) – On June 23, 2009 the City of San Francisco signed the first law 

in the United States that requires all businesses and residents separate their recycling and compost 

material from garbage. 

For a copy of the Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance visit 

http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/sf_mandatory_recycling_composting_ordinance.pdf 

St. John’s, NL (Pop: 106,172) – All ICI businesses with 25 or more employees must participate in a 

mandatory office paper recycling program that started September 2005. All remaining businesses need to 

comply with the regulation starting March 2006. The program applies to all IC&I enterprises in St. John’s 

and three other adjacent municipalities set up recycling programs and source separate office paper 

including white and colour paper, newspaper, business cards, envelopes, post it notes and file folders. 

Wallingford, CT (Pop: 44,859) – Businesses are mandated to recycle the following materials: 

• Glass food and beverage containers 

• Newspaper, junk mail, magazines and 

catalogs 

• White office paper 

• Scrap metal 

• Lead acid batteries 

• Leaves 

• Metal food and beverage containers 

• Corrugated cardboard 

• Plastics #1 and #2 

• Waste oil (used case oil) 

• NiCad Rechargeable Batteries 

Contact 

Sacramento County 

Environmental Management Department 

2 nd Floor, Suite 230/240 

Sacramento, CA 

95826-3913 

USA 

T: (916) 875-8484 

EMDinfo@Saccounty.net 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

Disposal Bans 

Nova Scotia 


Definition 

Certain materials prohibited from waste stream – may be enforced at curb or landfill. 

Description 

Nova Scotia has an extensive list of recyclable/divertable materials that are banned from landfill and 

incineration disposal province wide including: 

Designated Material 

Ban Implementation Date 

Beverage containers April 1, 1996 

Corrugated cardboard April 1, 1996 

Newsprint April 1, 1996 

Used tires April 1, 1996 

Lead-acid (automotive) batteries April 1, 1996 

Leaf and yard waste June 1, 1996 

Post-consumer paint products, formerly known as waste paint April 1, 1997 

Ethylene glycol (automotive antifreeze) April 1, 1997 

Compostable organic material (food waste, yard waste, soiled and nonrecyclable 

paper) 

June 1, 1997 

Steel/tin food containers April 1, 1998 

Glass food containers April 1, 1998 

Low-density polyethylene bags and packaging April 1, 1998 

High-density polyethylene bags and packaging April 1, 1998 

Televisions February 1, 2008 

Desktop, laptop and notebook computers, including CPU’s, keyboards, 

mice, cables and other components in the computer 

February 1, 2008 

Computer monitors February 1, 2008 

Computer printers, including printers that have scanning or fax capabilities 

or both 

February 1, 2008 

Computer scanners February 1, 2009 

Audio and video playback and recording systems February 1, 2009 

Telephones and fax machines February 1, 2009 

Cell phones and other wireless devices February 1, 2009 

Disposal bans stimulate stewardship programs (e.g., beverage containers, used tires, paint) and 

recycling/organic diversion programs (e.g., residential curbside recycling and organic collection) in Nova 

Scotia. 

Reduction Potential 



Appendix I 

Regulations 

are not allowed to “set out prohibited waste for collection by the City, either on its own or mixed with any 

waste with respect to which the City provides services.” 

Additionally, construction, renovation and demolition waste including but not limited to soil, plaster, 

drywall, masonry and tile, bricks, concrete, cinder blocks, paving stones, asphalt, wood, windows and 

window glass, shingles, scrap metal, insulation (such as fiberglass or Styrofoam), scrap wood or 

carpeting (unless cut, broken or securely tied into bundles or pieces less than 120 cm x 80 cm x 80 cm 

and free of all nails and staples), asbestos and urea formaldehyde are not allowed to be set out for City 

collection. The above materials are considered prohibitive waste. 

Contact 

Nova Scotia Environment 

PO Box 442 

5151 Terminal Road 

Halifax, NS B3J 2P8 

T: (902) 424-3600 

F: (902) 424-0503 


Appendix I 

Regulations 

References 

City of Griffin, 2009a. Code of Griffin. Chapter 74 (Solid Waste), Sec 74-76 (Residential Recycling Program). 

January 27, 2009. http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10181&sid=10 

City of Griffin, 2009b. Code of Griffin. Chapter 74 (Solid Waste), Sec 74-77 (Commercial Recycling, Policies and 

Reporting Requirements) January 27, 2009. 

http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10181&sid=10 

Langston, J., 2006. Mandatory Recycling Program Working Well. Seattlepi.co March 15, 2006. 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/262968_nsecondary15.html 

Town of Edson, 1998. Waste Management Bylaw No. 1858. 9 pgs. 

http://www.townofedson.ca/municipal/edson/edsonwebsite.nsf/AllDocSearch/7A13DC1544A4560787256F0E006B38FE/$File/BY%201858.pdf?OpenElem 

ent 


Appendix J: 

Comparison of Alberta Municipal Residential Diversion Programs 

Location 

Red Deer, AB 

Semi- 

Automated 

or 

Automated 

Waste Collection Recycling 1 Organics 

Manual 

PAYT/ 

Bag 

Limit 

Other Alberta Municipalities/Municipal Districts 

ü 

Large Item 

Collection 

Curbside 

ü 

Blue box 

Dropoff 

Yard Waste 

Curbside 


Drop-off 

Airdrie, AB ü ü ü ü 

ü 

Yard/ 

Food Waste 

Curbside 

Banff, AB ü ü ü ü 

Black 

Diamond, AB 

ü ü ü 

Brooks, AB ü ü ü 

Calgary, AB ü ü ü ü 

Cochrane, 

AB 

Didsbury, 

AB 

ü 

Biweekly 

ü ü ü ü 

ü 

ü 

Biweekly 

Yard/ 

Food 

Waste 


Residential Fees for Waste 

Collection and Diversion 

Programs 

– $11.70/month for waste and yard 

waste collection 

– $5.65/month recycling fee 

– $19.66 bimonthly for waste 

collection 

– $10.20 bimonthly environmental 

services fee 

– Extra bag tags are $2.00 each 

– Residential waste collection and 

diversion programs are funded 

through property taxes; anticipate 

utility based fees in 2011 


collection 

– $8.35 bimonthly recycling fee 

– $10.26/month for waste 

collection; seniors $7.07/month 

– $3.14/month for recycling and 

composting programs 

– $4.20/month for waste collection. 

– $8.40/month for recycling fee. 

– $10.58/month for garbage 

collection 

– $5.57/month for recycling and 

yard waste fee 

– Extra bag tags are $3 each 

– $19.83/month for waste and 

organics collection, and Recycling 

Centre 


Appendix J 


Location 

Edmonton, 

AB 

High River, 

AB 

Lethbridge, 

AB 

MD Foothills, 

AB 

Medicine Hat, 

AB 

Nanton, 

AB 

Okotoks, 

AB 

Olds, AB 

Semi- 

Automated 

or 

Automated 


Manual 

ü 

PAYT/ 

Bag 

Limit 

Large Item 

Collection 

ü 

Curbside 

ü 

Blue bag 


ü 


Curbside 



ü ü ü ü ü 

ü ü ü ü 

ü 

ü ü ü 

ü 

Biweekly 

ü ü ü ü ü 

ü 

ü 

ü 

Blue box, 

Optional 

ü 

Yard/ 


Curbside 

Yard/ 

Food 



No dedicated yard/food waste drop-off or curbside 

collection program; yard/food waste is collected with 

garbage and separated out at the Edmonton Waste 

Management Centre Composting Facility 

ü 

Optional 

ü ü ü 

ü 

ü 

Biweekly 



Programs 

– $29.95/month waste services fee 

(waste collection, recycling and 

other diversion programs 

– $9/month manual and 240 L cart 

automated waste collection 

– $12.50/month for 360 L cart 

automated collection 


– $11.60/month for 65 gallon cart 

and $13.35/month for 95 gallon 

cart; additional carts $8.50/month 


– $3.50/month landfill fee 

– Blackie and Cayley residents pay 

$18 bimonthly for garbage 

collection 

– $14.68/month for waste collection 

– $3.11/month for recycling 

programs 

– $15 bimonthly for waste collection 

– $1 bimonthly recycling fee 

– Extra bag tags are $2 


collection 

– $7.37 bimonthly for Recycling 

Centre fee 

– $18 bimonthly for optional 

recycling curbside collection 

– $3/kraft bag for optional yard 

waste curbside collection 

– $18.87/month for waste and 

organics collection. 

– $18.87/month for extra waste cart 

– $6/month for extra organics cart 


Appendix J 


Location 

Pincher 

Creek, AB 

Rocky View 

County, AB 

Spruce 

Grove, AB 

St. Albert, 

AB 

Stony Plain, 

AB 

Strathcona 

County, AB 

Turner Valley, 

AB 

Semi- 

Automated 

or 

Automated 


Manual 

PAYT/ 

Bag 

Limit 

Large Item 

Collection 

Curbside 



Curbside 



ü ü ü 

ü 

ü 

ü 

Biweekly 

ü ü ü 

ü 

ü 

ü 

ü 

ü 

ü 

ü 

Blue bag 

ü 

Blue bag 

ü 

Blue bag 

ü 

Blue bag 

Yard/ 


Curbside 

Yard/ 

Food 



ü ü ü 

ü ü ü 

ü ü ü 

ü ü ü 

ü ü ü 

ü 

Biweekly 



Programs 


collection 

– $7.16 bimonthly for recycling fee 

– $10/month for Langdon waste 

collection 

– Waste diversion programs paid 

though property taxes 

– $52 bimonthly for waste, blue 

bag, Organicart 

– $4 waste collection charge 

– - 1 bag every 2 weeks - $2.20 

– - 1 bag/week - $4.40 

– - 2 bags/I can/1 small toter/week 

$8.80 

– Extra bag tags are $2.15 

– $5.50/month recycling and 

composting fee 

– $22.53/month for waste, recycling 

and organics collection 

– $21.95/month for waste, recycling 

and organics collection. 

– Extra waste and organics carts 

are $7/cart/hhld/month. 


collection 

– $7.50 bimonthly for recycling 

1 

Typical residential recyclables (e.g., paper, cardboard, newspaper, tin cans, glass jars, milk cartons, plastic) 

PAYT – Pay-as-you-throw 


Appendix K: 

Selected Alberta Municipalities 

Current Waste Disposal and Collection, Recycling and Organics Programs 

City/County 

Province/ 

Population 

Landfill/Transfer 

Station MSW and 

Materials of Interest 

Rates 

Alberta Municipalities Over 50,000 Population 

Calgary, AB 

Pop: 1,096,833 

Calgary Shepard, Spyhill 

and East Calgary 

Landfills 

• Basic sanitary waste - 

$98/t 

• Industrial waste - $140/t 

• Surcharge for industrial 

waste that has low 

weight, large volume - 

$250/t 

• Construction and 

demolition waste 

(asphalt shingles, 

wood, drywall) - $65/t 

• Designated materials 

(concrete, brick and 

masonry block, asphalt. 

scrap metal and 

cardboard that is empty 

and free of other 

garbage) - $140/t 

• Clean fill - $0-$5/t 

• Fridges and freezers - 

$15/item 

Waste Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly automated 

black cart (240L) 

collection 

Commercial 

• Collection of bins from 

2 to 40 yds, Monday 

through Saturday by 

City staff 

• Collection frequency 

determined by business 

Recycling Programs 

(residential unless stated otherwise) 

Drop-off/Curbside 

Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly automated blue cart (240 L) 

comingled collection on the same 

day as garbage collection 

• Materials accepted include paper 

and cardboard, plastic jugs, bottles 

and food containers, metal food 

cans and foil, and glass bottles and 

jars 

• 52 drop-off depots accept the 

above recyclables 

• In 2010, 58,073 t was diverted by 

the blue cart program while 10,813 

t was diverted by the drop-off depot 

program 

Commercial 

• Weekly mixed paper/cardboard 

collection is currently under review; 

business must have existing 

garbage collection with the City of 

Calgary to take part in this 

program; in 2010 this program 

diverted 888 t of cardboard and 

mixed paper 

Other 

• Televisions, laptops, desk 

computers, printers and 

computer monitors can be dropoff 

at electronic recycling depots 

(Best Buy, Future Shop, 

Staples, Recycle-Logic, eCycle 

Solutions) 

• Year round household chemical 

drop-off at five City fire stations 

and the Shepard, Spyhill and 

East Calgary landfills 

• Tires accepted at all landfills 

free of charge 

Composting/Mulching Programs 


Yard Waste/Food Waste 

• 34 seasonal (Oct-mid- 

Nov typically) drop-off 

locations for leaves 

and pumpkins; in 2011, 

2,255 t of leaves and 

pumpkins were 

diverted 

• East Calgary landfill 

accepts leaves from 

residents year round 

• City composts 

materials to enrich 

green space soils 

• Food and yard waste 

(green cart) diversion 

pilot starts March 

2012; with Council 

approval a city-wide 

program could be 

implemented between 

2012-2017 

Grasscycling, Backyard 

Composting and Christmas 

Tree Chipping 

• Grasscycling promoted on 

website 

• Christmas tree curbside 

collection takes in January; 

six drop-off locations are 

available to residents from 

late December to mid- 

January; mulch is used in 

Calgary green spaces and is 

free to residents; the 2011- 

2012 program collected 

37,500 trees 

• Annual subsidized one day 

backyard composter 

truckload sale in June; can 

also purchase composter at 

CITYonline and from Green 

Calgary throughout the year 

Collection and Diversion Program 

Fees / Overall Diversion 

• Residents pay $4.35 for garbage 

collection and $8.75 for recycling 

collection per month on a utility bill 

Contact 

Lindsay Lofthouse 

Waste Diversion 

Specialist 

City of Calgary 

T: (403) 268-8468 

Lindsay.Lofthouse 

@calgary.ca 


Appendix K: 

Selected Alberta Municipalities Current Waste Disposal and Collection, Recycling and Organics Programs 


Province/ 

Population 

Edmonton, AB 

Pop: 812,201 




Rates 

• Clover Bar Landfill 

closed the summer of 

2009 

• In August 2009 the 

Integrated Processing 

and Transfer Facility 

started accepting waste 

at the Edmonton Waste 

Management Centre 

• Currently residential 

waste is being hauled 

to the Westend Landfill 

or Ryley Landfill for 

disposal 

Edmonton Waste 


Disposal Rates 

• Household-hauled 

refuse - $58/t 

• Commercial-hauled 

refuse - $75/t 

• Refuse hauled by 

charitable organization - 

$25/t 

• Bagged grass and 

leaves (segregated) - 

$35/t 

• Special handling - 

$100/t 

• Tires (not managed 

under provincial 

program) - $100/t 

• Clean soil (residential 

only, 1 t maximum) – 

25/t 

• Brush and trees 

(chipped or nonchipped 

with no/minimal 

root soil) - $0/t 

• Mixed loads of 

construction and 

demolition - $60/t 

• Dimensional lumber 

(unpainted and 

untreated, pallets, 

plywood etc) and 

segregated drywall and 

asphalt shingles - $40/t 


Residential 

• Manual collection in 

bags, approved cans or 

bundles; 20kg/44 lbs 

maximum 

• Weekly collection from 

March to October and 

every 10-12 days from 

November to February 

• City promotes ‘buddy 

up’ approach where by 

one big garbage pile 

exists rather than two 

piles 

• City offers assisted 

waste collection for 

customers who cannot 

get garbage to the curb 

or lane 

• Big Bin Events allow 

residents to dispose of 

household items too 

large for regular 

collection at no cost; 12 

weekend long events 

each year from Spring 

to Fall at various 

locations throughout the 

city 

• Eco Stations accept 

bulky items for a fee 

($8-$12), also take CFC 

appliances ($12 each) 

Commercial 

• Business collection 

offered; all waste goes 

in one bin and is 

processed at the 

Integrated Processing 

and Transfer Facility 

which results in 45% of 

commercial waste 

being diverted from 

landfill 

Multi-family 

• The city administers 

collection of apartment 

and condominium 

waste by City crews 

and private contractors 




Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly comingled blue bag (singlefamily 

homes, duplexes, fourplexes 

and some townhouses) and blue 

bin (apartments, condos and town 

houses) programs collect 

newsprint, mixed paper, milk jugs, 

plastic bottles, magazines, 

boxboard, cardboard, glass jars 

and bottles, and metal cans on the 

same day as garbage collection; in 

2010, 44,096 t was diverted by blue 

bag and blue bin programs 

• City promotes ‘buddy up’ approach 

where by one big pile exists rather 

than two piles 

• City offers assisted curbside 

collection for customers who 

cannot get recycling to the curb or 

lane 

• 22 community drop-off recycling 

depots (including 3 Eco Stations) 

for all city residents that accepts 

the same materials as the blue bag 

and bin programs; in 2010, 7,492 t 

was diverted 

Commercial 

• Comingled paper, cardboard, 

plastic, metal and glass container 

recycling available to businesses; 

materials are separated and 

processed at the City’s Material 

Recovery Facility 

Other 

• Televisions, computers and 

other electronic items containing 

hazardous materials like lead, 

mercury and cadmium are 

accepted at the Edmonton 

Waste Management Centre and 

Eco Stations 

• GEEP e-waste recycling facility 

processes materials at the 

Edmonton Waste Management 

Centre; in 2010, 4,400 t of 

electronic and electrical waste 

was delivered by residents to 

Eco Stations and the Edmonton 

Waste Management Centre was 

processed. 

• Election sign recycling at Eco 

Stations 

• HHW (e.g., paint, oven cleaner, 

car batteries) accepted at Eco 

Stations 

• Mixed construction and 

demolition recycling site at the 

Edmonton Waste Management 

Centre and Eco Stations (max. 

1t); accepts mixed C&D waste - 

$60/t, and segregated wood, 

drywall and asphalt shingles for 

$40/t while concrete, metal and 

brush/trees are free; in 2010, 

close to 53,000 t of separated 

C&D material was recycled 

• Reuse Centre accepts various 

items (e.g., arts and crafts, and 

office and school supplies) from 

Edmonton residents free of 

charge and makes them 

available to organizations and 

individuals for reuse 

• Reuse Fairs are one day 

community events where the 

public brings unwanted 

household items to be donated 

to organizations 




• No dedicated yard waste 

drop-off or curbside collection 

program 

• Yard waste is collected with 

garbage and separated out at 

the Edmonton Waste 


Composting Facility (owned 

by the City of Edmonton and 

operated by Earth Tech. Inc.) 

• City of Edmonton Second 

Nature® Horticulture 

Compost is available to be 

purchased through out 

Edmonton; $6 for 30 L bag 



Tree Chipping 

• Grasscycling, 

vermicomposting and 

backyard composting 

promoted on website 

• Master Composter Recycler 

Program training course offer 

once a year 

• Curbside collection of 

Christmas trees, not 

necessarily on the same day 

as garbage collection, starts 

early January for two weeks; 

also offer drop-off at to 

community drop-off locations 

or Eco Stations; trees are 

chipped and used for 

landscaping at the Edmonton 

Waste Management Centre 

and as compost feedstock; in 

2012, approximately 13,546 

trees weighing 167 t were 

recycled 



• Single family household waste 

services fee is $33.20/month while 

multi-family units are charged 

$21.58/month on the utility bill; this fee 

supports waste collection, blue bag 

and bin collection, Eco Stations, 

assisted collection, recycling depots, 

Reuse Centre, Big Bin Events, and 

Edmonton Waste Management Centre 

Operations 

Contact 

Connie Boyce 

Director of 

Community 

Relations 

City of Edmonton 

T: (780) 496-5407 

Waste Hotline: 

T: (780) 496-5678 

wasteman@edmon 

ton.ca 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Grande Prairie, 

AB 

Pop: 55,032 




Rates 

Grande Prairie Class II 

Landfill (owned and 

operated by Aquatera) 

• MSW - $89/t (landfill) 

or $120/t (transfer 

station) 

• Source separated 

material (clean 

dimensional lumber, 

drywall, clean concrete 

without rebar) - $89/t 

• Special handling (large 

concrete or wooden 

objects, loads 

containing grass 

clippings, yard leaves 

or cardboard and other 

materials deemed too 

difficult to handle - 

$178/t 


Residential 


black cart (240 L) 

collection 

• No large item collection; 

take to landfill 

Commercial 

• Businesses use private 

hauler for collection 




Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly blue bag collection of 

newsprint/heavy paper, mixed 

paper, boxboard/cardboard and 

containers; large cardboard to be 

folded and placed beneath blue 

bag 

• Source-separated recyclables 

accepted at Eco Centre and nine 

neighbourhood recycling depots 

Multifamily 

• Beginning April 1, 2012 condo and 

apartment recycling program; 

phased in by July 1 st ; same 

comingled program as residential 

• Residents collect in blue bags – 

deposit in 95-gallon totes 

Commercial 

• Allowed to use the Eco Centre and 

neighbourhood recycling depots 

• Drop-off cardboard diversion 

program in blue bins around city 

• Businesses can also use private 

service 

Other 

• Eco Centre accepts e-waste, 

fluorescent light bulbs, HHW, 

paint, Styrofoam and used oil 

filters and blue bag recyclables 

• Sorted dry wall accepted at 

landfill 




Residential 

• Seasonal (April – November) 

weekly clear bag yard waste 

collection; accepts leaves, 

grass, plants, weeds, 

pumpkins and flowers; 20 kg 

max per bag; tree prunings 

accepted in bundles with 1 m 

length max and 0.5 m 

height/width max 

Commercial 

• Can drop-off yard waste at 

landfill for composting 



Tree Chipping 

• Curbside collection of 

Christmas trees in January; 

max two per house; can also 

take to Aquatera Landfill for 

no charge 



• Residents pay $17.23/month for 

collection and disposal of solid waste 

and $4.39/month for curbside 

recyclables collection and for solid 

waste reduction services 

• ICI customers are charged a 

$12.88/month cardboard recycling fee 

on their utility bill; businesses renting a 

cardboard recycling bin or otherwise 

providing cardboard recycling can 

apply for an exemption 

Contact 

Amy Horne 

Recycling Manager 

Aquatera Utilities 

Inc. 

T: (780) 830-7062 

ahorne@aquatera. 

ca 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Lethbridge, AB 

Pop: 83,517 

Medicine Hat, 

AB 

Pop: 60,005 




Rates 

Waste and Recycling 

Centre 

§ MSW - $55/t 

§ Asphalt pavement - 

$27.25/t 

§ Concrete & rebar - 

$27.25/t 

§ C&D - $55/t 

§ Recyclables (metal, 

non-Freon white goods, 

propane tanks, 

batteries, tires, green 

wood and clean white 

wood) - $27.25/t 

• Special waste - $68.50 

• Freon appliances 

$35/unit 

Medicine Hat 

Regional Landfill 

• MSW - $32.65/t 

• C&D – $32.65/t 

• Metal - $32.65/t 

• Yard waste 

(debagged/paper 

yard waste bags) - 

$0/t 

• Yard waste (bagged 

contaminated) - 

$32.65/t 

• Freon appliances 

(with sticker) - 

$32.65/t 


Residential 

• Weekly Town 

automated collection of 

240L/64 gal (three 

bag) and 360L/95 gal 

(five bag) carts 

• Residents can 

schedule large item 

service twice a year; 

250 kg maximum 

comprised of up to 10 

standard garbage bags 

or five large items 

weight 

• Every Saturday yearround 

residents can 

dispose of 250 kgs off 

additional household 

and bulky waste at the 

Waste and Recycling 

Centre for free 

Commercial 

• Wide range of bin sizes 

(large waste collection 

carts to 6 yd 3 ) and 

service frequency from 

twice a month to five 

times a week 

Residential 


garbage cart 360 L (95 

gal) collection, bagged 

garbage requested in 

carts 

Commercial 

• City bin collection 

service offered for 1.5 

yd 3 or 3 yd 3 bins with a 

collection frequency of 

once per week to five 

days per week from ICI 

customers and 

residential multidwelling 

and apartment 

facilities 




Collection 

Residential 

• Seven unmanned drop-off depots 

collect cardboard, clear glass, 

metal cans, mixed paper, plastic 

containers and plastic bags; 

approximately 3,000 t of residential 

recyclables are collected at the 

depots 

Commercial 

• Businesses use private service 

• Four unmanned drop-off depots 

collect clear glass, metal/tin, 

newsprint, paper products and 

plastic containers 

Other 

• E-waste, tires, household 

hazardous waste, paint, car 

batteries, propane bottles, 

metal, lawn equipment, used oil 

and cooking oil, recyclables 

accepted at the drop-off depots 

(cardboard, paper, glass, metal, 

plastics) and wood (free of paint 

and stain) are accepted at the 

Waste and Recycling Centre 

• Medicine Hat Municipal Landfill 

accepts e-waste, tires (less than 

four), used oil, batteries 

(rechargeable), paint, 

appliances and household 

hazardous waste 

• Local home improvement stores 

such as Home Depot, Totem, 

Rona as well as Walmart and 

London Drugs retail locations 

accept compact fluorescent light 

bulbs as part of their recycling 

programs 




• Leaf paper bag collection in 

Oct and Nov, 25 kg max/bag; 

in 2009, 125 t was diverted 

• One seasonal (April- 

November) yard waste dropoff 

location; collect leaves, 

grass, garden waste and 

branches (up to 8” in 

diameter); in 2009, 750 t was 

diverted 

• Yard waste is composted by 

the City and used by Parks/ 

Pathways/Trails Department 

• Spring Chipping Program 

(Apr) when residents place 

branches (up to 10” in 

diameter) by garbage and 

dedicated chipping trucks will 

collect and chip branches; 

free chips from this program 

are available to residents for 

gardening 

• Grass, leaves, sod, branches 

and tree trimmings are 

accepted at the Waste and 

Recycling Centre 

• Seasonal (Apr-Nov) 

automated carts (360 L) 

collection of grass clippings, 

leaves, prunings, plant 

trimmings, cut flowers, 

weeds and branch bundles 

(3 ft in length or less); 

collected same day as waste 

• Sell CCME Category “A” 

SureGrow compost produced 

at the City of Medicine Hat 

Composting Facility (landfill); 

$5/20 kg bag 



Tree Chipping 

• Grasscycling education on 

website 

• Curbside Christmas tree 

recycling program takes 

place one Saturday in 

January; residents place tree 

by garbage for collection; 

trees are chipped into mulch 

that is available to the public 

at no charge 

• Earth Machine backyard 

composter sold throughout 

the year 

• Grasscycling and backyard 

composting education 

brochures on website 

• Christmas tree recycling 

program usually runs from 

late-Dec to the end of Jan at 

three drop-off locations; trees 

are chipped and used in 

SureGrow compost 



• Residential garbage fees are 

$11.85/month for 65 gallon (three bag) 

cart and $13.60/month for 95 gallon 

(five bag) cart; additional carts are 

$8.75/month 

• Residents are charged a $3.60/month 

recycling fee to offset program costs, 

a $3.50/month landfill fee and a 

$2.20/month waste program fee 

• Residents garbage fees are 

$15.80/month for one cart 

• Commercial centralized pick-up is 

$13.26/unit 

• Commercial automated pick-up is 

$47.86/month for 1 ½ yd 3 bin with one 

pick-up /week and $95.73/month for a 

3 yd 3 bin with one pick-up/week; 

minimum monthly charge is $23.95 

• Waste diversion fee is $3.50/month for 

all residential and commercial 

accounts to offset program costs 

Contact 

Dave Schaaf 

Waste and 


City of Lethbridge 

T: (403) 320-3088 

dschaff@lethbridge 

.ca 

Heather Gowland 

Waste and 

Recycling 

Coordinator 

City of Lethbridge 

T: (403) 329-7367 

Ed Jollymore 

Solid Waste 

Utilities Manager 

City of Medicine 

Hat 

T: (403) 529-8172 

edwjol@medicineh 

at.ca 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Red Deer, AB 

Pop: 90,564 




Rates 

Red Deer Waste 

Management Facility 

• Solid waste including 

yard waste - $62/t 

• Demolition, concrete, 

asphalt and tree rubble 

- $62/t 

• Special waste - $82/t 

• Asbestos - $82/t 


Residential 

• Weekly contracted 

manual collection; max 

25kg/bag or can; five 

unit garbage limit; must 

purchase $1 tags for 

extra bags/cans 

Commercial 

• Businesses with waste 

bins 6 yds or less must 

be collected by the 

City’s waste collection 

provider (stated in 

bylaw that creates 

franchises) 




Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly curbside blue box collection 

of boxboard, cardboard, glass, 

magazines, metal, milk cartons, 

mixed paper, #2 plastic and 

newsprint on the same day as 

garbage collection 

• Multi-family residents can 

participate in city-wide effort by 

placing recyclables, with the 

exception of glass, in specially 

marked bins at each complex 

Commercial 

• Two office paper recycling depots 

small businesses; no charge; 10 

box maximum 

Other 

• Electronics drop-off at Waste 

Management Facility (landfill) 

• Free year round residential 

drop-off for HHW (including 

compact fluorescent light bulbs) 

at Waste Management Facility 




• Seasonal (April-October) 

contracted yard waste 

collection of grass clippings, 

leaves and branches (4 ft in 

length or less) in metal or 

plastic garbage cans (must 

have City yard waste label), 

paper yard waste bags or 

bundles; no plastic bags; 

collected on garbage day; 

max 25 kg/container 

• Yard waste drop-off at Waste 

Management Facility year 

round - $7 charge 



Tree Chipping 

• Red Deer Firefighters 

Children’s Charity provides 

Christmas tree pick-up for 

one week in January, 

donations for this service are 

appreciated 



• A garbage and yard waste collection 

fee of $11.70/month is charged on 

utility bill 

• Blue box fee of $5.65/hhld/month is 

charged to residents on utility bill 

• Multifamily dwellings are charged 

$4.00/unit/month 

• Revenue from blue box materials 

sales is split 75/25 (city/collection 

contractor) and added to the blue box 

operating revenue 

Contact 

Mary Curtis 



Technical 

Specialist 

City of Red Deer 

T: (403) 309-8553 

mary.curtis@redde 

er.ca 

• Two drop off depots for individuals 

and small businesses that accept 

glass, metal, newspaper, 

magazines, mixed paper, 

cardboard, boxboard, milk cartons 

and #2 plastic 

Regional 

Municipality of 

Wood Buffalo, 

AB 

Pop: 65,565 

-Fort McMurray 

(pop: 61,374) 

is part of the 

Regional 


Wood Buffalo 

Municipal Lanndfill 

• MSW - $54/t 

• Non segregated 

construction and 

demolition - $85/t 

• Clean and segregated 

brush/trees, 

asphalt/concrete, 

metals, 

unpainted/untreated 

lumber - $0/t 

• Special handling - 

$162/t 

Residential 

• Weekly black cart (240 

L) collection 

• Heavy item (furniture, 

appliances) pick-up in 

early spring and fall 

• Big bin events allow 

residents to drop-off 

large household items 

during events (e.g., 

Santa Parade, Festival 

of Trees) throughout 

the year 

Commercial 



Residential 

• Weekly two blue cart (240 L) 

collection being phased in finishing 

by the end of 2012; light blue cart 

accepts paper and cardboard and 

the dark blue cart accepts plastic, 

metal and non-glass drink 

containers; light and dark blue carts 

are collected biweekly on 

alternating weeks with garbage 

• Seven drop-off recycling depots 

accept cardboard, mixed paper, 

newspaper, metal, glass and plastic 

milk jugs 

Commercial 


• HHW and electronics Roundups 

in May/June and October 

• HHW and electronics are 

accepted at the landfill for 

recycling 

• Seasonal (May – October) 

weekly collection of lawn 

clippings and garden waste in 

100% compostable and 

biodegradable bags on the 

same day as garbage; 35 lb 

max per bag; four bag max 

per week; extra bag tags are 

$1 each; composted at landfill 

site and used on Municipality 

parks and flower beds 

• Backyard and 

vermicomposting website 

education 

• Drop-off Christmas trees at 

designated locations in 

January 

• $10.06/hhld/month for urban single 

family and multifamily waste collection 

and $1.50/hhld/month recycling fee 

• $6.33/hhld/month for rural waste 

collection and $1.50/hhld/month 

recycling fee 

• Recycling rates are from the old 

system; will be changes once the 

entire area has blue cart recycling 

• Just over 900 t was recycled in 2009 

at the recycling depots 

Ryan MacDonald 

Recycling 

Supervisor 

Regional 


Wood Buffalo 

T: (780) 788-1456 

ext 1453 

Joe D’Souza 

Curbside Collection 

Supervisor 

Regional 


Wood Buffalo 

T: (780) 788-1456 

ext 5882 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

St. Albert, AB 

Pop: 61,466 




Rates 

• West Edmonton 

Landfill: Public - $86/t at 

gate 

• Residential garbage 

hauled to Roserdige 



Residential 

• Biweekly automated 

brown cart collection 

(60, 120 or 240 litres 

available) 

Commercial 






Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly blue bag collection on 

same day as garbage; cardboard, 

newspaper, boxboard, mixed 

paper, and containers (deposit 

items, metal, clear glass and 

plastic) accepted 

• Unmanned drop-off recycling depot 

accepts corrugated cardboard, 

paper, phone books, metal cans, 

glass jars, electronics, used 

oil/filters/oil containers, paint/paint 

cans/aerosols, scrap metal (in 

small amounts) and most types of 

household cleaners and chemicals 

Commercial 


Other 

• Electronics roundup 

• HHW drop-off at Edmonton Eco 

Stations 

• Take it or Leave it event takes 

place in June 

• Shred-it Day, typically the first 

week of May; drop-off sensitive 

documents to have them 

confidentially destroyed and 

recycled 




Residential 

• Biweekly green cart (120 L, 

240 L) collection (mid- 

October to Mid-April) and 

weekly Mid-April to mid- 

October); accepts food waste 

(bread and baked goods, 

dairy products, fruit, 

vegetables, meat products 

and bones, pasta, rice) 

household items (coffee 

grounds and filters, facial 

tissue, tea bags, soiled 

paper, floor sweepings), yard 

waste (grass clippings, 

leaves, garden waste, small 

branches) 

• Drop-off yard waste at 

compost depot 

• City bags compost and has 

Spring and Fall compost give 

away to residents 

• Yard waste materials are 

processed by Roseridge 

Waste Management Services 

Commission 

Commercial 


service 



Tree Chipping 

• Christmas tree collection in 

January on same day as 

garbage collection 



• Subscription options per month (2012 

approved rates): 

-Flat fee - $6.67 

-60 L waste cart - $1.10 

-120 L waste cart - $4.40 

-240 L waste cart - $9.00 

• Extra refuse stickers can be 

purchased for $2.15 

• $5.50/hhld/month recycling program 

fee and a $5.77/hhld/month curbside 

organics fee on utility bill 

• 37% overall diversion in 2008, 41% 

overall diversion in 2009 and 46% 

overall diversion in 2010 

Contact 

Christian Benson 


Programs 

Coordinator 

City of St. Albert 

T: (780) 418-6699 

Meghan Myers 

Environmental 

Coordinator 

City of St. Albert 

T: (780) 459-1735 

mmyers@stalbert.net 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Strathcona 

County, AB 

Pop: 92,490 

-Sherwood 

Park (pop: 

65,475) is part 

of Strathcona 

County 




Rates 

• Residential waste is 

hauled to a local 

transfer station and 

then transported to 

Roseridge Regional 

Landfill for disposal 

Other Alberta Municipalities 

Airdrie, AB 

Pop: 42,564 

Transfer Site 

• Level ½ ton truck - $20; 

overload charged extra; 

residential use only 

• Waste sent to City of 

Calgary landfills 

• Arrangement with 

Alberta Waste and 

Recycling that sorted 

commercial C&D 

materials can be taken 

to resource recovery 

depot at transfer 

station; asphalt and 

concrete are $9/t; kiln 

dried wood, shrub and 

brush, drywall/gypsum 

and asphalt shingles 

are $65/t 


Residential 


collection alternating 

with organics; black cart 

(240 L / 65 gal) is 

collected by service 

provider Ever Green 

Ecological Services; 

extra waste carts are 

available for an 

additional fee 

• Weekly multifamily 

black cart and 

communal collection 

• Weekly rural waste 

collection offered 

• Extra waste is accepted 

at the Enviroservice 

event; $3/small item 

(lawn chair, kitchen 

sink, extra garbage 

bag) and $6/large item 

(couch, mattress) 

• Large item collection in 

May and September; 

items must be less than 

6’ x 3’ and weigh less 

than 600 lbs; two items 

limit per household 

Commercial 


service 

Residential 

• Weekly manual 

contracted collection; 

34 kg/75 lbs max per 

bag/container; 2 bag 

limit; five extra waste 

tags ($3 each) max per 

hhld/week 

Commercial 

• Apartments and 

condominiums use 

private hauler 






Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly blue bag (glass, metal, 

plastic containers and 

Styrofoam) and reusable 

bag/container (paper, 

corrugated cardboard, 

boxboard) collection by 

Evergreen Ecological Services 

on same day as waste and 

organics. 

• Multifamily blue bag/reusable 

container collection where 

applicable 

• Five drop-off recycling stations: 

Streambank Avenue, Baseline 

Road, Ardrossan, Josephburg 

and South Cooking Lake; 

accepts same materials as the 

curbside program 

Commercial 

• Businesses use private service. 

Residential 

• One manned drop-off Recycling 

Depot collects cardboard, paper, 

newspaper, #1-7 plastic, glass, 

metal, cardboard milk cartons, 

phone books 

• One unmanned drop-off depot 

accepts cardboard, boxboard, 

cans, mixed paper, newspaper, 

cardboard milk cartons and #1-7 

plastic 

• Apartment and condominium 

buildings are allowed to use the 

Recycling Depot 

Commercial 


Other 

• Enviroservice event for 

household hazardous waste, 

electronics and small appliances 

takes place at the Streambank 

Avenue Recycling Centre one 

day (Thursday or Saturday) 

every second week from May to 

October 

• HHW can be dropped off at 

Edmonton Eco Stations 

• Electronics and batteries can be 

taken to Staples in Sherwood 

Park, Edmonton EcoStations or 

the Electronics Recycling 

Association 

• Dairy and dairy-based beverage 

containers are accepted at bottle 

depots for a cash refund along 

with other beverage containers 

• Fluorescent light bulbs, cell 

phones, electronics, batteries, 

propane tanks, aerosol cans and 

used oil and filters are accepted 

at Recycling Depot 

• Book exchange at recycling 

depot 

• Used clothes accepted at 

recycling depot for reuse 

• Seasonal (May-Sep)Toxic 

Round-up and Paint Exchange 

at Recycling Depot 




Residential 


collection; green cart (240 L/65 

gal for houses, 130 L/35 gal 

for rural and condos) is 

collected by service provider 

Ever Green Ecological 

Services; organics accepted 

include yard and food waste, 

soiled paper and cardboard, 

floor sweepings, wine corks, 

candy, cat litter, toothpicks etc. 

• Extra organics cart available 

for additional monthly fee 

• Multifamily green cart 

collection where applicable 

• Extra yard waste collection in 

clear bags takes place in May, 

June and October on garbage 

collection day 

• Streambank Avenue drop-off 

accepts grass, leaves, brush 

and tree branches 

• Fall Category A compost 

sale; $8 for one 40L bag, $15 

for two bags, $20 for three 

bags, each additional bag 

above three is $5 up to 10 bag 

limit 

Commercial 


service 

• Seasonal (May-Oct) grass 

and leaf drop-off at recycling 

depot 



Tree Chipping 

• Grasscycling and backyard 

composting website 

education 

• Christmas trees curbside 

collection first two weeks in 

January; tree to be cut into 4 

ft pieces 

• Backyard and 

vermicomposting website 

education 

• Sell backyard composters to 

residents year round at 

Recycling Depot 

• Christmas tree drop-off 

program from late December 

to middle of January; Fortis 

Alberta donates equipment 

and staff to mulch trees; 

Parks Department use mulch 

for landscaping 



• $22.95/hhld/month for waste, recycling 

and organics collection in Sherwood 

park, on utility bill 


and organics (130 L cart) collection in 

rural area; on utility bill 


and organics (240 L cart) collection in 

rural area; on utility bill 

• Extra waste and organics carts are an 

additional $7/cart/hhld/month plus a 

$50 delivery and administration fee 

• In 2011, 17,754 t of material was 

diverted equating to a 59% diversion 

rate 

-3,960 t paper products 

-2,975 t container recyclables 

-10,635 t organic material 

-184 t of Enviroservice hazardous 

waste 

• Residents pay a $20.34 garbage 

service fee and a $12.79 

environmental services fee bimonthly 

on utility bill 

Contact 

Sarah Feldman 



Coordinator and 

Community Energy 

Services 

Strathcona County 

T: (780) 416-6797 

fledman@strathcon 

a.ab.ca 

Susan Grimm 

Environmental 

Services Team 

Leader 

City of Airdrie 

T: (403) 948-8800 

ext. 6296 

Theresa.wilcox@ai 

rdrie.ca 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Banff, AB 

Pop: 7,584 




Rates 

• Residential and 

commercial waste is 

hauled to Calgary 

landfills 


Residential 

• Communal 4yd 3 wildlifeproof 

bins , are located 

throughout the Town; 

semi-automated 

collection takes place 

by Town staff daily to 

twice a week depending 

on bin location; garbage 

is not allowed to be 

placed beside or on top 

of bins, $100 - $250 

fine 

• Large item collection on 

Fridays; call to register 

by Monday for Friday 

pick-up; can also dropoff 

large items at the 

Town of Banff 

Operations Compound 

Commercial 

• Town staff collect 

garbage from 

businesses daily in 

wildlife-proof bins (660 

L, 1100 L or 1500L); 

one bin per building 




Collection 

Residential 

• 39 neighborhood mini-depots 

throughout Banff; blue bins accept 

for loose mixed paper (including 

cardboard), mixed containers and 

glass 

• Two Recycling Depots accept 

sorted milk jugs, metal cans, 

cardboard, paper and plastic 

Commercial 

• Businesses can drop-off 

recyclables at Recycling Depot 

• Town staff collects cardboard daily 

from businesses in 660 L, 1100 L 

or 1500 L bins 

Other 

• Annual HHW and electronics 

round-up in April 

• Car batteries, electronics, tires, 

yard waste, paint, light bulbs or 

fluorescent tubes, small camp 

stove propane cylinders, scrap 

metal and tree limbs are 

accepted at the Town of Banff 

Operations Compound for a fee 

• Sorted construction and 

demolition materials accepted at 

the Francis Cooke Regional 

Landfill 




Residential 

• Four food waste organics 

drop-off bins located 

throughout Banff; accept 

vegetables, fruits, grains, 

coffee grounds, cheese, 

eggshells, and paper soiled 

with food in biodegradable, 

compostable paper bags and 

loose material from reusable 

containers 

• Free compostable bags are 

available to residents for 

leaves and grass 

• It is preferred that residents 

take yard waste to Recycling 

Depot but Town staff will 

periodically collect yard waste 

from next to the wildlife-proof 

garbage bins during the 

growing season 

Commercial 

• Town staff collect food waste 

businesses in 360 L, 660 L or 

1500 L bins 



Tree Chipping 

• Backyard composting of food 

waste is not permitted in 

Banff National Park as 

compost attracts wildlife 

• Christmas tree drop-off 

program at two Recycling 

Depots in January 



• $65.10/hhld/year ($5.43/hhld/month) 

for waste and recycling services; 

charged on utility bill 

• For commercial waste, cardboard and 

food waste rates visit 

http://www.banff.ca/Assets/PDFs/Local 

s+PDF/Services+PDF/Waste+$!26+Re 

cycling/waste-utility-fees.pdf 

• In 2010 the Town diverted 1,122 t of 

cardboard, 261 t of mixed paper, 398 t 

of metal, 65 t of mixed plastic and 88 t 

glass 

Contact 

Chad Townsend 

Environmental 

Coordinator 

Town of Banff 

T: (403) 762-1110 

Chad.townsend@b 

anff.ca 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Brooks, AB 

Pop: 13,676 

Cochrane, AB 

Pop: 17,580 




Rates 

Newell Regional Landfill 

• Household waste – no 

charge 

• C&D up to 1,500 kg no 

charge; over 1,500 kg - 

$25/t 

• Outside Newell County 

- $30/t 

• Waste sent to Calgary 

landfills 

• Appliances accepted at 

Eco Centre: 

- Fridges, freezers, air 

conditioners - $40 

- Stoves, washers, 

dryers - $30 

- Microwaves, BBQ, hot 

waster tanks - $15 


Residential 

• Weekly collection by 

municipal staff of large 

garbage bins (3 yd) 

placed in back lanes 

that are shared with 

neighboring residents 

(every 4 houses) or 

where no back lanes, 

residents have front 

curb rollout bins 

• In 2012 a black cart 

pilot will take place for 

1,222 households (918 

households are already 

using these carts for 

front lane garbage 

collection); remaining 

2,060 households are 

anticipated to receive 

black carts in 2013 – 

2015 

Commercial 

• Businesses offered 

municipal collection; 

businesses can rent or 

purchase bins 

Residential 

• Weekly black cart (120 

L with 55 kg max, 240 L 

with 110 kg max) 

collection; extra bag 

tags $3 each 

• Spring and Fall 

Cleanup in May and 

September 

• Appliances accepted at 

Eco Centre for a fee 

• Excess garbage 

collected; $2/bag, or 

$20 for a pick-up truck 

load (no scale), no 

large items or C&D 

waste accepted 

Commercial 






Collection 

Residential 

• One drop-off depot operated by the 

Newell Recycling Association 

collects newspaper, white paper, 

mixed paper, plastics, tin cans, 

aluminum, cardboard, boxboard, 

plastic bags and bottles 

• Newell Recycling Association 

coordinates a voluntary blue box 

recycling program, $15 for blue bin 

and $10/month for service 

Commercial 

• Businesses encouraged to use 

drop-off 

• Cardboard recycling bins available 

to businesses 

Residential 

• One manned drop-off Eco Centre 

accepts cardboard, mixed paper, 

newspaper, metal, plastics 

(including expanded polystyrene – 

Styrofoam), glass and milk 

containers (if non-refundable) 

• Agreements with Ghost Lake and 

Waiparous summer villages to 

drop-off recycling in Cochrane 

Commercial 

• Businesses allowed to use drop-off 

depot, some use Cochrane private 

recyclers, pay eco fee 

Other 

• Newell Recycling Association 

depot accepts used oil and 

filters, electronics, paint and 

offers confidential shredding 

• HHW programs in place, 

accepts marked containers and 

materials 

• Unmarked containers 

• Eco Centre accepts bikes, eye 

glasses, ink jet cartridges, 

batteries, automotive antifreeze, 

used oil and filters, cell phones, 

electronics, paint and HHW 

• Book exchange and clothing 

donation at Eco Centre 




Residential 

• Year round yard waste dropoff 

program at Newell 

Recycling Association, runs 

April to November 

• Materials are taken to 

industrial area compost yard. 

Compost used by Parks 

Department for landscaping, 

compost is available for 

residents 

• Seasonal yard waste 

collection program (Apr-Oct), 

yard waste placed in 10 (3 

yd) containers located 

throughout town; no 

branches 

• Newell Recycling Depot 

accepts yard waste from April 

to October 

Commercial 

• Businesses allowed to dropoff 

at Newell Recycling 

Association 

Residential 

• Seasonal (April-November) 

grass, tree trimmings and 

leaf drop-off at Eco Centre 

• Yard waste from both 

locations is transported to 

local landscaper for 

composting 

Commercial 

• Businesses not allowed to 

use depot or lagoon site, but 

some do 



Tree Chipping 

• Christmas tree recycling 

program runs in January 

• Trees are dropped-off at 

Newell Recycling 

Association, Parks 

Department chip trees on site 

and use chips for landscaping 

• Backyard composter rebates 

offered in the spring 

• Christmas tree drop-off at 

Eco Centre 

• Town partners with, Spray 

Lake Mills and landscaper; 

residents drop-off trees at 

Midford Park in January; 

trees are chipped on site and 

transported to landscaping 

business 



• $10.26/month for residential garbage 

collection on utility bill; seniors rate is 

$7.07/month 

• $11.91/month for residential dwellings 

from which a home occupation is 

operated; seniors rate is $8.72/month 

• $3.27/month (residents and 

businesses) for recycling on utility bill 

for recycling and composting 

programs 

• Minimum monthly waste collection 

rate is $13.55 for businesses within 

City limits; it goes up based on 

number of units and collection 

frequency; for more information on 

waste and recycling rates visit 

http://www.brooks.ca/attachments/087 

_2009%20Waste%20Management%2 

0Rates.pdf 

• Residents pay $17.40/hhld/month for 

waste and recycling collection and 

$4.75/hhld/month for EcoCentre fee 

on utility bill 

Contact 

Doug Shanks 

Manager 

Newell Recycling 

Association 

T: (403) 362-2132 

Sharon Howland 


Manager 

Town of Cochrane 

T: (403) 851-2294 

Sharon.howland@ 

cochrane.ca 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

High River, AB 

Pop: 12,920 

Okotoks, AB 

Pop: 24,511 




Rates 

Foothills Regional 

Landfill 

• MSW - $63/t 

• Asphalt, cardboard, 

concrete, drywall, 

shingles, scrap metal, 

yard waste and mixed 

C&D - $63 

• Hard to handle - 

$94.50/t 

• Town of High River 

pays a reduced rate at 

the gate for residential 

waste 

Foothills Regional 

Landfill 

• MSW - $63/t 

• Asphalt, cardboard, 

concrete, drywall, 

shingles, scrap metal, 

yard waste and mixed 

C&D - $63 

• Hard to handle - 

$94.50/t 

• Town of Okotoks pays 

a reduced rate at the 

gate for residential 

waste 


Residential 

• Weekly black cart 

(240/360 L) collection 

by municipal staff 

Commercial 

• Town offers garbage 

collection to businesses 

with one to five pick-ups 

a week 

• Businesses can use 

private hauler for 

collection 

Residential 

• Weekly Town 

automated cart 

collection (120 L); extra 

garbage tag $4; 

• In the Spring of 2012 

the Cart It! Program will 

launch; black cart (120 

L) automated garbage 

collection 

Commercial 






Collection 

Residential 

• One manned drop-off depot 

accepts cardboard, newsprint, 

mixed paper, tin cans, mixed 

plastics 

Commercial 

• Advocacy in Motion (non-profit) 

offers businesses cardboard 

collection; delivers cardboard to 

recycling depot o be baled 

• Businesses allowed to use the 

recycling depot 

Residential 

• One manned Recycling Centre 

collects newspaper, office paper, 

mixed paper, cardboard, plastics 

(#1-7), clear and coloured glass 

and metal 

• Southside Collection Site; 

unmanned drop-off location by 

Wal-mart accepts plastic milk jugs, 

mixed paper, newsprint and 

cardboard 

• Optional Curb It! Town recycling 

collection; newspaper, office paper, 

mixed paper, cardboard/boxboard 

go into blue bin (68 L); clear and 

coloured glass, tin and metal, 

plastics (#1-7) and refundable 

beverage containers go into red bin 

(68 L); each bin has a ‘bin bonnet’ 

that protects it from wind and rain; 

collected same day as waste 

• In 2010, 2,176 t was collected from 

the Curb It Program, the Southside 

Collection Site and the Recycling 

Centre 

Commercial 

• Businesses allowed to use depot 

Other 

• Recycling depot accepts 

electronics and cell phones 

• HHW and paint accepted at Fire 

Hall 

• Year round HHW drop-off at Fire 

Station, does not accept paint 

• Empty oil containers, 

rechargeable batteries and 

paint/aerosol paint accepted at 

Recycling Centre 

• Appliances, electronics, propane 

tanks, scrap metal, tires, and 

used oil and filters are accepted 

at the Foothills Regional Waste 

Management Facility 

• Book exchange at Recycling 

Centre 




Residential 

• Yard waste and branch dropoff 

at recycling depot 

• Bokashi Organic Composting 

pilot project with 35 

households; still in progress 

as of March 2012 

Commercial 

• Businesses are not allowed 

to use the yard waste and 

branch drop-off 

• Seasonal (Mar-Nov) grass 

and leaf waste drop-off next 

to Recycling Centre; no 

branches; hauled to landfill 

for composting; Town can 

purchase compost at lower 

rate 

• Optional Cut n’ Call grass 

and leaf program; purchase 

official Town Cut n’ Call kraft 

paper bag for $3; fill the bag 

and call or register on line for 

Monday or Thursday curbside 

collection 

• In 2010, 875 t was collected 

from the Cut n’ Call Program 

and the Recycling Centre’s 

yard waste drop-off site 

Commercial 

• Businesses can use depot 



Tree Chipping 

• Christmas trees collected at 

yard waste drop-off in 

January 

• Town sells backyard 

composters at the Bob 

Snodgrass Recreation Centre 

• Backyard composters sold at 

Recycling Centre ($50) 

• Christmas trees are collected 

mid-late January in dedicated 

Town vehicles; can also be 

dropped-off at the Recycling 

Centre; trees are chipped by 

the Parks Department and 

used as landscaping mulch 



• Residents pay $9/month for 240 L 

garbage cart, $12.50/month for 360 L 

garbage cart, and $14/month for an 

additional 360 L cart 


recycling 

• For commercial garbage and recycling 

rates visit 

http://www.highriver.ca/uploads/Eng__ 

Enviro__Operations/pdfs/Rate_Sched 

ule_-_Effective_March_14_- 

_Operations.pdf 

• Residents pay $18.17/hhld bimonthly 

(up to 2 units) on utility bill for garbage 

collection 

• Residents and businesses pay 

$7.37/hhld bimonthly on utility bill for 

recycling facility fee (Recycling 

Centre) 

• Optional Curb It! Recycling program is 

$18/hhld bimonthly billed on utility bill; 

minimum contract period of three 

months 

Contact 

Peter McDowell 

Roads Supervisor 

– Interim Waste 

and Recycling 

Supervisor 

Town of High River 

T: (403) 652-4657 

Darryl McDonald 

Resource 

Recovery 

Coordinator 

Town of Okotoks 

T: (403) 938-2452 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Olds, AB 

Pop: 8,235 

Spruce Grove, 

AB 

Pop: 26,171 




Rates 

Mountain View 

Regional Waste 


Commission 

(MVRWMC) Landfill 

• Wet MSW 

(residential) - $120/t 

• C&D waste is 

diverted to the 

Resource Recovery 

Center - $65/ton 

• Yard waste, 

branches, clean 

wood - $65/t 

• Asphalt/concrete - 

$20/t 

• Does not accepts 

waste from outside 

of region 

Olds Transfer Station 

• Mixed Solid Waste - 

$200/t 

• Residential waste can 

be dropped-off at the 

Eco Centre or taken 

directly to the West 

Edmonton Landfill 


Residential 


black cart (240L/65gal) 

fixed day collection by 

the MVRWMC 

alternates with organics 

• Large items dropped off 

at EcoSite 

Commercial 

• MVRWMC offers 

business waste 

collection 

Residential 


collection of black cart 

(240 L/ 65 gal) by 

Evergreen Ecological 

Services 

• Large item pick-up in 

May or June 

• Appliances ($15), 

propane tanks ($3) and 

garbage ($1 - $60) 

accepted at Eco Centre 

Commercial 






Collection 

Residential 

• Three unmanned drop-off depots 

for plastic milk jugs, waxed 

milk/juice cartons, clear glass, 

cardboard and boxboard, metal 

food cans, mixed paper and 

newspaper, and clean mixed 

plastics 

Commercial 

• Businesses are encouraged to use 

drop-off depots 

• MVRWMC offers 3yd bin for 

cardboard/mixed paper 

Residential 

• Biweekly Blue Bag collection on the 

same day as waste by Evergreen 

Ecological Services; accepts mixed 

paper, clean mixed containers, 

boxboard and cardboard 

• Eco Centre accepts Blue Bag 

recyclables; no charge 

Commercial 

• Businesses use private collection 

service 

Other 

• Electronics, oil and filters, and 

batteries accepted at Olds 

EcoSite 

• MVRWMC offers agricultural 

plastics recycling 

• Electronics, HHW and tires 

accepted at the Eco Centre 

• Contractor and residents can 

bring concrete and asphalt to 

the Public Works yard at no 

charge 

• Shred-4-Free Day and Free- 

Cycle Event in June 




Residential 

• Biweekly green cart (240 

L/65 gal) fixed day 

collection; alternates with 

garbage collection by 

MVRWMC from April to 

October and monthly 

November to March; 

accepts food and yard 

waste 

• Drop-off at EcoSite site 

for grass, leaves and plant 

waste 

• Yard waste is composted 

at Olds College; Compost 

Sale every May 

Commercial 

• MVRWMC offers 3 yd bin 

for yard waste, $25/month 

including pick-up 

Residential 

• Weekly Organicart (240 L/ 60 

gal) collection from April to 

November; same day as 

waste by Evergreen 

Ecological Services; 

accepts food, paper and yard 

waste 

• Additional organics can be 

placed in compostable paper 

bags (e.g., Bag to Earth, Bio 

Bag, Bio Sak) for collection 

• Organic waste can be 

dropped off at the Eco Centre 

• Organic materials are 

processed into compost by 

Cleanit Greenit 

• Compost is stockpiled at the 

Public Works Yard, used for 

dressing baseball fields and 

currently discussing with the 

Parks Department the use of 

compost for landscaping 

Commercial 

• Businesses can drop-off yard 

waste at the Eco Centre 



Tree Chipping 

• Christmas trees drop-off at 

EcoSite, chipped, free for 

public and used for daily 

cover at the landfill 

• Christmas tree pickup in mid- 

January; collected by Cleanit 

Greenit and composted. 




garbage and compost collection; 

additional garbage carts are 

$18.87/month and extra compost carts 

are $6/month 

• Residents pay $52 bimonthly for 

garbage, Blue Bag and Organicart 

collection 

• In 2009, the single family residential 

waste diverted from landfill through 

compost and recycling was 39.7% 

Contact 

Scott Chant 

Public Works and 

Utilities Manager 

Town of Olds 

T: (403) 507-4834 

Mountain View 

Regional Waste 


Commission 

T: (403) 556-8120 

Eddie Jensen 

Utilities Supervisor 

City of Spruce 

Grove 

T: (780) 962-7594 

David Hales 

General Manager 

Planning and 


City of Spruce 

Grove 

T: (780) 962-7622 

dhales@sprucegro 

ve.org 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Stony Plain, 

AB 

Pop: 15,051 




Rates 

• Residents can haul 

waste directly to the 

West Edmonton Landfill 

($86/t) or the Ryley 

Landfill ($60/t) 


Residential 


cart collection by 

EverGreen Ecological 

Services 

• Large item pick-up 

follows the Annual 

Treasure Hunt in May 

Commercial 






Collection 

Residential 

• Biweekly Blue Bag collection by 

Ever Green Ecological Services 

year round on same day as waste; 

Blue Bag accepts mixed paper, tin 

cans, glass jars and boxboard; 

newspaper, magazines, phone 

books and catalogues are collected 

in a separate Blue Bag or 

bundled/tied; cardboard to be 

flattened and placed under Blue 

Bag; in 2011, 1,019 t was diverted 

• Drop-off available at manned 

Rotary Recycling Centre for 

cardboard, newspaper and Blue 

Bag materials 

Commercial 

• Businesses allowed to use the 

Recycle Centre to drop-off 

recyclables 

Other 

• HHW round-up and e-waste 

collection takes place 

September/October 

• Electronics, and paint accepted 

at Rotary Recycling Centre 

• Oil, scrap metal, and HHW 

accepted at the Regional Waste 

Transfer Station 




Residential 

• Weekly Organicart collection 

from mid-April to mid-October 

and bi-weekly from mid- 

October to mid-April on same 

day as waste from by Ever 

Green Ecological Services; 

accepts food, paper and yard 

waste 

• Additional yard waste placed 

in brown paper bags or rigid 

containers, 50 lbs maximum 

for collection 

• Organics accepted at the 

Recycle Centre 

• In 2011, the organics 

program diverted 1,651 t 

• Organic material taken to 

Cleanit Greenit Composting 

Facility or Hairy Hill 

Anaerobic Digester for 

processing 

• Cleanit Greenit returns 

compost that is mixed with 

soil (50/50) and used for 

Town landscaping 

Commercial 

• Businesses are allowed to 

use the Recycle Centre to 

drop-off organics 



Tree Chipping 

• Christmas tree collection in 

January; Fortis sponsors the 

hiring of DB Trees to chip the 

trees; Chips are used for 

Town landscaping 



• $22.10/hhld/month charge on utility bill 

for waste, recycling and organics 

collection 

• $13.57/apartment/month charge on 

utility bill for waste, recycling and 

organics collection 

• $8.86/senior apartment/month charge 

on utility bill for waste, recycling and 

organics collection 

Contact 

Tony Lew 

Operations 

Manager 

Town of Stony 

Plain 

T: (780) 963-2469 

Jason Doucette 


Coordinator 

Parkland County 

T: (780) 968-8448 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 




Rates 

Other Canadian Municipalities 

Nanaimo, BC 

Pop: 83,810 

Orillia, ON 

Pop: 30,586 

Nanaimo Regional 

Landfill 

• MSW - $115/t 

• Municipal loads 

containing gypsum, 

recyclable cardboard, 

paper, metal or tires - 

$230/t 

• C&D waste - $115/t 

• C&D load containing 

gypsum, recyclable 

cardboard, paper, 

metal, tires or wood 

waste - $340/t 

• City of Nanaimo pays 

$110/t for municipal 

waste 

Waste Diversion Site 

• MSW - $120/t 

• Asphalt, concrete 

gypsum drywall, sorted 

wood - $80/t 

• Mixed loads (with 10 or 

more oil filters; more 

than 10% recyclable, 

compostable and/or 

items that could be 

separated; mixed 

building and demolition 

material) - $240/t 


Residential 

• Biweekly garbage 

container (77 L, 50 lbs 

max) or bag (28”x36” or 

31”x33”, 50 lbs max) 

municipal collection; 

one container/bag limit; 

extra garbage tags $2 

each; two additional 

tags per biweekly 

collection 

• No large item collection 

• Add-a-day system for 

waste, recycling and 

green bin service – the 

scheduled collection 

day advances by one 

day following each 

scheduled statutory 

holiday 

Multifamily/Commercial 



Residential 

• Weekly contracted (Mid 

Ontario disposal) 

garbage container (133 

L, 20 kg/44 lbs max) or 

bag (38”x32”, 20 kg/44 

lbs max) collection; all 

garbage requires a tag; 

each year residents 

receive 30 garbage 

tags; five extra garbage 

tags $8.25 ($1.65 each) 

• No bulky item pick-up 


• Weekly garbage 

collection; size and 

weight restrictions 

same as residents; all 

garbage requires a tag; 

each commercial unit 

receives 30 garbage 

tags a year; five extra 

garbage tags $8.25 

($1.65 each) 




Collection 

Residential 

• Biweekly blue (newspaper) and 

yellow (metal and plastic 

containers, household paper) 

reusable bag collection and 

bundled cardboard contracted 

collection (BFI/Progressive Waste 

Solutions); service contracted out 

• Nanaimo Recycling Exchange 

(non-profit society) drop-off depot; 

accepts paper, plastic (including 

Styrofoam), glass, beverage 

containers and metal 

Multifamily 

• Multifamily use private service 

Commercial 

• Offer small businesses curbside 

recycling if can stay within 

residential limits (e.g., one 

bag/biweekly collection, no 

excessive volumes of cardboard) 

• Businesses can also use private 

services 

Residential 

• Weekly recycling box (83 L/22 

gallon max, 20 kg/44 lbs max) 

collection same day as garbage; 

accepts paper, Styrofoam and 

plastic bags in one blue box and 

containers (glass, plastic, metal) in 

another blue box, cardboard is to 

be flattened and bundled/tied (four 

bundles max per week, garbage 

tag required for excess bundles) 

• Waste Diversion Site accepts 

recycling box materials 


• Recycling is mandatory for 

apartments with six or more units; 

City offers cardboard collection (up 

to eight bundles per week); other 

businesses and institutions are 

limited to four bundles per week 

• Smaller apartments and 

businesses can use the regular 

recycling box program; for larger 

apartments and businesses the 

City provides 360 L blue carts 

Other 

• Nanaimo Recycling Exchange 

accepts batteries, electronics, 

fluorescents, mercury switches, 

liquid waste (oil, gas, 

antifreeze), wood, yard and 

garden waste, cell phones, ink 

jet cartridges, propane tanks, 

gypsum, concrete, bricks, 

porcelain 


HHW, tires, electronics 




Residential 

• Weekly Green Bin (48 L, 

22kg/50 lbs max) collection; 

implemented city-wide 

October 2011; accepts food 

waste (fruit, vegetables, 

coffee grounds, meat, 

eggshells, bread, pasta), 

soiled paper (pizza boxes, 

paper towels, paper cups and 

plates) and 

houseplants/flowers 

municipal collection 

• Private services collect yard 

waste curbside 

• Yard waste can be droppedoff 

at the Nanaimo Recycling 

Exchange and at the 



• Working towards Green Bin 

program 

Residential 

• Weekly contracted (Mid 

Ontario Disposal) green 

bin/yard waste collection on 

same day as garbage; 

accepts food waste, paper 

products, house plants, dryer 

lint, grass, leaves, pumpkins, 

and branches/trimmings 

• Leaves are collected year 

round in clear bags, certified 

compostable bags and paper 

yard waste bags (20 kg/44 

lbs max) on weekly collection 

day 


green bin/yard waste 

materials 


• Smaller apartments and 

businesses can use the 

regular green bin program; 

for larger apartments and 

businesses the City provides 

larger green bins 



Tree Chipping 

• Regional District of Nanaimo 

offers website education and 

brochures on composting, 

worm composting and 

grasscycling 

• Lions and Rotary Clubs offer 

collection and drop-off for 

Christmas trees by donation 

• Backyard composters are 

sold at the Waste Diversion 

Site 


the first full three weeks 

following Christmas 



• $121/year for waste, recycling, and 

Green Bin collection, and processing 

and disposal, Nanaimo Recycling 

Exchange, education programs; on 

utility bill 

• Curbside residential recycling only: 

2009 - 31% diversion, 2010 - 32% 

diversion, 2011 - 34% diversion 

• Diversion (including curbside recycling 

and Green Bin as of full City 

implementation in October 2012: 

-October to December 2011 average: 

recycling 36%, Green Bin 29%, 

overall diversion 65% 

-January 2012: recycling 36%, Green 

Bin 30%, overall diversion 66% 

• Garbage, recycling box and 

greenbin/yardwaste program costs are 

paid for through residential and 

business City taxes 

Contact 

Gary Franffen 

Sanitation and 


City of Nanaimo 

T: (250) 756-5307 

Greg Preston 

Superintendent of 



City of Orillia 

T: (705) 325-2444 

gpreston@city.orilli 

a.on.ca 


Appendix K: 



Province/ 

Population 

Pickering, ON 

Pop: 88,721 

Durham 

Region 

oversees 

garbage and 

waste 

diversion 

programs 

Port 

Coquitlam, BC 

Pop: 56,342 




Rates 

Durham Region 

Waste Management 

Facilities 

• MSW, blue box, yard 

waste and all mixed 

loads - $120/t 

• Three locations in 

Durham Region 

(Oshawa, Brock 

Township and Port 

Perry) 

Port Coquitlam 

Wastech Transfer 

Station 

• MSW - $107/t 

• Wastetech owns 

and operates the 

Cache Creek 

Landfill which will 

soon reach capacity 


Residential 

• Biweekly garbage 

container/bag (20 kg, 

44lbs max); four bag 

max; extra garbage 

tags $1.50; offer special 

consideration to bag 

limit to households that 

have medical conditions 

or have three children 

under the age of three 

• Bulky waste collected 

biweekly on garbage 

day; two items max per 

collection 

• Appliances and 

porcelain bathroom 

fixtures collected by 

appointment 

Multifamily 

Front end garbage bins 

available for multifamily 

buildings. Weekly 

collection offered, larger 

buildings offered 

biweekly collection 

Commercial 

Small heritage 

businesses are offered 


Larger businesses use 

private hauler for 

collection 

Residential 

• Biweekly municipal 

automated collection of 

grey lid cart (120 L, 240 

L); 360 L carts available 

for two-family buildings 

• No bulky item pick-up 

Commercial 

Commercial collection 

services are not provided 

by the City, with the 

exception of about 40 

small business. 




Collection 

Residential 

• Weekly Blue Box (83 L/ 22 gallon 

max) collection same day as 

garbage; accepts paper and 

newsprint in one Blue Box and 

containers (glass, plastic, metal) in 

another Blue Box, cardboard is to 

be flattened and bundled/tied 

Multifamily 

• Multifamily residences offered 

recycling program; use recycling 

bags to transport to carts/bins; 

weekly collection 

Commercial 

Collected by private hauler 

Residential 

• Biweekly municipal automated 

collection of blue lid cart (240 L); 

360 L carts available for two-family 

buildings; accepts newspaper, 

office paper, boxboard, cardboard, 

magazines, telephone books, 

plastics (1 to 5), milk jugs, tin cans 

and plates 

Multifamily 

• Blue lid cart program offered to 

multifamily residences; one 360 L 

cart for every three units; larger or 

extra containers available for 

additional fees 

Commercial 

• Commercial recycling is offered to 

businesses 

Other 

• E-waste drop-off event in 

October; can also be collected 

by appointment 

• Durham Region Waste 

Management Facilities accept 

HHW, tires, Styrofoam, 

agricultural bale wrap, 

temporary signs (election) 

• Paint Reuse Centre at the 

Oshawa location Durham 

Region Waste Management 

Facility 

• Depots only accept glass. 




Residential 

• Weekly Green Bin collection 

same day as garbage; 

accepts food waste, paper 

fibre and house plants, 

sawdust, bedding from pet 

cages; only paper or 

compostable liner bags are 

allowed 

• Seasonal (April – November) 

biweekly brown bag (20 kg/ 

44 lbs max) yard waste 

collection; accepts brush, 

leaves, pumpkins, garden 

trimmings (grass trimmings 

are not allowed) 

• Compost give away in May 

Multifamily 

• Multifamily residences not 

offered Green Bin program; 

small businesses may use 

one of three drop off services 

located at waste 

management facilities. 

Commercial 

• Commercial not offered 

Green Bin program; small 

businesses may use one of 

three drop off services 

located at waste 

management facilities. 

Residential 

• Weekly (mid-May to mid-Nov) 

and biweekly (mid-Nov to 

mid-May) municipal 

automated collection of green 

lid cart (240 L) cart; 360 L 

carts available for two-family 

buildings; accepts food 

scraps and soiled paper ( 

meat, dairy, bones, soiled 

pizza box), vegetable and 

fruit scraps and yard waste 

Multifamily 

• Green lid cart program is 

offered to multifamily 

residences; one 240 L cart for 

every 20 units; first city offer 

to multifamily 



Tree Chipping 


in January 

• Grasscycling website 

education 



• Garbage, recycling box and 

greenbin/yardwaste program costs are 

paid for through residential and 

business City taxes 

• Residents pay the following annual 

fees: 

- Garbage: $81.02 (120 L), $111.02 

(240 L) or $141.01 (360 L) 

- Green/food waste - $65.28 (240 L) or 

$75.28 (360 L) 

- Recycling - $0 (240 L) or $10 (360 L) 

• Multifamily buildings pay $1/month for 

the green cart program 

Contact 

Steven Jedinak 

Operations 

Technician 

Durham Region 

T: (905) 668-7711 

ext 3719 

Steven.jedinak@du 

rham.ca 

John Dundee 

Manager Common 

Services 

City of Port 

Coquitlam 

T: (604) 927-7021 

dundeej@portcoqui 

tlam.ca 


Appendix L: 

Financial Analysis 

See also Excel file “Appendix L_SWMF Financial Analysis - Oct18.xlsx”

Appendix L 


Landfill Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

A high level, lifecycle cost analysis (LCA) associated with Phase 1 and 2 filling of The City of Red Deer 

Waste Management Facility (WMF) was undertaken for the purpose of assessing the long-term 

sustainability of the current tipping fee structure considering long-term liabilities, and operating, 

maintenance, capital and post-closure costs associated with the current Phase 1 and future 

Phase 2 development. 

The LCA for the WMF was undertaken for two conditions: 

1. status quo waste diversion landfill fill rate; and 

2. implementation of proposed additional waste diversion strategies outlined. 

Analysis was based upon the two-phase development concepts outlined in the report entitled "Preliminary 

Design Report, Waste Management Facility" prepared by Stanley Consulting, dated July 1998. 

The LCA was undertaken using the net present value (NPV) methodology. A detailed summary of the 

analysis undertaken is provided in the attached spreadsheet. 

Site Life 

The estimated remaining lifespan of the landfill was based upon the assumptions summarized in 

spreadsheet Tables I.1 through I.3. 

The measure of apparent density is not a measure of true density, but is a measure of the efficiency in 

which waste is landfilled on a tonne per cubic metre basis. A value of 0.65 was calculated in the 2010 

airspace consumption report (Stantec, 2010). For comparison, a value of 0.7 was also used to represent 

increased airspace consumption efficiency which could be realized through implementing the operational 

recommendations presented in Section 5.1.6.3. 

Based upon the site life analysis summarized in Tables I.8 through I.11 (Appendix L spreadsheet), the 

remaining site life ranges from 34 years (status quo diversion at an apparent density of 0.65 tonnes per 

cubic metre) to 46 years (proposed additional waste diversion at an apparent density of 0.7 tonnes per 

cubic metre). 

Landfill Cost Analysis 

The high level LCA was undertaken to determine (at a preliminary level) if the financial model employed 

by the City of Red Deer for the landfill was sufficient to meet not only the day-to-day operating and 

maintenance costs of the landfill but also the future capital and post-closure costs associated with the 

continued development and closure of both Phase 1 and 2, as well as funding the development of a 

new landfill. 

The monies for future capital and post-closure costs are typically set aside in a reserve fund. This reserve 

is funded through net annual revenues received by the landfill during the years of its operation. Once a 

landfill enters into the post-closure phase, it typically no longer has a revenue stream but continues to 

incur significant expenses related to monitoring and maintenance of the landfill environmental control 

systems (i.e., landfill gas, leachate, stormwater management systems) throughout the landfill’s 

contaminating lifespan. Therefore, it is important to properly fund the reserve throughout the active phase 

of the landfill when there is a revenue stream. An underfunded reserve can lead to a significant financial 

shortfall which not only affects the post-closure maintenance of the landfill but impacts the development 

of a new landfill. LCAs were conducted for the two scenarios indicated above. The limitations and results 

for each of these scenarios are presented below. 

It is noted that the financial model, presented herein, is based upon a 40 year contaminating lifespan 

and post-closure monitoring period, which is consistent with previous financial liability estimates. 


Appendix L 


However, the actual contaminating lifespan of a landfill can be significantly longer depending upon 

numerous factors which include, but are not necessarily limited to, waste mass landfilled, geometry, 

climate, and closure system. 

Financial Model Assumptions 

The LCA presented herein was based upon both facility revenue and cost assumptions. Revenue 

assumptions are summarized in Table I.4 and are composed of both a cost per tonne for waste landfilled 

unit revenue and fixed annual revenue associated with the sale of materials recovered from on-site 

recycling programs. 

Costs associated with capital expenditures (development and closure costs) and annual operating costs 

are summarized in Table I.5 (spreadsheet). It is noted that the capital cost elements and implementation 

timelines represent high level conceptual elements only due to the absence of a detailed design and 

operations plan and long-term capital cost report from which to populate the model. 

Remaining Phase 1 areas to be closed are summarized in spreadsheet Table I.6, 

A summary of the current capital reserves for 2011, used in this analysis, is presented in spreadsheet 

Table I.7. 

LCA Methodology 

The LCA was undertaken using the net present value (NPV) methodology to facilitate comparison of the 

following scenarios: 

• Scenario A – Status quo diversion and apparent density of 0.65 tonnes per cubic metre 

(Table I.8); 

• Scenario B – Status quo diversion and apparent density of 0.7 tonnes per cubic metre (Table I.9); 

• Scenario C – Proposed additional diversion and apparent density of 0.65 tonnes per cubic metre 

(Table I.10); and 

• Scenario D – Proposed additional diversion and apparent density of 0.7 tonnes per cubic metre 

(Table I.11). 

The calculation of NPV was based upon the following parameters: 

• Discount interest rate (Ni) of 3.55 percent; 

• Inflation rate (Infl) of 2.32 percent; and 

• Real discounted interest rate (Ri) of 1.20 percent (calculated based upon the above discount 

interest rate and inflation values). 

The real discounted interest rate was used to calculate NPV to account for future inflation, therefore 

making future revenue and costs more transparent. 

Future reserve contributions are assumed to be equal to net annual revenue, with existing 2011 reserves 

associated with ongoing development, progressive closure and replacement of approximately $7.6M as 

summarized in Table I.7. 

LCA Results 

The calculated net present value for status quo waste diversion scenarios (Scenario A and B) is 

approximately $36.0M, and $42.5M respectively. The calculated net present value for the proposed waste 

diversion scenarios (Scenario C and D) are approximately $29.3M and $37.1M respectively. The results 

of this analysis for Scenarios A through D are summarized in Tables I.8 through I.11 respectively. It is 

noted, however, that this analysis is limited to direct landfill related financial elements and does not 

account for any incremental costs associated with implementing the proposed diversion related activities 


Appendix L 


(Scenarios C and D) nor does it take into account other benefits (i.e., reduced greenhouse gas emissions, 

and social-political benefits). 

Conclusions 

The following conclusions, based on the high level LCA for the site are presented. These conclusions are 

based upon the assumption that all annual net landfill revenues are contributed to reserves to fund 

ongoing landfill development, progressive closure, development of a new solid waste facility prior to final 

closure of the existing site, and 40 year post-closure liabilities. 

• Status quo waste diversion (spreadsheet Table I.8) at an apparent density of 0.65 tonnes per 

cubic metre is moderately balanced. The status quo scenario is significantly improved by 

increasing the apparent density to 0.7 tonnes per cubic metre, resulting in an estimated increase 

in net present value of approximately $6.5M. 

• The proposed additional diversion programs will result in an estimated additional ten years of 

site life; however, it also results in a significant reduction in NPV. This reduction in NPV is not 

considered to be significant with in excess of 30 years remaining site life and would not likely 

require restructuring of tipping fees. 

• Implementing operational measures to increase the apparent density may offset lost revenue 

(relative to the status quo) associated with the proposed diversion programs. 

Reserve Fund Contribution Analysis 

The following section presents a preliminary analysis of capital and operating reserve funds based upon 

the LCA financial analysis and associated cost assumptions and timelines for Scenario A (status quo) 

presented in Table I.8. For the purpose of the reserve contribution analysis, the following assumptions 

were made: 

• Capital reserve is associated with development of the Phase 1 and 2 areas; 

• Operating reserves are associated with closure and post-closure liabilities; 

• Post-closure liabilities include final cover contracted services, utilities, and environmental control 

system maintenance; 

• Final closure of the site in 2046; 

• 40 year post-closure liability period (2047-2086); 

• Interest rate of 3.55 percent; and 

• Inflation rate of 2.32 percent. 

For the purpose of this evaluation, reserve funds were calculated on the basis of a $ per tonne of waste 

landfilled (based upon 2012 dollars). The rationale for calculating reserve funds on a unit mass basis is 

to permit reserve contributions to be anchored to site revenues, as opposed to a fixed annual approach 

which may result in disproportionate contributions (either high or low) as annual tonnage inputs fluctuate. 

Furthermore, this approach directs the financial focus away from remaining airspace to remaining mass 

which can potentially be landfilled at the site. This alteration in focus away from remaining available 

airspace to remaining potential “mass reserve” will place emphasis on the need to closely monitor 

airspace consumption (i.e., annual review of airspace consumption and achieved apparent density) 

as tipping fee revenue is mass based and not volume based. 

The results of the reserve fund analysis for capital and operating reserve funds are presented in 

spreadsheet Tables I.12 and I.13 respectively. Based upon this analysis, capital and operating reserve 

contribution requirements are estimated to be approximately $10.00/tonne and $4.00/tonne respectively 

in 2012 dollars. Annual updates should be undertaken to adjust for remaining site life (based on actual 

tonnage inputs and updated long-term trends) inflation and interest rate trends. 


Appendix L 


Recommendations 

Based upon the results of the high level LCA and annual reserve contribution estimate for the site the 

following recommendations are presented: 

• Generation of long-term capital cost plan associated with the development and progressive 

closure of the landfill in order to refine the LCA and provide the basis for the development of a 

detailed reserve contribution plan adequate to fund ongoing landfill development, progressive 

closure, replacement, and post-closure liabilities; 

• The waste shed area should be preserved (inbound traffic control), thereby optimizing revenue 

generation potential and the maximization of reserve growth; 

• Review long-term capital plan every five years and update of LCA and reserve contribution plan; 

and 

• Annual reserve contribution updates should be undertaken to adjust for remaining site life (based 

on actual tonnage inputs and updated long-term trends) inflation and interest rate trends. 


Appendix M: 

Red Deer Promotional / Educational Materials

Appendix N: 

WMMP Public Consultation Results 

Introduction 

As the first step in vetting the proposed Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP), a workshop was 

presented to Red Deer City Council on November 27, 2013, followed by a similar presentation to the 

Environmental Advisory Committee on December 12, 2013. Subsequently, the draft Plan was tabled 

at the January 21, 2013 Council meeting. Following this primary review, the next stage of review was 

to take the Plan to the public for feedback. 

To get this feedback, a program of public consultation was conducted in early 2013. By consulting 

with the residents and business owners of Red Deer in regards to the Plan’s direction and proposed 

actions, insights were gained into the WMMP’s public acceptability and potential stumbling blocks 

for implementation. 

The overall objective of the consultation was to gain feedback from residents and the business sector 

on the proposed plan. Two surveys were created and made available online and at public consultation 

events, one for residents and another for the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) sector (see 

Appendix A). 

Promotion and Public Consultation 

The City promoted the opportunities for Red Deerians and businesses to participate in public 

consultations and even offer their ideas on the WMMP in a variety of ways. The driving force to 

ensure thorough and accurate consultation was done based on the idea of going out to residents and 

businesses; making it convenient and easy for them to provide feedback. Background information and 

links to the surveys were available on the City’s website, and informative but sometimes inquisitive 

postings were placed on the City's Facebook page to actually engage and garner feedback from 

residents. Information was tweeted to followers using the hashtag #talktrashwithus. Two news releases 

were sent out to the media with pick up from every station in Red Deer and numerous subsequent 

interviews. In addition, a newspaper advertisement ran in the Red Deer Advocate regarding activities 

and events. And to correct some inaccuracies written by an Advocate reporter, a letter to the Editor was 

written, clarifying some program details. Information was also posted on public information screens at 

the Collicutt Centre, Dawe Centre, Michener Centre and Recreation Centre. In addition, direct emails 

were sent out to a list of approximately 400 contacts retained by the City’s Environmental Initiatives 

Section. Surveys were also mailed out to a small number of individuals who indicated they did not have 

online access. 

Key messages around the WMMP, as well as the consultation process, were also shared with landfill 

staff to disseminate to the public as inquiries were received. City staff also received targeted information 

through The Bridge intranet home page, as well as two brown bag lunch discussions. 

Public consultation occurred from January through March and was undertaken by sonnevera, in 

partnership with The City of Red Deer. During this period, approximately 850 people were directly 

contacted in person, and further contacts made via email. A variety of activities and events were 

attended in an attempt to inform residents and the ICI sector about the Plan and solicit public input by 

encouraging completion of the survey. Audiences and venues were selected to ensure broad community 

representation, including commercial interests, as well as a range of public demographics and geography 

(City districts). A breakdown of these events and targeted audiences is provided in Table 1. 


Appendix N 


Table 1: Public Consultation Summary 

Date Consultation Activity Audience 

Reached 

No. of People 

Consulted 

January 21 Table Draft WMMP at Council Meeting Council, press 15 

February 26 

February 

January 17 

February 7 

March 25 

January 31 

February 

February 16 

February 19, 

23 

March 8 - 13 

ICI Consultations 

• Chamber of Commerce Business After 

Hours Event 

• Downtown Business Association – agreed 

to send out survey link to members 

Waste Services – Contractor Consultations 

• BFI 

• Waste Management 

• MCL 

ICI 

ICI 

City Contractors 

/ Service 

Providers 

Presentation to Launch Garbage-Free February ReThink 

Red Deer 

Booths at Public Venues 

• Parkland Mall 

• Collicutt Centre 

Business Consultation 

• variety of businesses visited and 

managers asked to complete survey 

Parkland Mall – 

north residents, 

families, youth, 

seniors 

Collicutt Centre 

– south 

residents, 

families, 

professionals, 

seniors 

Business 

owners or 

managers 

50 

unknown 

March 8 - 10 Booth at Home Show Home owners 260 

March 13 

March 

March 20 

March 23 

DOSE Coffee / City Roast 

• Public/ business surveys 

Golden Circle 

• surveys and postcards to online link 

distributed by centre March 7 to 20 

• presentation during hot lunch 

Public and 

businesses in 

downtown 

Seniors 

11 

6 

225 

69 

45 

900 email 

contacts 

Final Public Venue Booths – Centennial 

Celebrations 

• Dawe Centre and Collicutt Centre 50 

March 26 Red Deer College Youth, students 50 

75 


Appendix N 


Residential Survey Results 

Demographics 

A total of 908 residential surveys were completed by Red Deer citizens during the public consultation 

process. The 2011 Municipal Census suggests that there is an even amount (50% each) of males 

and females in Red Deer. However, there were considerably more female respondents (65%) than 

male respondents (34%) for the survey. This may be a reflection of the higher interest of women 

in environmental issues in general that has been documented in numerous studies, and widely reported 

in the mainstream media. 

A variety of age groups participated in the survey, but the participation was concentrated between ages 

30-45 and ages 46-64, who provided 30% and 38% of the total feedback respectively. Seniors aged 65 

and over, accounted for 20% of the responses and youth aged 19-29 for 11%. Figure 1 compare the ages 

of survey respondents with the 2011 Municipal Census demographic data, confirming variation but also 

demonstrating that each main category was successfully contacted during consultation. It is important 

to recognize that the under 18 category was not specifically targeted. 

Figure 1: Survey vs. Census Age Demographics 

Residents living in single-family homes accounted for 86% of those surveyed, while multi-family unit 

dwellers represented 13% (Figure 2). The City's 2011 Census data shows approximately 20% of Red 

Deer's inhabitants live in MFUs. The survey response of multi-family residents is considered to be 

good, since this demographic is recognized as being difficult to engage. 


Appendix N 


Figure 2: Survey vs. Census Residence Type 

Results 

A strong majority of respondents (96%) agreed or strongly agreed that the amount of waste sent to the 

landfill needs to be reduced (Q4). A somewhat lower consensus agreed that Red Deer needs to become 

a leader in sustainable waste management (Q5), with 87% supporting the idea (agreeing or strongly 

agreeing) and 9% of those surveyed disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. This variation in support seems 

intuitive, since the second question implies more aggressive action, and associated program changes. 

Overall, it appears that Red Deer residents are very supportive of diverting waste from landfill. 


Appendix N 


Figure 3: It is important that we 

reduce the amount of waste 

sent to the landfill. 

Figure 4: It is important that 

Red Deer becomes a leader 

in sustainable waste management. 

Numerous concerns regarding waste management in Red Deer were identified by the 721 survey 

respondents who chose to provide answers to Question 6. A full list of these comments is included in 

Appendix B. The most common responses (see Table 2) were regarding accepting an expanded range 

of materials for recycling (specifically plastics), and diverting additional organic materials for composting, 

with over 200 respondents mentioning each of these issues. Concerns over cost implications were also 

mentioned by a significant number of respondents, with just over 100 respondents mentioning cost in 

their comments. 

Table 2: Respondent Concerns 

Response Category 

Number of Times Mentioned 

Expand materials collected for recycling 205 

Need to divert more organics through composting, 

organics collection, etc. 

235 

Cost concerns 105 

Residents were also asked whether or not they agreed with their service charges being proportional to 

the size of garbage cart they select, which would subsequently be provided by the City (Q7). The majority 

of residents, namely 62%, support this concept, while 25% disagree, as depicted by Figure 5. 


Appendix N 


Figure 5: Resident Response to Cart Sized Service Fees 

When informed that the largest single component of the residential waste stream is food and yard waste, 

Red Deer residents were strongly in favour of diverting residential organics from the waste stream 

by means of composting, as per Figure 6, with 85% agreeing that it is important to consider programs 

to compost residential organics (Q8). Less than 10% of those surveyed disagreed that composting 

programs should be considered. This suggests that enhanced organics diversion programs will receive 

strong public support. 

Figure 6: Support for programs to compost residential organics 

Residents voiced great demand with regard to increasing the types of plastics accepted via the blue box 

program (Figure 7); 94% support expanding plastics recycling in Red Deer (Q9). The majority of those 

surveyed (82%) also support replacing the blue box with a larger blue cart (Q10) (Figure 8). 


Appendix N 


Figure 7: Support for Expansion of Plastics in the Blue Box Program 

Figure 8: Support for Replacing Blue Boxes with Larger Blue Carts 

The current weekly limit for garbage bags in Red Deer is 5 per household, which is greater than the 2 bag 

weekly average most homes produce. When polled, 77% of residents agreed with reducing this limit 

(Q11), while 17% disagreed with doing so (Figure 9). This is also consistent (although even higher 

support) with trends in the annual Customer Survey telephone polls that have shown increasing support 

for a reduced bag limit. 


Appendix N 


Figure 9: Support for Reduction of Allowable Weekly Number of Garbage Bags 

86% of Red Deer residents surveyed agreed with enhancing recycling services at multi-family residences. 

As shown in Figure 10, only 4% of respondents disagreed with this initiative to target multi-family 

recycling. 

Figure 10: Support for Improving MFU Recycling Programs 

When prompted for further comments (Q13) regarding Red Deer's waste management system, just 

over 400 residents chose to offer a variety of responses (see Table 3). Predominant concerns regarded 

logistics around the proposed program: maneuverability and storage of the bins, location of pick-up 

(front street vs. alleys), and theft / vandalism of the new bins. These comments were also elaborated in 

one-on-one discussions with participants, where some interesting trends were noted. For example, some 

residents are under the impression that automated collection will necessitate transferring all collection 

to front streets. Residents serviced in back alleys are also wondering about bin placement, and whether 

existing enclosures will still be functional. Another common concern is where collection bins will be 


Appendix N 


stored, and the ability to move them during the winter months. It will be important to identify and address 

these concerns as part of the program pilots. 

Cost implications of the proposed program were also mentioned by a number of respondents, with many 

indicating they believed they would be required to directly pay for the new bins, or that the proposed 

program would lead to significant cost increases. Based on these concerns, it will be important to include 

cost information as part of the education associated with both pilots and program launches. 

A full list of comments is included in Appendix C. 

Table 3: Respondent Comments 

Response Category 

Number of Times Mentioned 

Logistical concerns (bin storage, set-out, etc.) 55 

Cost 65 

Lastly, residents were asked to identify the most effective means for them to receive communication 

regarding changes to the system (Q14). As illustrated by Figure 11, the survey highlighted 10 options, 

all of which were supported to varying degrees. The most effective options specified include direct mail 

(68%), City website (59%), radio advertising (58%), newspaper advertising (55%) and social media 

(53%). It is important to consider the demographics surveyed when considering these results because 

differing preferences may exist within different age groups. This is evident in Figure 12 and Figure 13, 

where smart phone applications and social media outlets were supported most strongly by users up to 

age 45. 

Figure 11: Preferred Types of Communication 


Appendix N 


Figure 12: Support for Smart Phone Application as a Communication Tool 

Figure 13: Support for Social Media as a Communication Tool 

Summary 

Overall, residents were very positive about the proposed Waste Management Master Plan, with 

many commenting they were pleased to see Red Deer moving forward, and numerous references to 

successful similar systems in other communities where they previously lived or had relatives / friends 

living. A potential downside to the positive response is a feeling of impatience on the part of residents, 

many of whom expressed a desire to see the program move forward quickly, with comments like “the 

sooner these improvements are implemented, the better”, and “it’s about time – other cities have been 

doing this for years”. 

However, upon explanation, the phased implementation and pilot concept was understood and well 

received by residents, with many asking how they could sign up to be part of the pilots. This enthusiasm 

could ideally be channeled to produce some excitement around the pilots and the subsequent results and 

overall program implementation. 


Appendix N 


Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) Survey Results 

Demographics 

A total of 51 responses were collected from the ICI sector in Red Deer. As illustrated by Figure 14, 

a variety of businesses (Q1) provided input, including: retail businesses (34%), professional services 

(19%), food services (8%), educational institutions (8%) and manufacturing/warehouse businesses (8%). 

Smaller contributors include medical services (2%) and multi-family complex/apartments (2%). The 

remaining "other" businesses (19%) include responses from a web development company, a bank, 

a non-profit group, a shopping center, as well as a transportation-trucking business and a C&D waste 

recycling facility. 

Figure 14: ICI Survey Participant Breakdown 

Results 

When asked about the importance of reducing the amount of waste sent to the landfill (Q2), the response 

was clear with 96% agreeing or strongly agreeing that it is important to reduce landfilled waste (Figure 

15). Minimal opposition (2%) was matched by those who chose not to answer the question (2%). 


Appendix N 


Figure 15: Support for Reducing Waste Sent to the Landfill 

The consensus regarding the importance to reduce landfilled waste is echoed by the positive response 

(92%) illustrated in Figure 16, which encourages Red Deer to become a leader in sustainable waste 

management. A small number of businesses disagree (8%) that Red Deer should become a leader in 

waste management. It is interesting to note that the ICI sector responded more favourably to the question 

of demonstrating leadership than did respondents to the residential survey. 

Figure 16: Support for Red Deer Being a Waste Management Leader 


Appendix N 


Businesses surveyed believe the City should provide technical and information assistance to businesses 

interested in reducing waste (Q4). No respondent actually opposed this concept (Figure 17), while 96% of 

respondents agreed. 

Figure 17: Support for the City Providing Technical & Information Assistance 

to Companies Interested in Reducing Waste 

The idea of developing a recognition program for businesses with high diversion rates (Q5) was 

also widely supported. Figure 18 shows 82% of those surveyed agreed with the development of such a 

program, while 14% disagreed. 

Figure 18: Support for a High Waste Diversion Rate Recognition Program 

Based on responses received, 84% of the businesses in Red Deer supported piloting a composting 

program in the ICI sector (Q6). 


Appendix N 


Figure 19: Support for an ICI Composting Pilot 

Since an ICI organics program would most directly impact the retail and food sectors, responses 

from these groups were separated out (see Figure 19). As shown, all four food sector respondents 

support this initiative, while 88% of the 17 retail sector respondents agree, suggesting the directly affected 

sectors are even more strongly in agreement with an ICI organics pilot than the ICI population as a whole. 

However, the small sample size represented should suggest caution in developing broad conclusions. 

Three quarters (76%) of those surveyed are agree with establishing differential fees at the Waste 

Management Facility (targeting recyclable / compostable materials – Q7), while 6% disagree, while 

16% are unsure (Figure 20). It is likely the uncertainly revolves around the specifics of implementation, 

therefore, educating businesses and staff about diversion opportunities and differential tipping fee 

structures would be required for program success. 


Appendix N 


Figure 20: Support for a Differential Tipping Fee System 

The idea of banning recyclable materials from the Waste Management Facility was less popular than 

introducing a differential tipping fee schedule, as shown in Figure 21. However, 64% of participants still 

agreed with the concept, while opposition totaled 20%. A significant number (14%) were also uncertain 

about this approach, perhaps because they do not understand how they would be impacted (since most 

businesses do not directly access the Waste Management Facility), and suggesting a need for clarity 

around education and implementation. 

Figure 21: Support for Banning Recyclables from the Landfill 

The ICI sector surveys (Q9) highlighted a number of comments and suggestions regarding Red Deer's 

waste management system. The most common comment received was in reference to the need for more 

recycling / diversion opportunities in the ICI sector. The concept of incentives driving increased diversion 

also was mentioned by several respondents. A full list of comments is included in Appendix D. This 

wide array of comments and concerns demonstrates the importance of communication and education 


Appendix N 


regarding program development and participation. Developing initiatives to help reduce / divert ICI waste 

can only be successful if industry, commercial businesses and institutions receive the technical support 

and information they need. 

Similar to the residential survey, the ICI survey concluded with a question regarding the most effective 

method of communication for the responding business (Q10). Once again, 10 options were provided with 

results shown in Figure 22. The City website and social media methods were ranked the highest, at 76% 

and 71% respectively. All the listed methods achieved 50% or greater support, concluding that they are 

an effective method of communication, except for public open houses (39%) and television advertising 

(24%). It is interesting to note that the ICI sector was more positive than residential respondents about 

electronic communications methods, including the website and social media. 

Figure 22: ICI Sector's Preferred Communication Methods 

Summary 

Based on the survey results received, the ICI sector shows strong support for the ICI elements presented 

in the WMMP. However, this sector has been hard to engage, with direct interaction producing the best 

feedback results. This approach will likely be required throughout implementation phases of the WMMP to 

continue to receive ICI feedback and deliver the education and information required for successful results. 


Appendix N 


Conclusions 

Public consultation was conducted at numerous locations and events around the City of Red Deer 

throughout January to March of 2013. Direct contact was made with approximately 850 Red Deer 

residents and businesses, and 909 residential surveys and 51 ICI surveys were completed (including inperson, 

mail-in and online surveys). 

Overall, the City of Red Deer's residents and ICI sector are generally in support of the proactive changes 

proposed within the Waste Management Master Plan. Reducing the amount of waste landfilled in 

Red Deer and improving diversion through composting and enhanced recycling are issues the majority 

of survey respondents agree with pursuing. 

Making Red Deer a leader in sustainable waste management received agreement from 86% of the 

residential respondents and 93% of the ICI sector survey participants. Reducing the amount of waste 

sent to landfill received even higher support with 96% of respondents in both sectors who agreeing to 

this statement. 

Television advertisements and public open houses were deemed the least effective method of 

communication by both Red Deer residents and the ICI sector, however were still believed to be effective 

by some respondents. The highest ranked methods of communication based on residents’ responses 

were direct mail and The City’s website, while the ICI sector prefers information to be delivered by 

The City’s website and social media applications. 

Public consultations confirmed that the top issues residents associate with the waste management 

system are addressed within the WMMP, and that there are no additional overarching issues that would 

suggest significant changes need to be made to the proposed Waste Management Master Plan prior to 

phased implementation. However, the feedback received during the extensive consultations is very 

important to incorporate into future plans, raising issues that will need to be carefully considered in the 

design and implementation of program pilots, and ultimately the program design. Recognizing the 

comments and suggestions received during the consultations will serve to pre-empt potential stumbling 

blocks, identifying issues that can be properly addressed and incorporated into the pilot process, 

facilitating effective and focused pilot programs. Considering the pilot phase also involves a considerable 

degree of public consultation, integrating the two elements (initial consultation and pilot) is a logical 

approach that will result in the best utilization of resources, and ultimate the most success. 


Appendix N 


Appendices

Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) – Public Consultation 

Appendix 

Appendix A: Residential and ICI Surveys 

A1

The City of Red Deer 

Waste Management Master Plan 

Public Consultation Survey 

This survey is for City of Red Deer residents only. The City appreciates your feedback as it plans the 

development of its waste management programs for the next 10 years. The Waste Management 

section of the Environmental Services department wants to hear your comments on initiatives and 

goals within the draft Waste Management Master Plan. To view the plan, visit 

www.reddeer.ca/wmmp 

The following survey should take approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete. 

1. Are you male or female? 

¨ Male 

¨ Female 

2. What is your age group? 

¨18 and under ¨ 19-‐29 ¨ 30-‐45 ¨ 46-‐64 ¨ 65 and older 

3. Do you live in a: 

¨ Single family residence 

¨ Multi-‐ family residence (apartment, townhouse etc.) 

Please rank your level of agreement with the following statements: 

4. It is important that we reduce the amount of waste sent to the landfill. 

¨ Strongly Agree ¨ Agree ¨ Disagree ¨ Strongly Disagree ¨ Unsure 

5. It is important that Red Deer becomes a leader in sustainable waste management. 


6. What are the 3 top concerns you have about waste in Red Deer? 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Any personal information on this form is collected under the authority of section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and 

Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act for the purpose of drafting amendments to the Waste Management Master Plan. Your 

comments may be used anonymously in public displays or publications related to the Waste Management Master Plan. If 

you have any questions regarding the collection, use and protection of this information, please contact Janet Whitesell, 

Waste Management Superintendent, The City of Red Deer, 403-‐342-‐8750.

The Master Plan includes a number of elements that we would like to get your opinion on: 

7. Newer garbage trucks can collect waste using an automated pickup feature. Wheeled plastic carts in several 

sizes would be provided by The City, with residents choosing which size they wanted, and paying monthly 

according to the size of cart. Rank your level of agreement with this statement: I would support putting 

garbage out in a wheeled plastic cart provided by The City, and being charged according to the size of the cart I 

select. 


8. The largest single component of the residential waste stream is food and yard waste. The Master Plan 

proposes a pilot to test different models of curb side collection of expanded organics, including food waste as 

well as yard waste. Rank your level of agreement with this statement: It is important to consider programs to 

compost residential organics. 


9. The current blue box program limits the type of plastics that are accepted for recycling based on limitations of 

sorting and marketing additional materials. Expanding markets may allow for the collection of an expanded 

range of plastics in the blue box. Rank your level of agreement with this statement: I support the expansion of 

the blue box program to include additional types of plastic. 


10. An expansion of the blue box program may require a larger blue box. A larger blue cart system would provide 

additional household capacity, while protecting recyclable materials from the elements. Rank your level of 

agreement with this statement: I would support replacing blue boxes with larger blue carts. 


11. With more plastics being recycled, residents are likely to see a corresponding reduction in waste thrown into 

garbage bins. The Master Plan aims to see a reduction in the number of household garbage bags placed out for 

pickup. Rank your level of agreement with this statement: I would support a reduction of the current five 

garbage bag limit to three bags or fewer. 


12. The Master Plan includes enhancing recycling services to multi-‐family residences. Examples include better 

signage for bins, and providing in-‐suite collection containers. Rank your level of agreement with this 

statement: I support enhanced recycling services to multi-‐family residences. 


13. Do you have additional comments or suggestions you would like to share about the waste management 

system in Red Deer? 

14. What is an effective means to communicate to you about changes to the waste management system? 

Radio advertising ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Direct mail ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Newspaper advertising ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

City website ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Public open house ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Information in city facilities ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Television advertising ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Email subscription ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Social media ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Smart Phone Application ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know

Waste Management Master Plan 

Survey For 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

Users 

This survey is for organizations located in Red Deer only. The City has developed a Waste 

Management Master Plan designed to reduce the amount of waste sent to the landfill, and make Red 

Deer a provincial leader in sustainable waste management. An estimated 63 per cent of waste comes 

from the commercial sector. The Master Plan includes a series of recommendations to address this 

portion of the waste stream. 

1. What type of business do you operate? 

¨ Retail ¨ Food Service ¨ Manufacturing/Warehouse ¨ Professional Service ¨ Hospitality 

¨ Medical ¨ Educational Institution ¨ Multi-‐family complex/apartments ¨ Other 

If Other, please specify___________________________________________________________ 

Please rank your level of agreement with the following statements: 

2. It is important that we reduce the amount of waste sent to the landfill. 


3. It is important that Red Deer becomes a leader in sustainable waste management. 


4. The City should provide technical and information assistance to businesses that are interested in 

reducing waste. 


5. The City should develop a recognition program for businesses that achieve high rates of waste 

diversion. 


6. The City should undertake a pilot program to assess the feasibility of a commercial organics collection 

program to compost food waste from businesses such as grocery stores and restaurants. 


7. A system of differential fees should be established at the Waste Management Facility to create a 

financial incentive to divert specific materials to recycling or composting. 


8. Materials with established recycling programs should be banned from disposal at the Waste 

Management Facility. 

¨ Strongly Agree ¨ Agree ¨ Disagree ¨ Strongly Disagree ¨ Unsure

9. Do you have additional comments or suggestions you would like to share about the waste 

management system in Red Deer? 

10. What is an effective means to communicate to you about changes to the waste management 

system? 

Radio advertising ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Direct mail ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Newspaper advertising ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

City website ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Public open house ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Information in city facilities ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Television advertising ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Email subscription ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Social media ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Smart Phone Application ¨ Yes ¨ No ¨ Don’t Know 

Any personal information on this form is collected under the authority of section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and 

Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act for the purpose of drafting amendments to the Waste Management Master Plan. Your 

comments may be used anonymously in public displays or publications related to the Waste Management Master Plan. If 

you have any questions regarding the collection, use and protection of this information, please contact Janet Whitesell, 

Waste Management Superintendent, The City of Red Deer, 403-‐342-‐8750.


Appendix 

Appendix B: Full list of comments to Question 6, Residential Survey 

What are the top three concerns you have about waste in Red Deer? 

• What are the top three concerns you have about waste in Red Deer? 

• Too much of what can be recycled goes to the landfill. Too many people do or can not compost. 

• Sanitary to insure health safety. speed and ease. cost of implementation and systainment 

• need for increased education, on an easy to understand level, on what can be recycled in RD. 

Information on items NOT to put in recylcing, like shredded paper, fluor. lightbulbs, etc. How to deal 

with compostible material in apartments? 

• Only recycling #2 products is ridiculous for a City the size of Red Deer. There needs to be more 

things acceptable in the Blue Boxes! 

• Improper garbage in bins. Some people don't recycle. Should be fined for not recycling. 

• You can only recycle one type of plastic. 

• No compost program People don't care about recycling Not sure how/what can be recycled in red 

deer 

• Lack of residents recycling, not enough acceptable items for recycling in the city, not enough wool 

compost 

• I came from BC and I notice people around here throw away everything instead of separating it and 

recycling more than half your garbage 

• lack of organic recycling and size of blue boxes...need carts 

• that we do not recycle or collect no. 1 plastic that we do not recycle other kinds of plastic except no.2 

• pay to have to get rid of large garbage at the dump, Why did the coupon get discontinued? really how 

much did that save the city, $7 flat rate too high to get rid of just one larger item. 

• reliability of current contractors unsightly back alleys punctuality 

• 1. The present system is not that easy, for hundreds of citizens who are handicapped, old and using a 

cane and/or a walker. 2. We, as seniors, do not have an exorbitant amount of garbage. 3. The 

present system of collecting garbage works well and the strong fellas have no problem throwing it in 

the truck. A new system under review would be a real problem for us oldies as we have no idea what 

the new categories really mean to us & 3 boxes would be a hardship for us!!! Please! 

• 1. front pick up? 2. size of bins? 3. biweekly pick up? 

• 1. too much of it 2. not enough recycling 3. disposal - spring clean ups for hazard (paints, etc.) 

• 1. the quantity allowed 

• 1. Cost to consumer 2. Inability to handle large items 3. dump costs 

• that it's handled to make the best of it, environmentally 

• 1. recycling needs a lid so it does not blow away 2. increase more types of plastic recycled 2-7 

3. keep rates low 

• 1. Lack of plastics recycling 

• 1. Biodegradable 2. Solid waste 3. Appliances 

• 1. Littering (need to enforce the law to get involved) 2. Disposing unwanted items (furniture left 

outside near garbage bins) and people picking through garbage for cans and bottles leaving mess 

behind them. 3. Waste trucks drivers throwing customers property around after emptying them (not 

respecting) 

• 1. Throwing recycle items in the garbage not recycling them. 2. Garbage all over the city 3. Throwing 

garbage in the river. 

B1


Appendix 

• I don't know anything about the services available 

• Lack of info on waste disposal - thank you for this session 

• 1. We send way too much garbage to the waste management facilities. 2. Not enough recycling 

being done with garbage (plastics, foils, compost) 3. It should be the same as Sherwood Park, their 

waste has gone down 80%!! 

• 1. Industrial companies not recycling cardboard 2. Implementing systems for easier access for 

recycling and laws to enforce the use of them. 3. Possibly creating energy from waste. 

• 1. over full landfills 2. emissions 3. costs 

• 1. Pollution 2. Smell 3. Landfills getting so full 

• 1. That it is in fact being recycled 2. That waste is put in an area where the smells don't affet the City 

of Red Deer 3. Sewage waste facility near river bend causes odours on the golf course and 

surrounding parks area 

• 1. Not enough different plastics accepted 2. Lids are not accepted with #2 plastic 

• 1. higher cost (services, taxes) 2. less flexibility 3. need more plastics recycling 

• 1. Too close to residential area, cause odor 2. Should use more compost 

• 1. excessive landfill 2. city wide reduction / recycle programs / participation 3. composting (leads to 

less landfill) 

• We should have larger blue bins 

• 1. Compost / better use 2. Blue box - what is acceptable 3. Packaging - styrofoam 

• 1. Need to recycle more than #2 plastics 2. ease & convenience 

• 1. The lack of capacity to recycle more item, e.g. glass, different plastic, etc. 2. Composting 3. 

Education - teach & encourage that gift wrapping for example is not required. Use different media to 

let people know about the city services. 

• 1. reduce plastic grocery bag use 2. more plastics should be recycled, not just #2 but #5 and others - 

why can't we??!! 3. make plastic grocery bags that are compostable 

• 1. fast food garbage everywhere 2. not all recyclables accepted 3. business recycling 

• 1. Cost - to implement -> who pays how much? Having to pay for the containers and still pay 

$100/month for services. 2. The smell of waste on a biweekly pick up in the summer! 3. Jobs - will 

people lose their jobs because of this program! 

• 1. Reduce household waste 2. Plastic recycle 

• 1. greens in the landfill 2. more recycle options 

• organics waste bin / plastics 

• 1. It's disorganized. 2. Just copy Ontario! It works! 3. All organics go in main garbage. It's gross and 

stinks. 

• 1. methane capture 2. space concern 3. wasting recyclable resources 

• water air garbage 

• No markets for items that are faithfully recycled so they end up in the landfill anyway. 

• 1. sending recyclable / compostable wast to landfill 2. landfill size / status 3. garbage in general and 

how much society wastes 

• If you change to new plan of garbage removel, will our rates be lowered. Would garbage pick up still 

be weekly, what happens when there is more garbage than the cantaners can hold, Where would we 

put the cantaners for pick up in the spring when the city plows and piles the snow on the side of the 

streets when there is barely any room to get around. 

• The limited items that are accepted for recycling No organic waste program 

• People not recycling their blue box items, the amount of kitchen scrap waste that goes in due to no 

compost plan and lazy people throwing everything, including items not allowed, into their waste bin. 

B2


Appendix 

• 1. The amount of methane and other GHG given off by the landfill. 2. How long will the current landfill 

last? 

• Every thing should be able to be re-used or recycled!! People with more garbage should pay more. 

The company that create trash in the first place, should be required to contribute to the recycling of 

that trash...ie packaging. 

• .Need to recycle more categories of plastic. Careless disposal of garbage by residents. continue with 

pick-up of garden waste 

• the recycling program is almost useless when it comes to plastic, kitchen waste should be allowed in 

the compost program 

• 1. Would like to see curb side compostable waste pickup 2. Plastic of all type to be recycled 

3. Limit or ban the use of plastic bags in super markets 

• plastic bags being allowed in stores and thus winding up in the landfill too much compostable 

materials in the landfill Excess use of disposable containers, packing materials (ie carboard boxes for 

kids toys) etc. 

• how much waste is being put into the landfill environmental impact 

• need to recycle more types of plastics, keep dumping fees affordable, encourage more composting 

• Most of the waste generated in the city is of commercial origin and yet the city seems to target the 

residential customer. You are limiting the usage of the waste system for residential with different fees 

et al, How about charging commercial use at a higher rate? 

• We should lower the amout of allowable weekly waste per household. Have more of an incentive for 

less waste per family. Also more items taken for recycling! More that #2 plastic,ect. 

• The home recycling program requires too much of my time & energy. Washing cans, removing 

labels, crushing boxes, searching for an items recyclability (#2 stuff only), and sorting, sorting,sorting. 

I'm a pretty adamant recycler, but I don't have the time and my family doesn't have the interest. Make 

it easy. 

• It would be nice to be able to recycle a brader range of plastics. It would also be nice to have yard 

waste picked up two weeks later in the year. 

• Educating people to reduce how much they put in the landfill. Development of programs like compost 

pick up. Need more types if plastic accepted for recycling. 

• Not enough recycling Too many flyers - people should have a choice in what they receive Do things 

that go into the recycling box actually get recycled? 

• CONTIUNED WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY IN RED DEER. Garbage truck operators that leave 

as much garbage, in the lane or street as goes in the unit. Poor, I don't care or poor workman 

attitude. Contractors that haul tons and tons of waste to the land fill. Concentrate on other issues in 

this city. Monies spent on Road Repairs, not bike lanes. Proper road and lane signs. Intersections 

with controlled left lane turns. New construction 2012,Spruce Drive and 32 St. 39 St and 40 Ave 

east and west bound. Ross and 30 Ave. East and west bound. Ross and 40 Ave. East and west 

bound. NO CONTROLLED LEFT TURN SIGNALS. 

• 1. Waste removal trucks let a lot of waste material fly out of them. 2. Multi-family unit garbage bins 

are left overflowing & with large household items beside them. 

• 1. Baby diapers. Need a service that can wash cloth diapers or teach young mothers how. Have a tax 

on diapers. Kitchener Waterloo have a service in their city. 2. Go back to paper bags at the grocery 

store and shops. Charge stores who will not comply. Some are charging for bags and they should be 

targeted. 3. Encourage large chain supermarkets to serve clients at the meat counter and get rid of 

the foam meat trays & plastic wrap. As Europeans 

• Do not want it all over our streets. 

• 1. Collection of yard waste for a well treed yard would a cart accommodate the waste without being 

cumbersome to use 2. Placement of carts where alleys are quite narrow if room for cart placement 

for pickup 3. If larger containers needed would additional cost be burdensome to householders 

B3


Appendix 

• Restricted recycling criteria 

• organics going to landfill vs compost 

• I don't have any concerns. I am happy generally but believe we could save money by going to a 6 day 

cycle or have a 5 day cycles shift over with every stat holiday. 

• Why do we recycle only 1 type of plastic food containers while others go into the garbage? 

• lack of recycled materials 

• Not able to recycle plastics Not able to do curbside composting 

• Lack of recycling for plastics Lack of curbside pick up of compost 

• We need plastics recycling!!! 

• Increase range of plastics that can be recycled in RD Increase reuse of yard and household waste 

for composting Reduce bagged garbage going to landfill 

• Litter Litter Litter 

• My concern is that to move to a more sustainable system I keep getting charged more. The city utility 

bill has almost doubled in 4 years. I have to pay for my bluebox, what incentive is that to recycle. If 

the waste management goes the way of the water and wastewater charges I disagree with the whole 

idea. A fixed rate of $36 for wastewater and $19 for water is ridiculous and you keep adding 

communities to our water, what do they pay for the upgrades to the treatment plant. I'm living with a 

1/4in service and absolutely no water pressure and the city isn't going to upgrade my line but can 

charge me huge fixed rates. Ridiculous. City council should be looking at ways to reduce cost first 

before going all green which only costs us more. 

• Broader collection and recycling of man made waste products and organic waste. For example a 

better range of plastic collection beyond number 2 only. 

• I think we drastically need to improve our recycling. We have a world class plastic producing 

company twenty minutes away lets have a world class plastic recycling facility. Why do grocery 

stores hand out plastic bags. This is a huge waste problem. Fort Murray has a bylaw about no plastic 

bags. Lets do something like that. 

• The lack of plastic recycling (1-7) There is alot of re-useable things (furniture, etc) going into the 

landfill instead of the 2nd chance area. Lack of compost pickup 

• food waste that can be composted, taking time to fold down cartons, boxes, recycling as much as 

possible and returning milk cartons, pop cans, bottles, etc. 

• where are the items sorted? what happens to each? soft plastic, hard plastic, Styrofoam, paper, 

cardboard, tin cans, glass bottles 

• Not recycling enough, especially plastics 

• Need for a composting program The amount of plastic going into the landfill 

• Too many garbage bags per residence. No use of recycling bins. 

• That only certain plastics are accepted in the blue box program. That Red Deer does not have a 

curbside organics program. . 

• Too few recyclable plastics. 5 bag limit should be reduced to 2 or 3 bags. Plastic bags - hate em 

stop using plastic, promote non plastic bag waste 

• Not enough options for different plastics to recycle. Building materials being thrown into dump. 

Compost materials thrown into dump. 

• 1. Need to collect more types of recyclables - esp. plastics 2. I notice that the recycle collectors just 

dump everything into one big receptacle in the truck. Are these sorted & recycled properly at the other 

end? 

• Recycling of ALL plastics. Reduction incentives for residents. Better use of organic wastes. 

• 1. The way garbage tins etc. are just thrown in the middle of the lane by collectors! 

• 1. Not biodegradeable 2. Too much 

B4


Appendix 

• 1. Reducing as much waste as possible. 2. Increasing items that can be recycled. 3. Cleaning 

garbage on streets where and when needed. 

• 1. Landfills are covering valuable farm land 2. Why didn't Red Deer pledge 100% of garbage to the 

gasification plant several years ago? If it had been built here we would have been a leader in waste 

management. 3. I don't agree with converting to a 3 binsystem for collecting residential waste. 

• 1. People should be encouraged to compost, etc. More advertising needed. 2. They need to KNOW 

how to do this. 

• 1. Not enough proper sorting by residents. 2. Too much waste produced by unnecessary packaging 

(plastics and cardboard) 3. Because of our affluence, there is far too much household waste. 

• 1. Being able to recycle more plastics, etc. 2. Where does Red Deer's waste go to from here? Just 

heard a comment that the WAIST is getting bigger!!! 

• 1. Recycle as much as possible at lower cost to the residents than garbage pick-up 2. Increase 

plastic types in recycle 3. Maintain consistant pick-up days 

• Too many things that can be recycled are going in the landfill, too much food that can be composted 

its going in, not enough people have awareness about what can be recycled or don't have a bin or 

box. 

• - Accept more recyclable products - Extend landfill hours to include Sundays 

• amount of waste, not enough being recycled, yard waste 

• 1. Too much of it 2. Lack of info on composting options 3. The overall wastefulness! 

• 1. Proper disposal and remediation 2. Lack of acceptable recyclabel material (current facility does 

not accept all types of plastics, for example) 3. Public recycle containers in commercial areas 

lacking. 

• proper disposal of different kinds of waste \are the items that \i put in the blue bin being recyled 

\what is the long term goals for waste reduction 

• how much waste is put in landfill, how much organic material is put in the landfill, how much 

packaging is consumer goods both grocery and non-grocery items, not enough plastics are recyclable 

• Not enough types of plastics recycling, that changes will increase our taxes, and that over 60% 

comes from commercial. It seems they should be focused on since they are the main contributors to 

this issue. 

• 1. Plastics for recycling should be ALL plastics, not just #2 plastics. 2. Composting: Red Deer should 

investigate city-wide composting (and make it very simple for residents) 3. Clarity of recycling rules 

• waaaay tooo much allowed per household /week. Its unacceptable. industrial waste is a joke, but 

because they for the service its allowed & probably 90% of it could be recycled.local municipalities 

are the ones that have to deal w/ the waste & should get together & pressure the fed/prov gov'ts to 

work w/ ways to stop building stockpiles of materials that are reuseable. other municipalities limit 

residential weekly garbage to one 65 ltr(?) container /week plus blue bin,yard waste & kitchen waste. 

the fees for industrial waste need to be high enough that recycling has a better value. 

• Reducing the # of collection bags per household Collect more plastic items in blue box Combining 

household kitchen scrap with yard waste 

• None 

• The main concern I have is the limited variety of products that are accepted through the recycling 

program, particularly plastics. 

• Ive moved to Red Deer 3yrs ago from Montreal. I have NEVER seen so many dirty back lane like in 

RD. It is not to compare but Montreal's streets and lane are 200x cleaner as we recycle 

EVERYTHING and free! Also I just came back from BC Van. Was there for 6 months working. Again 

they also are recycling EVERYTHING. Calgary does it why cant Red Deer? The back lanes here in 

some areas are like pig pens. You shouldnt even think twice putting the big bins asap. Those are my 

concerns about Red Deer. 

• Dirty ally 

B5


Appendix 

• Recycle yard waste / composting 

• 1. NO to automated collection! 2. My tax $ should pay for my dump fees 

• 1. You not recycle enough plastic products. 2. Make label removal on recycle product easier to 

remove (manufacturers problem) 

• yard waste - there should be FREE yard waste drop off all season 

• wind blowing - from blue boxes - newspapers etc. 

• separate wet waste 

• Wet waste needs to be separated from the garbage 

• Moving bin in snow in back yard. 

• 1. garbage floating around / catching in the beautiful boulevards. 2. lack of consistency in container 

sizes 3. drink containers / fast food containers dropped wherever / wherever the consumer is done 

with it 

• Proposed containers are much too large for my home. I have no back lane. Pick up is from 

Boulevard. 

• Plastic bags - get rid of them 

• 1. Amount of waste 2. Recycling 3. Composting 

• 1. Landfill volume 2. Lack of recycle diversity 

• There are some recyclable materials (i.e. plastic containers other than #2) which still go to landfill. 

Some items which destroy the environment (i.e. batteries) are often found in landfill. I often find in 

our apartment garbage collection bins commercial waste (i.e. lots of bed mattresses, construction 

materials) which appears to have been disposed of by apartment residents and potentially others. 

• 1. Diversion of recyclables from waste stream, particularly high-value/resource intensives such as 

aluminum. 2. Use of alternative value added disposal means such as gasification or bio-reduction. 

• 1. That toxic waste is managed properly 2. Recycling 

• I agree we should reduce waste per person not per household. 

• 1. too much, must reduce 

• 1. No bins (we moved from Calgary) 2. Will the windrows of snow on the streets impact bin 

collection. 3. Variety of plastics to be collected 

• 1. Too much waste is produced as a start. For example bags in grocery stores, coffee cups. 2. Public 

in general need more education about the need and good things of separating waste. 3. There is too 

much waste on road sides. 

• 1. Don't recycle enough products. 2. Too much garbage going to landfill. 3. All yard waste is not 

acceptable. 

• 1. Wind blowing blue box material. 

• 1. Some products not being recycled 

• 1. Garbage cans - being picked up after 4:00 pm - not happy with pick-up. 2. Recycling - more 

efficient - being picked up at 7:00 am. Great job. 

• 1. Not enough recycling of plastics (types), etc. 2. Volume of garbage - we subsidize many of our 

neighbours 3. Chemicals in vegetative matter. 

• 1. Waste strewn on streets & along highways 

• 1. Too much goes to landfill 

• 1. More efficient recycling - do more items that can be recycled 2. Composting 3. More efficient for 

the consumer 

• 1. Need front garbage pickup! Way easier to roll the bins out of the garage straight to the street. 

2. Landfill too close to Red Deer. 3. Need larger Recycle bins, and education on what can be 

recycled! 

B6


Appendix 

• 1. There is too much waste. 2. Would like front waste pick up 3. Education on what can go in each 

bin, what can be recycled, what is organic waste 

• 1. Keeping garbage off the streets. 2. Keeping costs down. 3. Better working conditions for workers. 

• 1. As a old age pensioner I live on a low income. 2. I don't support the extra cost of waste pick-up. 3. 

I already do recycling - via BLUE BOX & yard waste & compost in my own bin. 

• Do not Recycle all plastic's Gagbage all over the place no one picks up their garbage just throw out 

auto window's Cig'Butts Constrution site do not recycle their cardboard or wood for recycling. 

• Private transportation of waste resulting in spillage from vehicles such as pichup trucks. Not enough 

types of plastic being recycled. Heavily loaded garbage trucks damage paved lanes which increases 

maintenance costs to tax payers. 

• 1.Type of garbage going to the landfill 2. Amount of garbage from each home going to the landfill 3. 

Not having bins such as Calgary to store garbage in makes the city look disgusting (people don't care 

and let it blow all over) 

• Pay/use messy garbage day container storage 

• way to many items that should not be going into it are partly because city does not promote and 

support alternatives! 

• 1. recycling 2. water wastage 

• 1. Waste blowing around from open garbage containers and blue boxes 2. Contract operators not 

being monitored (waste management co.) 3. City employees drive right by waste on roads or lane 

ways 4. Too much waste in alleys by landlord rental bins 

• 1. Glass 2. Organics 

• 1. Amount of wood in waste 2. Plastics in waste 3. Amount recycling available 

• 1. blue box recycle limits 

• 1. Environment 2. Recycle 3. Cost 

• 1. pick-up-front/alley 2. green pick-up 

• At this point, none! 

• 1. Space for containers 2. Cost 3. Mice, rats and flies 

• 1. Reduce what goes in landfill 2. Reuse - such as the compost program 3. Educate 

• too much waste going to landfill that could be disposed of in a better manner. cost of garbage 

collection composting 

• Just moved from Calgary, loved them bin system there 

• Too little plastic is being recycled Kitchen waste could be composted along with yard waste People 

don't seem to care what they throw in the blue box 

• We live on a mature pie lot with a large number of trees. It is not uncommon te generate 15-20 large 

orange garbage bags of yard waste in the spring and 30-35 large orange garbage bags of yard waste 

in the fall (e.g. grass clippings, leaves, twigs, branches, etc) in addition to the 1-2 bags/week in the 

summer. I'm concerned the new program may not be designed to handle these periodic spikes in 

amounts of waste. 

• ??? 

• Would like curb side composting 

• Type of materials allowed in landfill Amount allowed 

• The system seems to be working very well! If it ain't broke don't fix it! 

• People who don't recycle Garbage pickup containers Sustainable plan 

• poor recycling program high allowance of waste permitted lack of composing pick up year round 

• Parking restrictions, access to bins for pick up, 

• Poor compost system Recycle bins too small 

B7


Appendix 

• To much going to landfill, what is garbage and what is recycled. 

• The amount of waste we have and where it will go The effect on our planet 

• By having green box we could reduce garbage 

• Cost Senior friendly Change in garbage culture ( how we do things) 

• The wasted amount of driving done by the contracted garbate pick up people. A more extensive list 

of accepted recyclicables. All plastic. All lids. Garbage rates should be based on # of people in 

household. I as an individual in a SFU do not create as much garbage as a family of 4 in the same 

SFU but I pay the same. 

• our tax dollars 

• Why does the city only collect #2 plastic 

• Difficulty recycling glass for apartments/condos; inability to recycle plastics other than #2. (I have only 

2 major concerns). 

• #1- 5 bags of garbage per week, per house hold is WAY, WAY to much! (In BC it's two bags every 

two weeks and $2 each for extra bag tags.) #2- we don't have a green bin service in Red Deer! 

Composting is so easy and the city can reuse the soil and mulch for our beautiful garden plots and 

green spaces throughout our city. Composting helps reduce garbage waste and stinky garbage cans 

and pest problems. #3- Bring waste management solutions to the attention of our Children in 

schools! Worm bins, kids would love that and the schools can benefit huge from it. 

• that my cost will increase that i will pay for future users level of service will decrease 

• Recycle as many plastics as possible 

• question 4 & 5 covers it. 

• Failure to compost 

• That we are recycling as much as we can, that the cost is reasonable (it is) and that it is convenient (it 

is). 

• Paying for the new system. 

• The amount of plastic not accepted as recyclable Balancing the amount of garbage allowed (1 bag 

for 25 weeks then over for 1 week 

• Blowing down the alley and dogs getting into it. Proper use 

• Throwing the recycle bins in the snow banks Not putting lids back on Chasing containers on the 

street on windy days 

• The number of plastics that we are allowed to recycle is too limited. 

• No composting Limited recycling 

• Current Recycling program too restrictive 

• Wet waste and methane. 

• Landfills getting to big. Not enough recycling. 

• Number 2 plastic only! 

• the limited amount of recyclables allowed. We need plastics 1-7 not just #2. 

• Compost, recycling more materials,more kick it to curb 

• We need to recycle more plastic numbers, 

• teaching home owners how to compost, it is truly black gold for you yard. reducing the cost of 

garbage collection plan to make it so that animals cannot get into garbage cans 

• No bins! 

• Cost Access to back lane 

• 1. Not only plastic# 2 but all plastic should be recycled 2. All glass should not go to landfill 3 All food 

wast should be composed 

B8


Appendix 

• Landfill filling up Recycling as much as possible 

• Need bigger recycle bins 

• Nobody wants our waste ! China takes old electronics and dumps them in their garbage dumps and 

then want us to pay for their emissions ..waste of our efforts. 

• How' fast the landfill is filling up. 

• Organic disposal at home should be implemented. Cut down on home garbage by info sessions 

Emphasize. More recyclables 

• Convenience Cost effective Availabity to. All demographics Q 

• Recycling 

• 3 separate trucks picking it up 

• Blue box program should accept more stuff. 

• Recycling 

• Recycling all that can be. Keeping the system user friendly 

• Where we will keep it. 

• plastic containers other then 2 which have been garbage. We need to recylce those as well 

• City does not encourage re-cycling, as they do not have any drop points strategically located in 

different areas of the city. City discourages volumes of household waste by charging residential 

users a fee at the waste facility. 

• not sure exactly can be recycled, e.g. pill bottle caps or juice carton caps, cardboard egg cartons 

• 1. We need a definite schedule of when garbage are going to be picked so residents dont get their 

garbage out too early and stray cats or dogs get into them or even the wind and it causes a big mess. 

I am always confused coz sometimes they come early in the morning sometimes they come late in 

the afternoon. And also during stat holidays people are always wondering if garbage will be picked up 

or not so people should be notified. 2. We need bigger blue boxes that tax payers do not have to 

worry about paying 3. Those employees that pick up garbage need to be more respectful of residents 

trash cans. They sometimes just throw it (and those cans are not cheap) and it will just go anywhere. 

One time I have to go get my can 3 houses away coz they just threw it and it rolled 3 houses down 

and they dont seem to care. 

• too many households send all garbage to the dump All plastics should be recycled in the blue 

box aluminum needs to be recycled 

• City Council spending. City Council spending on bike lanes. City Council spending $13.2M on one 

intersection when the Capri sold for less. 

• Unrealistic expectations. expensive processes Ignoring inceineration options 

• 1.limit on the types of recyclable items that can go into the blue box 2.lack of city-wide composting of 

vegetable waste 3. blue bin is too small 

• Packaging (mainly plastic shrink wrap) Junk mail 

• Not enough types of recyclables accepted Composting is a lot of work for working people/families 

Garbage bins are purchased by the individual household and can be very expensive. 

• I would love to see more items recyclable, my garbage waste would go down significantly if I was able 

to recycle more than just paper and one kind of plastics. I think 5 bags of garbage for one household 

is too much, there should be a smaller limit on that to help the garbage dump. My concern with the 

automated pickup mentioned below is that it would be tough for myself to haul the bin out behind our 

house in the winter, would front yard pick up be an option? 

• Blue box is to small, I would recycle way more if I had a bigger box or two 

• The environment The cost of removing trash The health of the workers removing trash 

• Recycle and Yard waste needs to become a bigger "plan" 

B9


Appendix 

• 1. The lack of things we can recycle in the blue box. 2. Consumerism creating the garbage. 3. the 

cost of garbage and blue box collection already let alone what happens to all the containers we have 

now for garbage and yard waste collection. They end up in the landfill so defeats the purpose. Find a 

way of using the containers we already have. 

• The Blue Box program is not effective as it should be required that ALL plastics need to be taken, not 

just the ones that make the most money for the recycling company. Construction companies should 

be mandated to separate scrap wood that could be used by people in the city for small projects or 

even camping/firewood. Why are we bringing in other people's garbage if the city is running out of 

room in our landfill? 

• Reducing litter on the streets, alleyways etc. Incentives for more recycling and allow for more things 

to be recycled. Easier access to the dump. 

• web are not recycling enough. Strathmore AB has an area in their recycling zone where people can 

put any kind of used things eg toys, books, furniture etc. It's nice to go "shopping" there. 

• 1. recycle as much as possible within financial reason.2.That it is disposed of appropriately(i.e. don't 

throw toxins and unused meds into garbage bags). 3. More continuing education to residents of how 

to help cut down on waste handling costs. 

• Pampers, do they disintegrate? Is our landfill large enough to cope ? 

• I would like to see all waste pick up in back alleys,where there are back alleys. 

• 1 keep cost down (less trucks,drop of locations) 2 two week pick up 3alley clean (bins @ 

apparment. 

• too much some can be rfecycled some can be composted 

• How we dispose of old household machines such as ranges, washers, dryers etc. How nonchalant 

many folks are about using the trash instead of second hand stores and Habitat for Humanity to 

recycle. How people think that composting is a difficult thing to do. 

• Why isn't RD using the plastics from the garbage and mixing it with the tar to surface roads. The girl 

that invented the formula got a world science award but no one is using it? Her 'test strip' of 1 km. 

really held up better than normal. 2. dumps are using up farm land 

• compostable garbage recycling 

• We don't recycle enough plastic items. Only #2, when there are so many others that need recycling. 

I'm also concerned that my building does not have provisions for recycling glass. The bins at bus 

stops are not clearly marked as to what goes in each bin. We need more such bins around town. 

• To much to landfill should recycle all plastics Cityneeds to collect compost waste 

• I am fairly conscientious about the about of garbage our family creates. The cost of collection is a 

concern for me. As others are not as interested in refusing their garbage output. 

• Many items can not be recycled under current guidelines. How few compost or have compost 

collection as an option. The amount of waste we have. 

• Recyclables not to be included in garbage. Composting encouraged Possible reuse of parts of 

electronic, mechanical, or industrial waste. 

• Regular garbage pick up is a good thing but charging for bins I would not use is not acceptable, and I 

feel unfair. 

• Too many bags of garbage set out each pickup day. Red Deer citizens do not try to cut back on their 

garbage and recycle. Only # 2 plastic can be put in Blue Box. 

• 1 - lack of communication with residents 2 - lack of education or instruction about what is recycleable 

and how to prepare for pickup 3 - lack of help to minimize the mess in our kitchens (apartments & 

condo's) to do recycling. I would like a stackable unit to put in a closet. 

• not enough recycling types. ie. all plastics #1-#7 cut garbage down to 1 bag 

• environmental /toxicity, reduction of waste, recycling 

• disposing of grocery bags Recycle programs 

B10


Appendix 

• should be a sorting facility,like Edmonton, run 3 shifts, @ day , and manned by people that dont obey 

the laws of the land, and have no way to REPAY victems and society for their crimes. 

• Composting/more recycling of paper waste/get ride of "other" plastics 

• 1.Not all plastics are currently being recycled. 2.Not everyone involved in blue box recycling. 3.Too 

much recycling material going to landfill. 

• compost 

• 1 the cost of the new garbage bins 

• availability of accessible recycling centres 

• composting 

• Regular garbage includes recylable items. Will run out of space for regular garbage. Cost of getting 

rid of garbage. 

• Increasing costs. More trucks spouting exhausts pollution More recycling with nowhere to use the 

product 

• limited types of plastics etc allowed in blue box 

• you can only recycle some plastics, some glass and some soup cartons, All should be recycled We 

should be able to recycle tin foil, wax paper residents should be able to send vegetable peelings etc 

in separete containers that are composted at the waste site not put in the general land fill. 

• Tires, oil, hazardous wastes 

• Larger Blue boxes 

• 1. Not being able to recycle all plastic. 2. Newsprint that can be used in composter 3. Garbage 

collectors picking up the odd wind blown garbage or having a reporting system with Green Deer so 

we can ensure clean back alleys. 

• Too much is thrown out into the landfill when we should be recycling more. To have a better 

recycling system. To make recycling more user friendly for Red Deerians. 

• compostable waste recyclable waste Non Degradable waste (Plastic) 

• Excess waste of hours paid out to care for disposal. 

• The amount of plastics in the garbage because they are not recyclable, but perhaps are re-usable. 

Garbage being tossed into the recycling bin--will the same thing happen with 3 bins? 

• 1. the high volume of waste per capita, including excessive packaging 2. the apparent lack of 

concern or awareness about the need to reduce, reuse, recycle 3. improper storage of household 

garbage prior to pick up (e.g. back alleys are a mess as people do not use secure containers) 

• Recycle tin cans. Recycle all glass containers. Compost all compostable material, using the land to 

provide garden space to those who have no space or sun for a garden. 

• Are the contents of the blue box really recycled? What about compost from our kitchens - can it be 

picked up if we do not have a compost of our own? I believe we really need to cut back on garbage - 

there is way too much! 

• 1. Too much waste thrown in general garbage that is valuable.. 2. Even if expensive, we must divert 

3. People don't seem to care in this town. 

• 1. amount of recycleable still in garbage 2. yard waste and other compostable items that are not put 

in compost. 3. time frame of pickup 

• 1. number of bags of garbage per household - sure be no more than 2 2. Good building material 

going to land fill 3. Need bigger containers for waste and blue box - more items to recycle. 

• cost depleting resources 

• #1 - too mucjh packaging being used #2 - not enough recycling especially yard waste #3 - too much 

food waste 

• Charge...over and above one collection container. 

B11


Appendix 

• Residents are not doing enough! Need more education in schools. More recycle options available. 

• Not enough individual limitations.eg.-3bags Plastics not broad enough. Landsites becoming 

continuing problem with the amt. of city growth. 

• I find that during recycle and garbage days the contents of the blue boxes are blown throughout the 

neighborhood as these boxes are unsecured. A wind picks up all the debris and there is litter 

everywhere. People do not secure the contents in their blue box. It would be nice to have blue boxes 

with secured lids. 

• Current limited amount of allowable items to recycle High cost of sewage 

• 1) Volume/tonnage that could be diverted from the landfill but isn't. 2) Cost/efficiency of collection 

• No composting at the Waste Management. Not enough plastics being recycled 

• How few things we can recycle despite being recycable. Primarily plastics. No automated pick up 

No organic waste pick up 

• -not picking up food and other compostable material -increase types of items to be picked up in blue 

boxes -pick up yard waste later in the year to match with leaf falling times in Red Deer 

• my biggest beef is no recycling for Type 5 plastics!!! (type 1 also). Our family goes through 3-5 yogurt 

containers weekly, in addition to other products. Please lobby manufacturers or find a way to develop 

recycling/shipping to appropriate recycler. 

• 1. Would like to be able to recycle more. 2. Would like the bag limit to be reduced to no less than 3, 

unless city implements a food and yard waste composte alternative. 3. Affordability of any new 

programs. 

• Lack of Organics collection, limited number of plastics recycling, promotion of in-yard composting 

• Limited recycling of plastics 

• Collection adequate to handle demand, cost effective, "reasonable". 

• 1.Not all plastics (including shopping bags) are accepted by the program. Other cities accept all 

types of plastics. 2. We all participate (almost all) in the yard waste program but are charged for 

purchasing compost. Should be able to buy compost from the city at a reduced rate. 3. Why are we 

forced to participate in the program. Taking part should be optional. 

• cost to myself 

• What to do with products such as old paint, etc. Would like to see all yard waste, tree and shrub 

prunings etc. picked up at residence - especially important for seniors in their own home. 

• Limited recycling for different types of plastics 

• 1. Currently only accepts #2 plastic for recycling 2. Relating to #7 below...We compost and reycle...if 

I wished a large plastic cart and typically only filled it to its capacity on occassion yet was charged the 

full amt. I would be inclined not to put it out for collection weekly...yet I would still be charged even 

though my garbage was not collected. I would consider lowering the # of bags people are allowed to 

to put to the curb before having to purchase a tag upfront for the additional garbage. We usually only 

have one bag of garbage...and if the city was to expand its plastic collection we would have even 

less! 

• cost, ease of unloading at the landfill, 

• Organic waste going to the landfill recyclables going into the landfill pay as you go 

• We currently have an efficient, user friendly system 

• Lack of recycling Confusing about what is recyclable No composting 

• Provide education, collect compost, but current proposals have major flaws and will not be supported! 

Must ensure adequate collection at a reasonable cost to ensure garbage isn't dumped somewhere 

else! 

• garden waste remove computer equipment, etc lumber 

B12


Appendix 

• 1. We should be recycling more types of plastic product - we are very restrictive on what can be 

recycled compared to most other municipalities. 2. The smell coming from the dump is frequent in 

the Inglewood neighborhood. How will this be addressed especially if more stuff is being composted 

in the new program? Concerned about location of composting area in relationship to residential 

areas. Can we do something like the Edmonton indoor composting facility does? 3. Issues with smell 

in new organic waste carts and what happens if this stuff is frozen into a solid lump during winter 

months. Can it be easily picked up by the truck? 

• litter visible thoughout the city, landfill over use and residents not bagging and diposing garbage 

properly 

• 1-Keep Costs Down. 2-Do not set lower limits (# of bags) as compared to what we have now. 3- 

Keep things simple. 

• would like to see more items that are recyclable, system for collection of household compost, limit on 

number of garbage bags - I feel that there are many that don't recycle and these people should pay 

more for garbage collection 

• 1) Landfilling is harmful to the environment. 2) Landfilling is expensive. 3) Canadians create more 

garbage per capita than most other countries. 

• -people should be encouraged to make less waste -the city should provide recycling pickup for 

businesses - the city of red deer should provide recycling for more different kinds of plastics 

• We need to put more in the recycle box. 

• Food waste not being composted 

• It appears that the city has addressed most of my concerns about garbage with the new proposals. 

I have wondered about the proposal to incinerate garbage that was talked about a few years age. 

• Not enough recyling done Too much garbage Should be limits amount of garbage per household 

• Poor recycling program 

• restricted recycling of plastics (so far only#2) reconsider incineration like they need to do in Europe 

bag limit is still too high 

• the cost reducing waste in the landfill preventing hazardous waste from entering landfill 

• How little our recyling program actually accepts - and the last time this was updated. 

• The waste pickup at present is wonderful. The guys do a fantastic job !! 

• That the only way people listen is when there is a fine in place. and everything is going to turn that 

way? 

• 1.no place to take compost items. 2. the rise in cost to residents 3.the fact that if costs rise people 

will take their trash to wherever in order not to pay and those of us who do what we can to reduce our 

personal garbage will be left with their garbage. 

• not all plastics being recycled not enough yard waste being recycled food waste from grocery stores 

• Minimal items that can be placed in the blue box. 

• I think it is working good with the exception on needing to recycle more plastics. 

• not enough recycling - we fall behind other cities in this area no organic waster recycling 

• 1.Not enough options for recycling plastic other than Code 2. 2. Garbage limit it too high. 3. City 

facilities and staff are not leading by example. 

• 1. The limited number of plastics we can recycle 2. The lack of a city-wide compost pick up program 

3. Alley versus curb pick up (want/need curb pick up) 

• 1. Ability to recycle more types of plastic. 2. Affordability 3. Continue with curbside pick up. 

• 1. Lack of composting organics. 2. Land for landfill when current site is full 3. More recycling of 

plastics needed. 

• 1. Dump so close to town 2. Amount of recycling that goes into the garbage 

• 1. Too much 2. Too little reuse 3. Too easy to throw away 

B13


Appendix 

• 1. Mixing hazardous waste in the normal garbage. 2. I belive more yard waste is not collected. 

3. Mixing food wastage in the recycling. 

• 1. Where is it going? 2. Are you doing what you are supposed to with the waste? 

• 1. Commercial garbage not seperated. 

• 1. Not enough people are really recycling 2. Landfill will take too much space at the rate things are 

going. 3. Keeping the mess off our streets. 

• 1. Organic wastes. 

• 1. Only recycling #2... too many other plastics filling landfill 2. Cost 3. more education + promoting 

about composting. 

• 1. Proximity of waste landfill vs residential area. 2. Better waste removal system (green and blue 

bins) 

• 1. Limited recyclables (only certain plastics) 2. Cost 3. More info needed re: compost (limiting smell) 

• 1. Making most environmentally friendly. 2. Different plastics being accepted. 

• 1. That its properly being disposed of. 2. What impact is it having on the environment. 3. Is the City 

doing everything possible to reduce our imprint/ 

• 1. Amount of recyclable material put into landfill, and organics 2. Construction material (wood) put in 

landfill 3. Chemicals put in landfill from un-educated users 

• 1. Can we do compost pick up? 2. Do you need to seperate recycling 3. Amount of garbage per 

household, how do we reduce? 

• 1. Amount of waste. 2. Recyclable material not dealt with appropriately - people throw in waste 

container. 3. More recyclable bins in public areas (i.e. parks, shopping, public facilities). 

• 1. Would like to see more composting 

• 1. Recycling 2. Ease 

• 1. Our current system is antiguated. What you are proposing is tested elsewhere and works very well. 

2. Having a system for separating organics will ehlp reduce land fill imensley. 3. I support his concept 

and encourage the City to proceed post haste with it. 

• 1. Running out of land fill area. 2. Garbage handlers injury 

• 1. Landfills too full 2. So many people don't care 

• Cannot put enough different materials into recycling bins 

• 1. Too many people don't recycle 2. Too much in landfills 3. Not very productive at the moment, 

could be a lot better 

• 1. Garbage been left because not everyone can get it to the landfill - so left on group or deposited 

wrongly 2. How each home can reasonably set up seperate recycling 3. Helping people set up 

proper bins - blue boxes get blown away and take and run over, etc. 

• 1. Amount of waste from families 2..Display of garbage on property/cleanliness 3. Vegetation waste 

consumed in garbage 

• 1. Most plastic recycling 2. What will be done with old recycle bins 

• 1. Hazardous Products 2. Houshold batteries - more drop off points needed 3. Bigger recycling bins 

• Garbage bags in alley - birds scatter it everywhere 

• 1. Amount 2. Impact on environment 

• 1. Location 2. Pick-up 3. Amount 

• 1. We need to be able to recycle more more plastics, than just #2 2. We need urban composting 

3. The five container limit is beyond ridiculous. Should be much lower. 

• The amount that is dumped by construction Consumer goods packaging needs restrictions to 

reduce what has to be disposed at the local levels 

B14


Appendix 

• Commercial garbage Bag limit is just fine where it is! If it's abused go after that one individual not the 

whole city! We don't have to be a leader or a follower but just do what's right for Red Deer! 

• We need to recycle all plastics We need to reduce buble packeging We need to encourage home 

and garden composting 

• Not having a collection system for items like batteries and flourescent light bulbs. There should be 

multiple places to drop off hazardous materials like paint, old oil, batteries, flourescent light bulb so 

these things don't get dumped down the drain or in the garbage where they will polute to and even 

greater extent. 

• The high rates we pay for disposal is my main concern. 

• Not enough recycling 

• poeple living alone generate much less waste than families yet we pay the same amount. It would 

take me at least a month to fill any size of these dumpsters (except for yard waste). I can see people 

putting all waste in one bin too making things worse. 

• cost, recycling, mess in alleys 

• It would be great to be able to recycle even more items and for it to be more strongly encouraged 

(perhaps even penalized) to recycle 

• Can only recycle #2 plastic - lots of plastic still going to dump Not many other concerns 

• 1. We can't recycle enough plastics so they go into the landfill. 2. We have too much organic kitchen 

scraps to compost all of it. 

• No organics program - only the composting pilot project. Blue boxes need to accept more types of 

materials, especially more types of plastic. Even at 3 bags, I think the limit is too high. We are a 

family of 4, and rarely have more than 1 bag of garbage to put out each week. 

• - That there is no city wide composting program - That we can only recylce #2 plastic - That there is 

too much!! 

• -Inadequate recycling available, especially for plastics -Too many organics are being put into the 

landfill. I hope that the composting program can expand or, better yet, that we can consider a 

composting facility that accept all organics, not just yard waste. -There seems to be a lack of 

widespread eduation and other initiatives to reduce household waste 

• Cost to residents Negative impact to residents Sustainability of the program 

• 1. Amount of recyclables in garbage 2. Cost to dump garbage at land fill-should be free to residential 

owners. 3. Inability to salvage items from electronic/ crap area. 

• wood products from construction going to the landfall tons of perfectly good wood - could be used for 

firewood 

• too much waste not enough plastics recycled 

• Recycling -Getting people to do this 

• not enough support from city to reduce, reuse, recycle too much waste 

• how much it will cost? how will you know what will be okay food waste to compost? what kinds of 

plastic waste will be okay to recycle? 

• Amount of building materials being dumped instead of being re-cycled. 

• What is recyceable is not currently being recycled! Waste to Energy Program! Waste drop Off chages 

for residents! 

• We don't recycle enough products. Too much goes to the landfill that could be recycled. 

A composting system would benefit the city. 

• Black garbage bags 

• Cost of the new bins I will be charged 

• 1) The cities lack of attention to commercial & industrial waste that heads to the landfill (This group of 

users in general, do not care what goes into the landfill. Maybe it's because most have a commercial 

B15


Appendix 

bin & just throw whatever they want in it. If you don't beleive what I say, just go and look in a few 

yourself.) 2) As a responsible resident, we recycle what we can, including yard waste. In the 

summer months we at times have more waste than should be set out for collection. (eg: tree 

trimmings, sod & grass from landscaping) Therefor I usually load my truck & take it myself to the 

landfill, only to be charged for doing so. This is wrong. 

• People do not recycle all the plastic bottles that they use. The collectors strew garbage all along the 

lane ways. There is no rhyme or reason for when the come to pick it up, while the one that was here 

for years and years, you could set your clock by - now many different vehicles come all day long. 

Talk about waste of natural resources - how about fuel for these stupid big trucks! 

• Not enough is recycled Not enough is composted I would like it to be easier to recycle yard waste-- 

ie, I find it inconvenient to have to go out to get the stickers. 

• that which could be recycled and isn't having a fee for the dump and seeing stuff dumped anywhere 

not allowing people to scavenge at dump at their own risk 

• Timely collection Lack of recycle Stations around town Concern over thoughts of cutting the bag limit 

• I look at Sherwood Park and see how they recycle all plastics, compstables etc and see how little 

waste they have at the end. My main concern is all this stuff being buried that can actually be 

significantly reduced--plastics, compostables etc. I think we are big enough of a community and 

forward thinking to keep it cleaner in RD 

• not being able to put as much recyclables as other communities, no compost for household food 

waste too many garbage trucks drivinng up down alleys In Halifax garbarge that isn't recycleable 

is picked up every other week 

• Sometimes missed garbage days can build up more for the next week which are then not picked up 

because we are only allowed so many bags per week. Is there a way to make note of a missed week 

so the following week wont leave us with garbage on our lawns? 

• More acceptance of varieties of plastics for recycling Better composting ability for City use More 

receptacles around down (AND regular clearing of same) 

• Retricted plastic types recycled Kitchen organic wastes not accepted for composting Privatized 

contract for garbage collection 

• Lack of composting facility, need to recycle more plastics, new land for landfill when current one is full 

- where is it going to go? 

• Recycling of non-mainstream or possibly hazardous material like batteries, awareness of existing 

programs, expansion of current recycling to more items (ie other plastics) 

• Not being able to recycle enough different kinds of materials. Right now, I save and take the rest of 

my recycling to Edmonton. Also, the bag limit is ridiculously high (from what I recall from previously 

living in a house). Some communities charge per bag, with no free minimum. 

• we throw out compostable wast with our garbage we can only recycle #2 plastic we are to wasteful 

and throw out thing that don't have to go to landfill 

• Only being able to recycle #2 plastic No organic waste pick up should be more accessible electronic 

and batteries waste disposal both awareness and availability ( some work places collect used 

batteries and some schools but maybe stores should do there part to many people just through them 

in garbage. 

• limited iteams allowed in blue box. No compost pick up. I believe there should be mandatory 

recycling and composting. Nova Scotia has rules in place that we should take a look at. 

• Are our 'recycleable's' really getting recycled?? We need to recycle more plastic containers. 

Businesses need to be encouraged to recycle more. 

• Limited amount of items can be recycled. Number of bags people put out every week. 

• - minimal amounts of waste that can be recycled (ie. types of plastic) - lack of composting program 

- waste on the streets 

B16


Appendix 

• Magpie's opening bags and creating a big mess Messy neighbors that don't clean up their mess City 

parks,sidewalks and roadways with litter and dog feces 

• so few plastics are recycled very few people compost households are permitted to constantly 

produce excessive amounts of garbage with no penalties or extra cost 

• too much organic material is going to the landfill, it could be composted and sold to residents for a 

reasonable price, not enough plastics allowed in the blue box, not enough education regarding what 

can and cannot be put in the blue box 

• INCLUDE MORE PLASTIC AND OTHER MATERIAL RECYCLING-METALS,ETC People are not 

sure of how to responsibly get rid of hazardous waste such as batteries snd old drugs, medical 

materials,etc. We need more places to safely dispose of this stuff. There should be more home 

compostiing or compostable kitchen material collection. Twice a year toxic waste roundup and kick it 

to the curb is not enough. How about a regular time like the first weekend of each month and 

postpone it a week if the weather is poor. aND PLEASE DO ABETTER JOB OF PROMOTING 

INICIATIVES. Some people are too lazy to separate their garbage. Please make a campaign with 

statistics to show it can be done and good reasons for it. The wheeled carts use more plastic and 

what will happen with all of the old plastic garbage cans? If there is a plan in place to recycle 

them,then it might be more feasible. What will be the cost 

• 1. Need to be able to put more than just #2 plastic in our blue box. 2. Having three trucks come 

around during the summer seems inefficient. Can there be one truck with three compartments so that 

yard and kitchen waste can be collected year round? 3. Would like to be able to recycle worn out 

clothes. Also would like to see more construction waste recycled. 

• 1.Lack of composting 

• lack of recycling, lack of composting 

• Poor recycle program for plastics and starifom Very limited waste collection for products that can go 

into compost, such as soiled paper, vegetable waste, and other compost materials every week. The 

use of plastic garbage bags for garbage, if the containers are sealed well the use of plastic could be 

replaced with paper. At 30,000 households and businesses x 3 bags per week equals 90,000 large 

plastic bags into the land fill. 

• Cost Sustainability Blue bin 

• How does a family of 4-5 people that contribute to the local econmy only have 3bags per week. Base 

it on per person in a household, not per house. Increase in costs 

• The larger containers cause significant smell and are not hygenic. How is these large carts going to 

be funded ? The city has a bad track record for maintaining a low cost modle on any new program. 

Why should waste mismanagement be any different. 

• Punishing larger families because they have to buy tags for their extra garbage. It should be certain 

number of bags per person, not per house. Cost increases 

• Recycle program should include more plastics Bag limit for residential collection should be lowered 

• Limited plastics recycling.Too large limit for # of trash bags(should be limited to 2) No organic waste 

pickup 

• Too little recyclable types of plastics. 

• recycling conservation of environment cost ? 

• Residents garbage blown about in the back lane. Try composting organics from commercial 

establishments - coffee grounds and stale fresh produce grocery stores Recyle cans from 

commercial establishment 

• bag limit is too high, 5 bags of trash is crazy,it would be nice to be able to get rid of styrafoam and 

more plastics 

• Should allow recycling by providing permission for Red Deer citizens to pick through the pile 

during one week in the summer ? 

• Reduce waste, recycle, helps the environment 

B17


Appendix 

• Reduce waste, recycle, helps the environment 

• Because I have a suite in my basement I pay double for garbage and sewer. In fact I never exceed 3 

bags a week and there are only 2 people living here, myself and my single tenant. I think people 

should pay on usage. I also think the number of plastics accepted for recycle should be increased. 

• More plastic recycling! 

• Cost of this change...??? 

• Too much plastic being thrown away because not recycleable. The whole city should be composting. 

People need information on ways to reduce and reuse. 

• 1. Garbage left in plastic bags is ripped apart and scattered by birds. All garbage must be in closed 

containers. 2 Areas with front garages should have option of front pick up. 3. There should be a 

compost pick up option. 

• I would like to see a organic bin pick up. We currently have our own compost bin, however would like 

to see the city participate in a larger scale. 

• Plastics, composting, and commercial waste (c&d, manufacturing, retailers, etc) 

• Not enough options for recycling (more numbers for plastic, etc.) Base cost at the Waste Facility 

Wondering what procedures would be put in place if the reduced garbage bag limit means that people 

start throwing their extras into someone else's yard? 

• No curbside compost pick up. This would reduce so much waste going in to the landfill. It is 

something that is done by many communities in Canada and Red Deer is behind! 

• it's hard to know what I can recycle or not We are using too many dispossible water bottles - it's hard 

to find a drinking fountain in many City Venues - like arenas and those that are there don't look too 

clean. In general we do a good job - our garbage guys are great! 

• The 5 bag per household limit is ridiculous. We moved here from Vancouver where the limit is 2 per 

household. It should be much lower with more recycling encouraged. 

• no provision was made to burn landfill gas even though Canada was a leader in this field when the 

landfill was constructed. Even the specific cancers had been idntified among residents living near a 

landfill.. Then there is the matter of methane emissions and green house effects 

• no provision was made to burn landfill gas even though Canada was a leader in this field when the 

landfill was constructed. Even the specific cancers had been idntified among residents living near a 

landfill.. Then there is the matter of methane emissions and green house effects 

• Individuals need to make conscious committments to reduce waste or adjust their lifestyles - the City 

cannot and should not make those choices for them. There cannot be more cost to the residents of 

Red Deer. As much as we would like to think everyone wouldn't mind a few more dollars on their 

utilities bill so Red Deer can claim to be "green," that is not the case. Many families cannot afford to 

pay more. Where are these containers to be stored? Many multi-family residents do not have access 

to the street from the alley so these cannot have "curb side" pick-up. Some alleys (the alley where I 

live) does not room for big containers nor does it have snow removal to allow for containers to be 

moved around. This alley is a high traffic area with all resident having back alley driveways. Curb 

side pick up is not an option with City placed snow windrows. I don't believe Red Deer needs to 

"pioneer" efforts but rather do things that residents can afford and support. 

• Plastics that can be recycled are being sent to waste Too high garbage bag limit. 

• not a long enough season for yard waste landfill is not open long enough year round...similar hours 

in winter as in summer not as long but longer than it is presently open 

• 1. Green House gases, particularly methane, that come from our landfill and contribute to climate 

warming. 2. Retaining weekly pickup, particularly in summer when bi-weekly pickup could lead to a 

significant odour problem. 3. Storing three large bins in an already crosses garage. 

• Lack of recycling for businesses Limit of what plastics can be recycled 

B18


Appendix 

• 1. inability to recycle a majority of the plastics 2. inability to drop off used oil at the landfill (Edmonton 

does and it is a leader in sustainable waste management--downloading it onto one or two retailers in 

the city is not leadership) 

• no support for food waste...ie. composting. 

• Red Deer is growing fast we will run out of room in the land fill That there is alot of people not 

recycling 

• 1. amt of waste that goes to the landfill and could be recycled 2. number of items/types of items that 

currently can be recycled 3. level of awareness that citizens have about recycling 

• 1) Disposal of organic waste (compost material). Spruce Grove has a awesome waste system in this 

regards; and 2) Proper disposal of expired medicines (spills) and hazardous waste (batteries, paints, 

cleaners, etc) 

• 1.Gas emissions into the atmosphere 2.Leachate into groundwater 3.Running out of space 

• Ease of disposing of hazardous materials (paint, hairspray, batteries, lightbulbs with mercury) 

• 1.) no curb side organic recycling 2.) useage of landfill site being used faster than projected 3.) 

concern with downloading more of the costs on larger families 

• Not all recyclable items are accepted in the blue boxes 

• 1) Education regarding importance of recycling and how to recycle effectively.(composting, items for 

blue box, yard waste). 2) Recycling is not mandatory. Nova Scotia has policies in place where 

garbage is not taken if recycling items are in waste garbage.Also, composting is expected. 3) 

Businesses do not always recycle. Fast food places could have various garbage bins for waste, 

paper, organics and cans/bottles where consumers have the opportunity to recycle their "garbage". 

• first the city has to pick up all the household garbage no matter what as residences will just leave 

bags ect on the street if not picked up or through them around 

• -limited recyclables. I would like to see other plastics and batteries added to the list. -food waste 

collection. For those who don't have compost bins it would be good to encourage organic recycling. 

• Red Deer needs to increase our recycling of plastics. This takes up a huge amount of landfill space. It 

is shameful that Red Deer is limited to only recycling number 2 plastics. There are much smaller 

communities, such as Banff recycle ALL plastics. 

• My biggest concern is that, like the bike lanes, the City is barging ahead implimenting programs that 

work well in Cities which do not see winter for 8 months of the year, whereby the programs become 

inoperable (bike lanes are unusable from October to May in Red Deer when they are snow covered). 

Carted blue bins will not be usable, in much the same way, for 8 months of the year in Red Deer. 

• Recycling programs for apartments needs to be implemented and inforced, large item pick 

up/arrangements for apartment dwellers, having more recycling centres/garbages at public places 

(stripmalls, pubs, etc) 

• How to get residents onboard with recycling How to make it easier--having to rinse and take off 

lables means that some residents won't take time to do it properly-everyone wants a quick solution. 

• Cost of dealing with waste Fact that so many trucks have to go around to pick up waste Garbage 

strewn around back alleys 

• Sustainability of our waste facility, more recycling offers, possibly less waste pickup 

• Too much going to landfill Too much litter A lot of garbage falls off trucks as they pick up! 

• At this point, I am concerned about the limit of waste per house that is going to be put on each 

household. This could lead to illegal dumping in areas outside of the city. 

• We need to recycle more materials, especially plastic. I would recycle more if it was possible here 

• expand recyclables allowed to be collected. 

• Too few plastics can be recycled. Lack of composting for kitchen waste (vegetable and fruit 

peelings). The labels on many containers are impossible to remove. 

• Cost increases for residential pick up services. 

B19


Appendix 

• Our plastic recycling needs to be expanded. 

• 1. Missing the truck on days when I'm off & haven't taken waste out yet. 2. Yard waste accumulates 

faster than we can dispose/compost it. 3. Better disposal of animal/pet waste. 

• 1. More dog parks like Oxbow (old landfills) 2. Promo for solar energy 3. Promo low flow / high air 

mix shower head (like City of Calgary). It gives a really good shower. 

• 1. My biggest concern is an idea like mandatory carts / boxes / whatever where households will end 

up paying more for services they don't need to be forced into. 

• 1. Cans & Bottles 2. Yard Wastes 

• 1. Recyclables in garbage. 2. Safe disposal of toxic substances. 3. Water quality near landfills. 

• Not enough people in Red Deer & elsewhere take the time & effort to recycle in order to help save the 

environment. 

• 1. would like it picked up front of house not back alley 2. # of bags allowed / week - other cities have 

less amts 

• 1. amount of unrecycled (-> stuff that could be recycled) waste going into landfill 2. if homeowners 

could take trash to front instead of back I think MORE would be recycled 3. provide incentive to 

recycle & charge for garbage bags picked up, i.e., charge after 2 bags 

• 1. Cost 2. Restrictions on alley access vs front 3. Paper items / cardboard etc - if container is too 

small - will some items beside it be picked up. 

• 1. smells 2. filling up landfills 3. pollution 

• 1. people will recycle more if we have larger recycle bins 2. composting should be an option 3. lawn 

clipping bins (in each ally?) 

• The limited amount of recyclable material allowed in the blue box, i.e., only #2 plastics 

• go from 5 to 3 bags a week 

• 1. Volume 2. Lack of plastic recycling options 

• 1. Not enough recycled articles / plastics - should have a recycling centre like Edmonton 2. Monthly 

free weekends in summer should be implemented 

• 1. Recyclables make it to the recycling agent 2. Taking up too much land for the landfill 3. Things 

that can be broken down for parts are 

• 1. The size of the landfill. 2. Future development. 3. Too much! 

• Condo living would benefit with big metal bins, because when people move in our out, there is tons of 

garbage or recycling. The carts would be too small. 

• Where will it go once the dump is full? 

• 1. The cost of taking my waste to the direct "land-fill". 2. The ease of taking my waste to the "land-fill" 

3. No drop off for used oil. 

• 1. Heard that recycling in thrown away by collectors. 2. Not enough bins - expensive to buy and I 

believe everyone should be given recycling on wheels to encourage 3. Not clear enough guidelines 

or available knowledge 

• 1. need to recycle more items 2. need to promote recycling and organics collection in multi-family 

buildings (including educations programs) 3. need to help businesses reduce waste (e.g. restuarants, 

builders at construction sites) 

• I believe Red Deer has one of the poorest recycling systems of any city in Alberta. 

• 1. Organics in the landfill 2. Recyclables in the landfill 3. Capturing methane 

• 1. Take it or leave it is awesome. 2. Free cycle is a good idea. 

• Not enough re-use encouraged. Too many garbage cans/bags allowed per household. Need to have 

curbside pickup of food compost. (Ottawa has a good program to look at) 

• 1. Too much garbage not enough space 2. Too little things are recycled 

B20


Appendix 

• 1. plastic in landfill 2. littering of cups etc (fast food) 3. not enough yard waste pick up 

• 1. Multi-family residence having / or using Blue Boxes 2. Educating the public to what's recyclable 

3. General awareness to p.u. (pick-up) times 

• 1. Kitchen Composting 2. Plastic waste 3. Amount of bags allowed 

• 1. Putting containers in front or back 2. Do not use back yard in winter time 3. Can not shovel all the 

snow in back yard 

• Landfill is a mountain of garbage and looks ugly 

• cost 

• 1. Recycling 2. Waste management 3. Environment 

• I have been composting at home for just over a year now, but for renters or people that live in 

apartments its not very convienient at all. Less items NEED to end up in the landfill. Why not be 

leaders and reduce as much waste as possible!! I am a huge supporter of the proposed 3 bin system. 

• Amount going to landfill 

• Using the dump is too expensive and causes people to dump stuff on country roads or in private 

dumpsters. 

• 1. The toxic round-up is poorly implemented There should be collection sites in several locations 

around the city rather than making people haul them all the way out the the waste reclamation centre 

since not everyone has access to a vehicle. 2. Likewise Metal waste collection sites in several 

locations around the city. 3. More fines for unauthorized dumping in private dumpsters. 

• No curbside composting program Limited allowable Blue Box items 5 bag limit per residence (too 

high!) 

• Proper disposal of all recyclable items Convenience 

• Where does it all go? How does it break down? How can we educated all citizens? 

• Cannot recycle plastics Too difficult to compost kitchen waste etc residentially 

• Too much paper, 

• Better access and education about composting Understanding what can and cannot be recycled in 

the blue box. Limiting the amount of trash per household per week. 

• Not enough plastics recycling. Not enough support for home composting. 

• 1. amount of waste 2. lack of composting 

• Plastic Compost Quantity 

• more types of recyclable plastic 

• what more can i recycle? 

• what more can i recycle? 

• too smelly, sites limited and close to the city 

• Recycling is optional Composting us not available 

• Limited amount of voluntary drop off locations. Paying for garbage pick up yet charged by dump for 

taking your own garbage out 

• Larger bins Expanded number of plastics accepted for recycling 

• Our dumps are too close to moving water, wasksoo creek. 

• cant do a lot of plastics 

• 1. Needs more diversion 2. Food waste needs addressing 3. Bag limits needs reduction 

• 1. I would like to recycle more but the blue box is too small. 2. I don't like that the Garbage Guys just 

throw the cans where ever when they are done dumping them. 

• 1. Lack of people who recycle 2. Tons of waste to landfill 

• 1. Amount of recyclables & compostable garbage 2. Info regarding facilities 

B21


Appendix 

• 1. We need to hire a recycle company that takes all plastic & not just #2. Two thirds of my garbage is 

recyclable things that this company doesn't take (especially clear hard plastic that holds fresh fruit). 

2. Lack of enforcement in construction areas. Their cardboard & plastic blows all over. 3. Landfill 

must remain open enough hours for people who work during the day to access them. 

• 1. Volume allowed from each household - 5 bags a bit much 2. Costs of managing waste - for city & 

households 

• 1. Limited recycling options. 2. Lack of enforcement of clean construction sites in new development 

areas (construction garbage blows everywhere) 3. Odor from landfill reaches nearby 

neighbourhoods. 

• 1. Pollution 2. Waste blowing in neighbourhood 

• 1. Recycling bins are currently too small, they don't hold much & they also get stolen. 2. Preserve our 

Community & our environment. 3. Keep it covered on your property - too much 'fly away' garbage & 

recycling. 

• White plastic bags. 

• Landfills, vermin 

• Recycling is difficult Recycling is difficult Recycling is difficult 

• Free blue box. 

• Would like to be able to recycle more kinds of plastics. Blue boxes are too small resulting in items 

blowing away before they picked up or out of truck as they are being loaded. Recycling of Styrofoam. 

• Lack of landfil space. Cost of burying waste A very small amount of material is allowed to be 

recycled compared to, say, The City of Calgary. 

• Cost of the new bins,People will put stuff in the wrong new bins,More education with what should be 

put in the blue box 

• This new program that's come up suddenly re being required to buy new containers for garbage. This 

is nonsense. Utility bills just went up now you're hitting us with this?? If the city wants to do this they 

can pay for new containers. 

• covered garbages to reduce mess in alleys Incentive for homeowners to compost..i bought a 

composter from another community for 1/2 the cost of Red Deers 

• That despite a very good recycling program, people still choose not to utilize blue box and yard waste 

pick up For those that do recycle, The inability to recycle plastics other than #2 plastics. 

Neighbors who have a ridiculous volume of waste putting their garbage bags by ours. We have a 

household of 5 and most weeks have only 1 bag they frequently add to ours as to not exceed the bag 

limit. 

• You may run out of room and have to expand your facility sometime in the future at a very inflated 

price. The cost of pick-up may become excessive. The Environment Dept. of the Prov. Govt. may at 

sometime put restrictions and regulations on the disposal site that may require added costs. 

• I went to the red deer 'DUMP' for the first time this summer. I was very impressed with the 

organization and sorting techniques in use 

• too much recyclable material goes to the landfill 

• Wasting good farm land for fill sites Control of litter Toxic disposal 

• Not enough plastic recycling Not enough organic recycling More efficient pick up for recycling, use 

less gas ( every other week pick up for clean dry recycling) 

• Should never be limits to blue box amounts. All plastics should be recycled. We should have a 

"brown" box to recycle fruits and veggies for weekly pickup. 

• recycling yard waste hazardous materials 

• WAY TOO FEW people recycling (plastics, paper, etc). Many just seem too lazy to bother. People 

not using yard waste pick up when they should. People being sloppy with their garbage, making the 

neighborhood messy and making the garbage men's job tougher. 

B22


Appendix 

• The amount of construction waste NOT re-cycled. The amount of cardboard and paper NOT recycled. 

The lack of opportunities to utilize removed and waste materials/resources from renovation 

and construction sites AND the city's "state of the art" WMSite. 

• Blue bins to small - so less recycling, Garbage ends up all over the yeards, so more of a chance 

someone will not recycle 

• Stay clear of the Calgary blue, green and black box inititives Ensure dumping is enforced Limit 

amount of garbage stored in alleys and never picked up because it may not be acceptable 

• Legacy impact, cost of services, recycling initiatives 

• Excess packaging on consumer goods Styrofoam lack of standardized waste containers 

• people should be limited to the amount of garbage put out on a weekly basis. Garbage pickup should 

be every 2nd week. Three trucks in summer months, waste, recycle and yard waste is a huge waste 

of taxpayers money and great massive pollution. 

• Recyclable materials must be thrown in the trash because they are not collected (i.e., all of the other 

plastics except #2, plastic bags, tin foil, styrofoam, food waste). There aren't any recycle dump 

locations in town other than one bin for cardboard - multi family locations produce a large amount of 

recyclable waste but it goes to the dump because they don't have receptacles at their apartment 

location). Businesses produce large amounts of trash and should be recycling as well. 

• Recycle more plastics Should have garbage carts 

• Animals ripping open garbage bags Messy back alley Bigger blue bo 

• Being able to recycle all plastics Having enclosed and larger recycle containers to prevent materials 

from blowing around the neighbourhood To be able to recycle more types of materials 

• Proper garbage disposal, sorting of trash, recycling 

• not enough recyclabe choices--eg in plastic containers household composting needs to be initiated-- 

look at Calgary 

• Toxic Too much unnecessary waste Not enough enforcement and penalty for not following regs Not 

progressive or cutting edge enough Not progressive enough 

• Lack of recycling Animals can eat through bags 

• being greeer counputers and BINENS going to scools ina reed deer creener witers and no dumping 

revers in red deer AB and bing sarer to rentiels and aprmets in red deer and to go to the doun towin 

need to be creen up and grbeg need to not to be tamperd wiffe thay need to be look at for the tree R 

R R ni red deer AB we all can do are part in red deer AB 

• types of plastic that can be recycled, amount of waste that can be put out, and yard waste 

• Amount of waste Blowing garbage and recycables Cost of management 

• The landfill is getting too big There is too much greenhouse gas People need education 

• poor recycling compared to places like Lacombe county. Rural recycling access is poor! 

• Inadequate recycling facilities Lack of involvement for households and commercial through the city 

Low visibility 

• Need organics collection 

• Composting, recycling, amounts 

• I would like to see a wet/dry program for garbage collection, and more encouragement for citizens to 

compost. 

• I only have one concern about the waste management in Red Deer. The 5 bag per house per week 

limit is way too high. No one should be putting out that much garbage when the city has a recycling 

program. I think the bag limit should be 2 per week, and even further reduced down to 1 if the city 

implemented an incredibly comprehensive recycling program, like compost (food waste) pick-up, 

glass pick-up, and accepting all forms of plastics (especially plastic shopping bags). I don't support a 

major tax or fee hike for these services. A small increase would be acceptable but I think the city 

B23


Appendix 

wastes a lot of the funds it receives and needs to re-evaluate where they spend the money (like not 

on stupid things like bike lanes) 

• more types (other than #2) plastic be recycled 

• Introduce a scrap salvage day for people to recover (metals/electronics) from the waste management 

site (charged same rate as drop off) waste-to-energy initiative (ie. Burnaby, BC WTEF) Introduce a 

method to reduce a method to reduce the actual volume of the garbage on site before going into the 

landfill ( grinding/separation to recover recover recyclable materials) 

• Environmental concerns Recycling Food Waste 

• Lack of recycling options for plastics Compostable waste is not being diverted from the landfill The 

city does not provide near enough garbage cans outside of the downtown for people to use to 

dispose of garbage 

• Need assistance for older and disabled residents whose mobility or strength may limit their ability to 

deal with waste disposal at the dump or in the alleys and curbside 

• Inability to recycle most items (so old-fashioned) Inability to do compost Concern about what is done 

with solid waste from wastewater 

• Styrofoam recycling, amount of recyclable waste going to the landfill, no organic recycling (compost) 

• 1. Be able to recycle more varieties of materials such as #1 & #5 type plastics. 2. Limit the amount 

of waste per household, such as implementing a system similar to Ontario's (stickers on waste bags). 

3. Easier access to Yard Waste stickers in spring. 

• That things that can be recycled are actually being thrown in the garbage. We need easier ways to 

recycle things like food, different plastics and aluminium. Not enough places to recycle things around 

town so a lot of bottles etc are thrown away. 

• Volume Toxicity Public ignorance 

• The smell, location as red deer is rapidly growing, and management 

• Recycling plastics Organic waste in landfill 

• That we do not recycle more plastics That we pay to have garbage collection on stat holidays 

• I feel that we need to have the capacity to recycle abundantly more than we are able to at this point in 

order to give us a better future. I believe we need to have our community better educated about and 

encouraged to compost and recycle. I am concerned about the amount of chemical/toxic waste going 

into our community. 

• - items that could be recycled are not accepted here - availability of composting program 

• Heavy metals, metals & organics 

• ugly. 

• Education required for composting, recycling and garbage picked up every second week with 

stronger limits. 

• It costs too much to take garbage to the landfill. It should be free or low cost. A high cost encourages 

people to litter illegally dump. the city is triple charging for garbage. Once on our taxes on our monthly 

bill and again when we take things to the dump. The city should have a charge per bag to have 

garbage picked up. No charge on the monthly bill and perhaps a dollar or two for bag pick up. This 

would truly encourage a reduction in waste. 

• 1. only able to recycle #2 plastics 2. (5) bag limit REALLY you offer curbside recycling, should be 

MAX (2) 3. cardboard should NOT be allowed in the landfill, it is a recyclable product! 

• 1-Selecting the materials disposal alternative 2-Cost 3-Pickup frequency 

• Multi family units Do Not recycle 

• No recycle bins at apartments (Bennett Street comes to mind) so have to throw out tins, papers, 

plastics into the garbage! Only one of the below opinions relate to the apartment/condo buildings. 

B24


Appendix 

• Waste dumped without being ground up takes a lot more space, It degrades more slowly. The waste 

to energy plans have spawned unreliable investors. There is too much mixed stuff going into the 

large collector bins inside the gates at the regular dumping site from vehicles. 

• Cost. Cost. Personal cost. 

• There is not enough electronic, cardboard, etc recycling drop offs. If we do have one I think many 

people do not know about it as I have no idea where there is one. It would reduce the amount of stuff 

in the landfill if we could recycle it. 

• Air Quality,Land waste,Polution 

• I think more effort should be made in the following areas: 1) exploring more items that can be placed 

in the "blue box" ie: other plastics, plastic bags, clam shells (that fruit/berries comes in, etc. 2) 

reducing number of bags per household dwelling 3) more education on composting, I'm one of the 

participants that has taken part in RD composting program. I find it a bit challenging but city staff 

have been VERY helpful. I found I have become more aware of composting/reducing waste/garbage 

etc. Perhaps more of this could e done, I would be willing to learn more about this area. 

• waste at city administration!!! waste of money on bike lanes and residential snow plow. 

• recycle - not enough things taken grass clippings/leaves - final day is too soon charges for taking 

your own garbage to the dump 

• Garbage bag limit way too high Limited recycling (not as good as Calgary/Airdrie, etc.) Lack of 

detailed recycling info for the public (not enough public education about recycling) 

• the garbage that goes past the dump and is dumped along the county roads and in farmers fields 

• That it does not cost me more money. That you stop doing stupid thing and getting $50,000 fines. 

That Red Deer does not have compost pick up. 

• cost, location, &disposable 

• Plastic bottles, food waste 

• Loose garbage on pickup days What becomes of the present landfill sites if program is 

implemented? Will implementation cost the ordinary citizen more for this proposed program? 

• We need to recycle glass.I understand we don't 

• Cost of landfill, cost to haul garbage, excessive packaging on consumer products 

• kinds of waste, amounts, and contamination. 

• 1 - there seems to be no method to dispose of large items, mattresses, furniture etc. 2 - there are 

conflicting methods of disposing of recyclable cooking and similar oils. 

• I can't recycle all of my plastic 

• THE LACK OF RECYClING DONE AT THE FACILITY, although residents are recycling (it gets left in 

a heap on the hill waiting for burial-have witnessed this several times!). The lack of items available 

to recycle-coded items (caps, bottles, lids, styrofoam, etc). We have to pay to take dirt, grass 

clippings, metal free wood, as a few examples. These items are all composting items, benefits to the 

landfill. 

• 1. Not enough recycling, it needs to be easier for the consumer. 2. Not enough composting 3. 

People who are sentenced community service should be doing city clean-up, commercial areas 

should have more restrictions to keep their businesses cleaner. 

• - the lack of recylcling capacity - the lack of recycling 'sorting' - the lack of easily accessible- regular 

hazardous waste collection (batteries, oil, other toxic household waste) 

• - Amount of waste produced. - Limited plastic recycling - Would like to see compostables picked up 

at the curb 

• 1. We can't recycle enough plastics 2. We can't recycle motor oil containers or batteries without 

making a special trip 3. No easy way for non-composters to recycle organic waste 

• My wasted time at poorly timed traffic lights My wasted time traveling in new single driving lanes 

during rush hour because of recently installed bike lanes My wasted time doing this survey 

B25


Appendix 

• 1. the small amount of items that the city accepts for recycling. 

• The fact that people still don't get what goes in the blue box. Only number 2 plastics. The amount of 

garbage people put out. 2 bag limit and you wouldn't have to worry about being a leader in 

sustainable waste. On number 5 I am concerned about cost as it is already high. I don't want any 

system that is going to cost more per month.The wheeled carts in Lacombe are left out and rolling all 

over. I don't know which way is cleaner in the end as you are dealing with humans and they don't 

seem to be getting any brighter. Every spring I take a bag and clean the alley and the next week it 

looks the same. No one looks over there fence. Don't add food waste as the majority of people can't 

figure out what goes in the blue box.That will attract vermin and smell. The special interest groups will 

say they want it but if they want to compost anything but grass do it in their own yards or feed it to 

their chickens. Again take a walk in your alley on garbage day and have a look. It is the so called 

educated that really don't know. Salad containers, wrappers from meat, egg cartons, the Styrofoam 

from their many purchases, I could go on and on. The city wouldn't have a waste management 

problem if people didn't have a shopping problem 

• That a minimal amount of our plastics can be recycled here. 

• curb side composting should be a priority year round electronic and battery disposal 

• Depending on cost per bin, I'm not sure I agree with statement. 

• Increase in recycle items, 

• Can't recycle enough items 

• Recycling more plastic, easier/closer drop offs for household chemical waste, reducing litter 

• People not recycling and dumping their household trash in our apartment dumpsters filling them to 

the brim with things that could be recycled. 

• lack of recycling open containers that allow garbage and recycling to blow around the neighbourhood 

• Not enough people recycling, more needs to be done in elementary schools to get kids to realize 

how important it is. Not sure what to do with some things - old shampoos, etc 

• That all that CAN be recycled effectively IS being recycled. And that there are clear statements about 

what is to be recycled and how/where that can happen. That there is easier access to certain 

hazardous residential waste-IE: fluorescent bulbs, batteries, computers/parts. 

• When it's windy & the paper recycling gets blown all over the place. If there was enclosed 

bins....problem solved....well most of the time anyway. 

• 1. That we are still consuming vast amounts of non-recyclable, non-resuable plastics, especially in 

packaging. I feel this should be a shared responsibility with manufacturers and retailers who sell 

these products. Would like to see diversion of as much compostable organic waste away from the 

landfill as possible. Would like to see emphasis on Refuse, Reuse, Reclaim, Reduce and not always 

think that Recycle is the answer. 

• Lack of vision from City employees / leadership Recycling program focused on how to make money 

rather than finding efficient solutions that we could afford Time frame for chance is too long. With a 

clear vision and the proper communication staff we can move much faster. 

• 1 Too much commercial/construction waste. 2 Not easy enough access to e-waste and toxic 

chemical waste disposal areas for those without vehicles. 3. Used oil not accepted at toxic waste 

dump. 

• not everyone is recycling the amount of waste from retail establishments that ends up in the landfillcould 

be recycled more composting 

• costs to the taxpayer costs of pickup costs, we are on a fixed income and you do NOTHING but 

raise the costs 

• how many garbage cans i go thru due to there carlessness and confussion over what can be recyled 

• price at landfill hours of operation at landfill paint and chemical waste 

B26


Appendix 

• 1 that residents are not recycling enough, they don't use their blue boxes to full extent 2 composting 

pick up for multi family homes and businesses 3 need more yard waste pick up, twice a week in 

summer? 

• Only #2 plastics are being recycled no composting 

• 1. Amount of organic waste entering the landfill. Specifically, kitchen waste. 2. Low rate of recycling 

and diversion from commercial sources. 3. Limited plastic recycling in the blue box program. 

• Our enviroment 

• Access to dump Costs associated with refuse 

• The amount of garbage put out by some residents. Free roaming dogs that scatter garbage. Not 

enough residents are recycling 

• We do not recycle the vast majority of recyclables ( currently #2 only) There are insufficient garbage 

and recycling bins throughout the city for individuals discard their items when on food or bicycle. 

Specifically the shopping areas. Restaurants and businesses do not compost, nor seperate 

recycling ( cardboard). I am familiar with most restaurants in town. They need to do better 

• Things that are recyclable or toxic are being put into landfill Too much littering! Littering causes 

pollution! There should be fines for people caught littering! 

• The sheer amount of it lying around on the ground. In other words, LITTER. I pick up garbage 

almost every day because I walk to work, and the majority of what I pick up is drink cups from fast 

food places. I would like to see a special tax to all commercial establishments that allow take-out in 

individual portions, and that money go specifically toward litter pickup. I would also like to see 

individuals serving community service be used for this purpose - this should not be dictated by AUPE 

or any other union. 

• 1. cost 2. knowledge of the city and programs to help reduce waste (compost, reclying programs, 

and where to dispose of other waste) 3. why red deer does not recylce to the fullest 

• Supply big garbage and recycling bins. The recycling bins are to small for the amount we consume 

and recycle these days. The small bins are causing people to throw recycleables in the garbage once 

the blue bin is full. And for #11. If I have 5 bags of garbage I have to dispose of and the limits 

changes to 3, I'm still going to throw the same bags out the next week. It all has to be disposed of no 

matter what 

• I do not have concerns about our current way of garbage collection I am concerned about the 

changes council wants to make I believe it will be too much too soon for most people 

• recycling composting hazardous waste 

• Not enough recycling. No household waste program Should be initiative to recycle. 

• Enforcement of bag limits, expanded recycling, move away from blue box to blue bag 

• Too much garbage, not enough recycling. We need bigger reclying containers. Somewhere that 

businesses can take recylcing 

• People who still do not recycle Composting for each residence Businesses that do not have 

recycling (cardboard) containers 

• Wasting money on bike lanes 

• I would like to see the bins for roadside collection, like medicine hat has. 

• If the recycle box would take more of a variety of recyclable items - for eg. Toasters , batteries , 

electronics , etc 

• Cost to the homeowner, which are already too high. Follow lead developed by other major centres, no 

need to re-invent the wheel costing tons of money. 

• The terrible smell that wafts over to Inglewood, Vanier, Deerpark and Anders area in the summer and 

the lack consistancy of the in the time they come to pick up our garbage, and the cost for dunp fees 

whether going to the landfill or on our monthly city bill 

B27


Appendix 

• 1. Too many recyclables are sent to the landfill. 2. More types of plastics need to be included in 

allowed recycling in Red Deer. 3. more awareness is needed for what is accepted in recycling. Not 

just a once a year notice with the bill. possible e-mail reminders, or a facebook page that has regular 

postings of whats acceptable. We need to reach all generations. 

• To much over flowing no where to put it 

• Lack of accepted recycled materials. Lack of methane collection or other methods of turning waste 

into fuel like larger citys utilize. 

• only yard and food waste, the need of composters, like the City of Calgary, perhaps Red Deer could 

sell composters at a discounted price to City residents 

• Allow residents to recycle ALL numbers of recycling. Do not limit on what we can recycle. Also, allow 

drop off point for styrofoam recycling. 

• People that don't recycle People with 5 bags of garbage a week Amount of litter 

• Too much waste going to landfill Not enough incentive for recycling Not being able to put enough 

things in blue box (such limited items allowed to be taken) 

• More plastic recycling. Most plastics from household garbage cannot go in recycling 

• More plastic accepted, food waste accepted, less garbage bags 

• Our recycling is not varied enough. Garbage carts are only great if recycling options are available 

which right now they are not 

• plastic, food waste 

• Two major concerns: the lack of possibility for recycling anything other than HDPE plastics and the 

fact that one has to pay to get compost from the waste facility when we already pay for the removal of 

garden waste. 

• Amount of items we cannot recycle (#1 plastics) 

• Limits and pick up times 

• The service- our garbage man does not care AT ALL and there is more garbage after he leaves on 

the ground then when it got put out. The smell Where are we going to start another dump? 

• Limits to what is able to be recycled Yard waste 

• not enough recycling dangerous materials cost 

• recycle program needs to allow for more items to be recycled, especially other plastic products 

besides #2 charge people that do not recycle, composting needs to be done by more people 

• Too much garbage Unable to recycle anything but #2 plastics Should be utilizing food wastes for 

composting 

• Recycle bins are too small and recycling bags would be much more convenient with these comments 

in mind there is unnecessary waste going to the landfill from our home. 

• I'd like to see: 1. Pickup for organics for composting 2. Accept more types of plastic for recycling 

3. Reduced limit of allowed number of garbage bags. 

• Need a more extensive recycling program in regards to kitchen waste...plastics. Would like to see 

more kitchen waste composting. 

• we should have compost removal, better recycling options in apt buildings 

• Some ppl just just don't care what goes into their garbage at home. 

• Toxic waste benefits vs costs Time involvement 

• containment recycling drop off areas cost 

• separate containers for compostable food waste take more plastic items in recycle more household 

friendly hours at the dump 

• toxic waste in landfill, disposal of electronics and recycling 

B28


Appendix 

• The blue boxes are way too small, I find we are probably throwing out way more than we need to and 

if we were to have the bigger recycling bins a lot of other cities now have, we could reduce this waste 

big time. 

• lack of recycling programs provided to muti family residents. lack of public garbage containers (think 

more people would clean up after dogs if there was garbages to place it in. multi amily compost bins. 

battery recycling options like the school are doing. 

• In order to reduce waste we need to increase what we are able to recycle. Perhaps a compost pick 

up as well 

• the main concern I have is that we don't compost. that would solve a lot of waste concerns. Second, 

there are a lot of multi family units in Red Deer with not a lot in place to welcome recycling rather than 

just throwing away. 

• Smell, Ground contamination, Pickup costs 

• not enough plastic recycling RD needs to supply/sell composting bins not enough plastic recycling 

• We should recycle more! 

• More plastics need to be recycled, code 2 is not enough. Community compost bins would help. 

There should be a fine if you go over your bag limit. 

• 1. Too much food waste being put in the dump attacting wild birds/life 2. 

• Collecting green waste, including from multi-family Build an energy from waste facility - stop 

landfilling Reduce packaging as source control 

• Commercial packaging - this can't be controlled by the public though. Compost - in this climate, it is 

hard for residential composting year round. Maybe once the composter is established it may be 

easier but a new composter doesn't work well in the winter. Limitations on # of bags. 

• We are not recycling enough of the garbage Separating wet from dry in house holds 

• I would like to see a wider range of plastics that can be recycled. So many containers that I buy food 

in cannot be recycled, so it would be great if I could put them in the blue bin rather than the landfill. A 

composting program would also be really valuable, since composting in an apartment is difficult, but 

my waste is largely compostable. 

• Poor recycling - only #2 plastics. Lack of compost - pick up. # of garbage bags per week only 

enforced in houses not apartments or condos. 

• Litter, not enough community garbage cans in neighbourhoods, improved recycling 

• Most people have WAY too much garbage. I have a family of 5 and never have more than 1 bag and 

a blue box. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's excesses. 

• I would like more plastics/glass to be recycable 

• My main concern is that our current recycling program limits the plastic products that can be recycled. 

We need to open it up to all recyclable plastics instead of just number 2! 

• Magpies, foxes and other pests ripping the bags open even when the garbage is put out on garbage 

day 

• Long term sustainability Cost Impact to neighboring areas 

• 1. Ensure optimum planning and follow-up 2. Waste reduction/reuse initiatives implemented 

3. Waste disposal site utilized for energy recovery 4. minimized overall detrimental environmental 

impacts 

• Commercial Reduce rates for residents bringing materials to the landfill The more expensive the 

landfill fees the more we have people using other's dumpsters and county ditches as dumps. Bag 

limits are punishing larger families instead of going after those abusing the system. Don't change the 

rules for everyone because you have a problem with a few! 

• That the CRD does not accept many plastics for recycling. That the city does not officially recognize 

the potential for urban hens to reduce household food waste. That the city does not enable year- 

B29


Appendix 

round compostable waste collection (yard waste, kitchen waste for those who cannot keep hens due 

to apartment living, etc). 

• We have such a small list of items that can to in our blue box. The city of Calgary for instance takes 

plastics #1 - 7. As well as many other items. Our list is very small. 

B30


Appendix 

Appendix C: Full list of comments to Question 13, Residential Survey 

Do you have additional comments or suggestions you would like to share about the waste 

management system in Red Deer? 

• In Amsterdam, Netherlands, they have underground collection sites in neighbourhoods. Reduces 

amount of stops for trucks and numerous unsightly bins on the streets. 

• repeated truck trips to residence is completely inefficient smaller routes with a single stop at each 

residence would reduce the greenhouse gas emmisions from contractor vehicles. 

• The ideas above in questions 8-12 exactly address my concerns.Thx! 

• Whether I support an idea or not largely depends on how much it is going to cost me. I've already 

purchased a larger blue cart for recyclables, I don't want to have to pay again for another one. I've 

never put 5 bags of garbage out, to me that seems excessive. 3 is fine, does the size of bag count? 

Ultimately, the cost to the residents of Red Deer is what will determine the success and support of 

any decisions that are made. It's hard enough to balance my budget in this city, it's expensive to live 

here. 

• Are there drop off stations for cardboard or other recycling? 

• This is already in place in BC and it works wonderfully and greatly reduces the garbage. 

• limit on bags should be subject to additional recycling opportunities 

• big cardboard boxes are too hard to crush down to fit in the new carts. Like to be able to stack my 

cardboard on curb without spending time trying to crush it down and flatten, when i shop weekly at 

costco i have 3 or 4 huge boxes that are too tough to try cutting down, end up with a cut hand trying 

to flatten. the truck crushes them down anyways 

• I think I have already pointed out my reasons for staying with our present system and I am confident 

that I speak for hundreds of others, maybe thousands. Please reconsider! 

• We need in Red Deer a hazardous collection. Many people cannot get to the dump. Non-drivers, 

elderly, etc. need a more convenient way. 

• I strongly disagree with laying off workers to charge us more and provide us less service. We are 

already overcharged. 

• Doing great! Keep going forward! 

• Larger is better. 

• None at the moment except on the front of the page. 

• I think reducing the 5 garbage bags to 3 garbage bags per household is a huge amount of reduction 

for our city. 

• Bigger handles for carts - disabled people like me find the small grooves tough 

• PLEASE LETS DO THIS 

• So excited about this! Composting is the best. 

• You should get the Red Deer College theatre to produce a YouTube on sorting / recycling in the Red 

Deer facility. Make it entertaining. 

• We are concerned about the increased cost. We are seniors on pension. 

• Excellent initiative. But, education is key. First encourage Reduce (Refuse), then reuse, and as final 

Recycle. comment to Q14: "Get companies & corporations to help spread the words" 

• It seems like you are on the right track - I just hope it doesn't take too long to implement these 

positive changes! :) 

• comment to Q10: "but at what cost" 

• Recycle bins everywhere, for free in the downtown area especially. 

C1


Appendix 

• Need better recycling for future keep green 

• Please change it! =) 

• Way to use new technology! I'd make a bylaw to make composting & recycling mandatory. 

• I think your move towards the new system will be a huge improvement for the city! good luck! 

• I am glad that there are recycling stations around the city for those who do not have recycling pick up 

in their buildings but am so glad plans are being made to expand the whole recycling program to 

include more plastics and have bins in apartments. Great job. 

• Wow...you have done well! Thank you!! I put out the equivalent of 2 safeway bags each week plus 

blue box. I Holland they collect wet garbage one week and recyclables/dry on alternate weeks. What 

should we do with pet waste..I have 3 cats?? 

• This is looking great! 

• Really like the yard waste program, except when they don't pick it up. Better pick up program or 

where to put yard waste? 

• If you limit the bags to less than 5 people will do exactly what they do now when they have more than 

5 which is to throw the extra bags into other peoples containers. I am not actually against the new 

carts but see a flaw. If you charge different prices for different sizes of carts, what is to stop people 

from putting their excess in someone else's cart? 

• I participated in the 2012 compost program, It was great. Nice work City! 

• We have a place in Pender Island, BC and it has the best recycling depot ever. The link for the site is 

http://www.penderislandrecycling.com/ . It is a drop off recycling depot but they have made it an 

inviting, funky place to go and also meet your neighbors. The place makes you want to recycle. If Red 

Deer could implement something of this nature I think it could put a positive spin on recycling. 

Everytime we go to this recycle depot we say "Red Deer needs this." If you need any further 

information please feel free to email me at [on file] I would love to see something like this in our 

community. 

• Lots of education is going to be required for people to get it. User pay. Reduce to 2 bags per 

household 

• Five garbage bags is too many. We put out one, maybe two a week. However, if at the odd time we 

put out more, I wouldn't want to be penalzed for it. Also, we've had a number occasions that the 

waste management company commissioned by the city has missed picking up our garbage, 

recycling, and yard waste. They seem to waste a lot of time and energy by having only one person in 

the truck. The drive down the lane one way, turn around, and then come back the other. Doesn't it 

take twice as long, and use twice as much fuel to do it this way? 

• 1) Why is every so called change made by to city mayor and minions always cost the taxpayer more 

money. The recycled items should return a savings to the taxpayer. NOT CONTINUING 

INCREASES ON EVERY ITEM THE TAXPAYER MUST ENDURE IN THIS CITY. THIS CITY FAILS 

TO REALIZE THAT TAXPAYERS ARE NOT A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF MONEY. I, and countless 

other taxpayers in this city have no respect for ideas put forth by this mayor or councillors. The 

exception of Frank Wong, Buck Bucanhan, Stephan, that try to work for the city not their on special 

interests. Waste Mangement, Manage the the taxpayers monies like it was the mayor own and 

councillors own money for a changes. 

• It would be nice to be able to remove recyclable material (e.g., wood) from waste treatment facility. 

comment to Q7: "at what cost?" 

• I would like to see "Kick it to the curb" at least 6 times a year. May, June, July, Aug, Sept, Oct. If I'm 

going to give something away why should I use my gas. It must be taken back from the curb by 

nightfall so punks don't get at it. comment to Q7: in Regina we had this but were not charged extra 

comment to Q14: direct mail - with my bill. I don't listen to radio or get the paper. I don't know what 

social media is & I don't use a computer or smart phone. 

• People could have their own compost for gardening. 

• Is there provision for upgrading or downsizing size of carts if situation changes? 

C2


Appendix 

• consider a different method of charging at the landfill. Volume vs weight. 

• If you lower the number of allowable bags or charge differentially for bins then people will start 

dumping at their neighbours, at multifamily residences etc. This is a very obvious consequence. Give 

your head a shake. 

• Extend the number of days for the free yard waste drop off to better accommodate people. (a month 

in the spring and month in the fall) 

• I do not see that it is fair to charge or limit garbage. If I have a large family I am being peanilized over 

choosing to be a single person in a house. I completely disagree with this as a tactic to limit garbage. 

It is not the fault of the household that most of the stuff in the garbage can be recycled in other areas. 

Fix the recycling program and your garbage will be reduced. 

• City of Red Deer should be and should be seen to be demonstrating a commitment to the principles 

of waste reduction via an integrated recycling program within their own buildings/facilities and offices. 

If The City isn't changing it's own practices, but asking citizens to, credibility and ethics are at stake. 

• What happens if someone steals my bins that I paid for and have no way of protecting. What 

happens if someone leaves their garbage with mine because they've exceeded their limit? What 

happens if they just toss their garbage on city owned land or streets (litter?). 

• Below you give options for larger containers but at what increase in cost???? Use less pay less, but 

the starting costs are still more than we pay now for the system we have. Of course people will agree 

in the survey but you have to put it in monetary terms, sure it's a great idea but I am already 

struggling financially with the city bill and I do not want to pay more no matter how sophisticated the 

system or if it wins Council any ridiculous awards like the Bike lane fiasco. There are things that need 

more attention in this city than waste management. 

• Please increase our ability as a city to recycle. Look to what Edmonton is doing. They are a leader in 

this field. 

• We need to look at city's Like Edmonton Canmore and Calgary. What do some of the cities in bc do 

for recycling programs? 

• We need to get on this! 

• It's about time! 

• The bins you are suggesting would be difficult to manage. I would not wish to try to negotiate such a 

bin and as I already compost do not wish to have a bin for compost. The current blue box is light and 

easy to store. I have no place to store three bins such as you are suggesting. They would soon be 

lost and/or damaged when left in the alley. 

• I compost all kitchen waste, mow and rake my leaves and allow them to become mulch and break 

down every season and do not collect grass trimmings. I do not want to be charged for composting 

when I already do this. I see how this is a very valuable thing to do for other folks that do not share 

my enthusiasm. Are we going to have to pay 'sorters' to pick out bags, chicken bones etc in the 

compost? I dont really want to have a new plastic box or bin to replace my existing plastic bin. I 

bought a metal garbage can with the intent of not buying a plastic one. I love the ideas the EMP puts 

forth but have reservations about more plastic to replace the plastic and do what with the plastic we 

are making obsolete. I dont like the idea of retro fitting everyone in Red Deer with new plastic. 

91 000 plastic garbage bins and recycle boxes and bag stands into the landfill just sounds wrong too. 

Not to mention the retrofitting for the garbage trucks x fleet of 15 or however many. I put out 1 

shopping bag size a week and my neighbor puts out 7 does it even out across the board or am I the 

oddity? Edmontons blue bag is good in theory too but buying blue bags makes more plastic. I have 

family in Edmonton and take my plastic fruit and veg container recycling there. ha ha. sorry for the 

rant. you guys are smart..make it right eh? 

• It is to easy to throw "stuff" away. 

• I'm concerned about making people pay for their garbage bins. Does it encourage recycling to force 

poorer families to suffer hardship because they need to pay a lot to opt out? I don't like when 

government forces compliance by hitting peoples' pocketbooks. The poor usually suffer. 

C3


Appendix 

• You seem to increase the cost so frequently. As a senior, I find this a real problem. 

• I would really like to see more items to be recycled - eg. plastics, that are more than number 2. What 

about tin foil too? 

• Charging more for additional garbage or reducing the number of bag limit will encourage people to 

either leave extra garbage at the neighbours in the ditches or in parks garbages. 

• More thought about the multi family, there's not enough labeling on the bins so no one knows what to 

put in any of the bins, if they are provided at all. Everyone should have a hand out or something 

reminding them what can be recycled. Also the cans and things that are supposed to be rinsed and 

clean before putting in the bin shouldn't have to be rinsed and clean because its another reason for 

someone not to recycle that particular item. I often throw out a can rather than recycle it because I 

don't have time to rinse it and I live recycling 

• Amount of garbage generated depends on size of family or number of residents in the household. 

Seniors who have a fixed income may be forced to pay for garbage bins that they would never fill. 

• size of container and lack of protection from elements 

• nope! 

• i think that it is about time Red Deer deals with this issues. I am very concerned about the amount of 

wast this city puts out. i also think presure should be put on stores in red deer to reduce the amount 

of packaging that comes with items, this will help further reduce waste 

• Forcing households to reduce their waste from 5 bags down to 3 or less would be tough. I think 4 

would be a better number, and that by expanding recycling capabilities you would see a decrease 

anyways. I am absolutely against paying for the bin size. I would rather pay for the actual amount of 

trash I set out than the size of the container. I think since commercial garbage accounts for almost 

2/3 of the waste, a much greater focus should be spent on their waste, and not scrutinizing residential 

waste. Yes there is room for improvement but reducing bags to 3 or less seems a bit drastic to me. It 

should also be noted that the website address given in some City of Red Deer advertisements to this 

survey was a dead link due to a typo. 

• if the city were to implement the automated p/up system I would like to it be the smalled container of 

the 3 once a week per household & if a family needs more work w/ a neighbor or pay at the facility to 

drop it off. this would help the blue box & organics program. 

• Same as above. Why Wait. Do it NOW as most of your back lanes in Red Deer looks like pig pens. 

My 2 cents. 

• Yes. Doing a great job. 

• More labels on bins at the dump, etc. TIN - GLASS, CARDBOARD 

• Size of container for single family [???] - no extra space for storage 

• if implemented it becomes a household requirement 

• Expansion of the types of materials to recycle is the direction that I wish the city to pursue. 

• If your garbage men CONTINUE to smash and damage my aluminum garbage cans there is going to 

be trouble. 

• Please call me [on file]. I want to be involved in this. 

• Looking forward to the bin project. 

• We moved from Calgary and loved the bins!! 

• With European background and experience in the way waste is managed, a lot can be learned by 

researching their methods. Focus group sessions to gain ideas and community engagement. 

• This needs to be done fast! We are behind! 

• Needs to be put in place ASAP!! 

• I have no problem with the way our garbage is done now. -- Several questions I didn't answer 

because until I have an idea what we will be charged (approx) for those bins. The amount now, that is 

what I now pay, is stretching my budget. 

C4


Appendix 

• Possible Sircharge for not recycling(Fines) 

• What would be considered 1 bag? Currently we use smaller bags that fit in the garbage can under our 

kitchen sink. Obviously this is smaller than a large black bag. However, it is wasteful to put smaller 

plastic bags into a bigger bag just to lower the number of bags being charged for. Also, is there 

actually a market for other plastics? There is no point in collecting plastics other than #2 if there is no 

facility or demand for them to be recycled. 

• I do not think that the current blue box should be eliminated as it serves as a suitable in house 

container which could still be used to collect recyclables in the home prior to their being deposited in 

the larger blue bin. 

• If we as a city are going to charge for the bin size then as residnets become used to the program then 

we need the option to downsize bin sizes going forward. Also if we do food bins and such this city will 

stink terribly. 

• concerned about storage, theft and smell of bins 

• #10 charge for size of bin used 

• no 

• Halt excessive packaging. - milk iln glass bottles -pop in glass bottles 

• It is nice to see that Red Deer is looking ahead to see if we can manage our waste better. I'm very 

supportive of this plan 

• Cost is important and the large bins , 

• No where have I seen what the possible cost would be to the Red Deer residents if the recycle/waste 

composting program is expanded. 

• See above 

• No 

• Your survey form does not include a click to print option! 

• thank you for getting things moving with waste management! When we moved to the city 18 months 

ago I was horrified at the waste allowance and the restrictions on recycling. I am so happy to see 

change coming to this beautiful city I now call home. 

• More recycling in the parks and trail networks 

• Compost program should also include food scraps too and not just grass clippings 

• Concered about automated pickup in winter with snow and curbside windrows created when res. 

streets are plowed. Also am abivalent about reducing number of bags. We have the large bins 

shared by all in our condo and already have a lot of problems with outsiders dumping their gardbage 

in , and overloading our bins. 

• Some of the bins are quite large, I would not know where to store all of them. 

• leave it alone 

• Question 7 I chose disagree because I want to know how much more it's going to cost 

Question 11 I chose disagree because it was 3 or less. I would have chose strongly agree if the 

number was 3, not less than 3 

• I couldn't answer all questions as confidently as I would have liked, as they pertained to single-family 

dwellings, but I agree with any measures designed to reduce the amount of garbage put in landfills. 

• Location of pick-up: Back lane pick-up would not work with the large bins in winter. We are seniors 

and right now I have to shovel a path 100 feedt out to the back lane then carry my waste out there. 

The bins would be very difficult to drag in the snow. I would whole heartedly support the bins if 

picked up at curb side but not back lane. 

• We moved from NS where they recycle/compost and would embrace this program 

• My concern would be the cost of the bins as stated in question 7. I sometimes put out a lot of yard 

waste. For those occasional times that I have lots, I would need a large bin or bins. For garbage, I 

C5


Appendix 

would almost always need the smallest. I have a bin about 80 litres that I have not put out in the past 

two weeks because there is very litte in it. I recycle as much as possible and have my own compost 

bins. 

• I agree that the plan is okay. But why should the city not pay for the containers? At least the small 

ones, with the larger ones carrying a fee. Not all seniors have worked in the oil field and are 

wealthy.Some people already practice good waste management, and should not be penalized. Bins 

are too large to store inside, yet outside are readily available to steal. No need to reduce the 

allowable garbage bag limit. More recycling should automatically decrease the bags. Yet 5 bags 

allow for more bags when needed by the household. 

• Use the home show and similar events 

• My brother lived in a community that had a large garbage bin at the end of each alley and tightly 

closed. He said he never saw such a clean residential area and the reduction of animals getting and 

spreading garbage was eliminated. could this work in Red Deer? would cut cost and manpower and 

truck polution all in one. 

• Composting ridiculous !! Food wastes help the landfill breakdown. 

• Encourage more recycling 

• Put more bins around town for paper recycling 

• The rolling bins need to be able to fit through walk gates. 

• what becomes of the metal and plastic cans we now use.... 

• The most important part of the program should be striving for max recycle and collection of 100% of 

all wastes. Should not let bin size determine how much waste makes the landfill and how much 

makes the ditch! What is going to be done about the high volume of yard waste collected in the 

Spring and Fall, typically this is more than 50% of our yearly waste in only several weeks each Spring 

and Fall. 

• The guys who pick up our garbage and blue boxes in Mountview are terrific--go above and beyond in 

the 20 years I've lived here. 

• Works fine. 

• You have to keeppthe sort simple. Waste collection sites must do detail sorting. OTHERWISE you will 

get useless sorting that will increse costs or significantly reduce recoverable waste resale value. 

Make multi unit garbage disposal the problem and cost of the multi unit owner.and private collection 

companies. 

• thank you for asking. I strongly support expanding our recycling program in Red Deer. 

• Not in favour of having mandatory organic waste collection. It should be optional. It's one thing to deal 

with garbage and recycling but another entirely to have to deal with organic matter. 

• Large garbage and recycling containes, as pictures, work great for curb side pickup but are not 

realistic for alley pickup. I do not want to wheel two large, heavy bins across my yard to the alley. 

Also, curb side pick up does not work in older neighbourhoods that do not have front driveways and 

households would have to keep ugly garbage bins beside the front step. Yuck! 

• I think Red Deer is doing a fantastic job but I think we have an opportunity to better it, so let's do it!! 

• Some homes eg.Family Day homes require more bags then an ordinary home, so more bags should 

be allowed for them 

• This program will depend on the cost of the containers and new equipment. Is their a cost sharing 

system in place for low income seniors? I find now that damage to the existing containers are 

sometimes caused by employees careless handling of them. Are the new containers replaced at the 

City's expense because of this? 

• This is what Red Deer is missing, I often wondered why a city the size of Calgary can roll out this 

better program but Red Deer has what we have. Blue bins that blow the recycle everywhere, bags 

thrown at the curb for animals to dig into, we need something better! 

C6


Appendix 

• These containers would be too awkward for older people to maneuver or to get down steps. I take my 

garbage and recyclables down a flight of stairs the day before garbage day and those containers 

would be impossible. Also have on some weeks in summer at least 4 if not 5 containers of grass 

clippings ( I do not water my lawn, it is just healthy) and it would not fit in the container. I tried 

composting with no success and will not try again. I am still getting grass out of my garden 5 years 

later. I DO NOT want to pay for any more containers. Also what happens to all the ones people have 

now. They will end up in the landfill so defeats the purpose. Less fast food containers and packing 

from purchases are the main culprit. I have one bag of garbage a week if I am lucky and even when 

we were a family of 5 had no more than two. It isn't really a garbage problem it is a consumerism 

problem! I am tired of paying extra to save the planet when the ones that are so keen on saving it are 

the main culprits. I have a garden and that is where my household waste goes in summer. Maybe 

promote growing their own vegetables instead having a com poster and not using the compost as 

they don't like dirt. I have heard and seen it all and common sense is lost. 

• We normally only have a small garbage bag and about every 2-3 weeks a large one, but you need to 

make allowances for certain times of the year like Christmas. Keep the prices reasonable or the 

people with messy yards will get worse. Allow for additional yard waste in the spring/fall - this in not 

going to fit in the large proposed containers during spring/fall and the large bins are not going to be 

necessary the rest of the year. 

• Going with the cart system is fine, as long as the workers would quit throwing them around and 

breaking them. I have purchased my own blue cart and larger bins than the city provides and have 

had to replace them several times because they just get thrown after emptying and get broken. The 

waste management workers don't give a crap about our property. 

• I have no where to put compostible items eg parings 

• In our situation we are seniors. We pay strict attention to recycle as much as possible and follow 

requirements of such things as cleaning cans and stripping paper from outsides and only placing 

things that can be recycled in the blue box. I assume if everyone would do this, it should save costs 

by not having to pay a worker on a line to do this. When the collection contract is tendered, if the 

above isn't taken into account, then nothing matters. Like all budgeted city items, I think a lot of 

people need education on what we as citizens can do to help cut costs. If we had larger blue boxes, 

would recycle need weekly pick up? 

• no 

• having larger containers will make it harder to get them to the front curb, also where do we store them 

all week till we can take them to the curb. push/ pull containers will make it easier for seniors to fall. 

Most of the ones on wheels are not sturdy enough to support any weight if this should happen. If we 

all had back alley pick up, it would be less of a prblem. 

• Multi-residences need to clean up (choose of bins or cans ) More drop off for big things 

• should keep costs low 

• I think I already did. 

• The more we can recycle the less waste, provinces with less where with all are doing it.. let's step up 

and do our part. 

• My concern about lowering the bag limit or using pre sized carts is that some weeks I have no refuse 

and other weeks I have more. If averaged, I put out one bag a week, but on weeks when I do have 

more, it would be very inconvenient. So while I like the idea of the bins, I don't like that I may have too 

much on certain weeks. And, no, I would not want to pay extra for the times I do have more. 

• My son (3 years old) loves garbage day. We wave at the drivers with much joy. They are always 

cheerful, have a wave, and make his day. Great job! I also really like that the above changes are 

being considered. The ideas appear to be changes for the better. One concern I had with the 

reduction of bag limit was at certain time of the year we have more garbage like Christmas would 

there be allowances for that? 

• I need to know more about separating recyclables from other waste:are there separate sections in the 

same bin? 

C7


Appendix 

• I compost my own yard waste and kitchen waste and i dont feel I should have to pay for containers I 

will not be using. 

• I'm in a condo/apt type of situation and I want a neat and organized system for in my unit and a 

correspondingly enhanced system for pick up. 

• I used to live in Kelowna and they put this system in a few years back. 1 Small bin for garbage 

picked up weekly. 1 large bin for recyclig picked up every second week and 1 large bin for 

lawn/shrub material picked up alternating with recyle pick up. There was no choose or pilot program, 

people screamed but died down very quickly. Good system. 

• Problem: Living in townhome with garage, there appears to be no space for 3 garbage bins side to 

side for automated pick up without directly putting bins it into alley due to slant of driveway. Currently, 

3 garbage cans and recycling and composting bins sit next to the side of the garage, the only space 

available. How do you propose to deal with this? If necessary, this complication would limit us to 

using only the garbage container in largest size and we would eliminate the composting and 

recycling we currently do to accomodate automated pick up. This negates the city's efforts in my 

household to reduce waste because in fact we would be increasing it. Also, how would you deal with 

complaints from individuals when they are charged for garbage put into their bins by others who are 

trying to avoid extra charges or lack garbage cans?...... they throw their garbage into our can in the 

early morning hours to avoid dealing with the cats and a skunk tearing their bags apart on their 

property? This is a weekly occurence for us.... this is why we have three grabage cans... 2 for us and 

one for whoever does this otherwise, they just throw their bag onto our property and we have to clean 

up the cat and skunk mess. Also, it doesn't appear to me to be environmentally wise to dispose of 

such a large amount of garbage cans in our city that are still useful for a few years but will be 

disposed of or recycled prematurely by replacing them with petrochemically produced plastic 

garbage cans. 

• More "MINI Drop OFF" locations for recycling, with daily maintence. 

• no 

• If yard waste (eg: grass, leaves, etc) will not be picked up in current marked waste containers i would 

like to see free disposal at dump composting site. 

• covered recycling bins would be a great idea as we often see blue-box contents blowing down the 

alleys if they are out in bad weather. 

• no 

• As I am now a single senior, I only put out garbage every two or three weeks and blue box once per 

month. Changes usually bring increased costs and with all the other increases to taxes etc. my fixed 

budget is already stretched to the max. 

• We as seniors already pay enough for garbage collection. We support #'s 7,8,9, & 10 but do not 

support charginjg extra. We pay a fair amount of Taxes and with all the service charges on our 

utilities it is becoming harder to make ends meet. 

• There should be a system of collection of liquids, appliances, and electronics. 

• Start with the larger Blue Box for the residence.Then Focus on the corporations .The green bins 

downtown take everything .They do not seem to recyle at all.Please lets not put everything on the 

home owner. Most of us do a real good job. Lots of what goes to land fill could be used in other 

countries. Not all seniors use e-mail or have a computer .We need to keep that in mind. PS. They are 

the ones that vote. I wish there would have been a place to comment under each question to have 

explained my answers. 

• #8. i like the idea of better bins, therefore less loose garbage. Not sure i like being charged monthly 

for the use of a bin. #11. i never liked the rule so many bags per household. There may 1 -10 in a 

family. I think it is ok to set a limit but not to charge if people go over. Most of the time people are 

under their limit and they don't get a credit for being under. Why then would we charge if they are 

over once in a blue moon. 

• It is time that we adopt a better recycling program. The city should send communication in our utiliy 

bills to inform more people of the recycling options. 

C8


Appendix 

• Wouldn't the number of garbage bags depend on the size of the container? How can you keep 

outsiders from depositing their garbage in apartment containers? Taking out an en-suite container 

is more difficult than taking out a small bag as garbage accumulates. A number of seniors not 

longer get a regular newspaper other than one or other of the free Red Deer newspapers. 

• Overall, I think that the city is doing a good job. When I stopped by the landfill for the first time, I 

missed the turn off because it looked too nice. But, I think that a considerable number of individual 

residents could certainly improve the way they handle their household waste. It seems excessive and 

they are sloppy about the way they handle their waste. I also am amazed at how much people litter. 

During last summer, I collected litter from the berm along my back alley every couple of weeks (paper 

coffee cups and other drink containers, cigarette packages, newspaper, and other garbage which 

likely blew out of open recycling containers or ripped plastic garbage bags that were put out well in 

advance of garbage collection). More emphasis on public education as well as education of students 

may be helpful but may not be enough to result in a shift in attitude and civic responsibility. Could 

garbage collectors be encouraged to report properties to Bylaw Enforcement where there are ongoing 

problems. The worst problems in my area are multi-family rental properties. Do landlords have some 

responsibility here to ensure that tenants know what is expected of them in relation to maintaining 

their properties in good condition, including not only the handling of garbage but snow removal from 

sidewalks and yard maintenance. 

• More recycling is great, but cut costs elsewhere to cover the increased cost. Taxesvare 

reachingnunaffordable levels. 

• I came here from Edmonton and am shocked by the lack of recycling....we have very little. Good on 

you for getting on this bandwagon...ITS A MUST 

• No! 

• If we get multi containers....Where are we supposed to put them all, until garbage day.......? 

• I don't want to pay for the bins. I pay enough in taxes already. 

• Changing the garbage bins and blue box bins is long overdue. The pictures located in this survey 

showing the proposed changes look great. Its nice to see lids on the garbages and recycle bins 

• We do not want our City Utility bill to go higher again! 

• It is hard to support a fewer bag limit until one sees who much more one can actually recycle under 

new guidelines. If fruit and yougart containers are still not allowed than it is a concern and punishes 

those that choose to eat healthier. Chip bags take up much less space in the garbage bag than the 

forementioned. 

• With trash being picked up in back alleys it makes the use of wheeled carts difficult in winter months 

for many households. Also paying for a cart of a particular size is not a good match for the varying 

amounts of garbage households put out. I would rather see some other method for charging, such as 

purchase of tags to attach to garbage cans or bags. Large households are at a disadvantage when 

being charged for amount of garbage put out. 

• I have no issue with pay for usage garbage-anythign that encourages people to reduce! 

• I strongly support the wheeled plastic carts for garbage, recycling and food waste, but checked 

"agree" for now, because it all depends on the cost-factor. We have 5 children and we typically put 

out 3-4 bags and 2 blue recycle bins (plus usually an extra cardboard box full of recycling) every 

week. If I could include more plastics in my recycling, or could expand waste collection to food and 

yard, I know we would greatly reduce the number of bags we put out. As a family, we strongly support 

the proposed wheeled carts: I assume three per household (garbage, compost, and recycling?), but 

would like to know more about the cost of this program, bottom line. I tried to read the Waste 

Management Master Plan presented to Council on this website, but the print was so small and grainy 

that it was almost painful to try. =) I think the City's on the right track, just make this wheeled carts 

program AFFORDABLE (ie. we don't want to see a huge spike in our collection rates) and the people 

will use them - gratefully!! Thank you 

• Our biggest issue is - we live in a townhouse (seniors district). We have barely enough room for our 

car. We don't have a blue box now because there is not enough room. We put our papers out in 

C9


Appendix 

plastic bags. Where are we suppose to store these bins when we have no back alleys or fenced 

yards to store these!!! 

• Survey questions skewed to obtain desired answers to questions such as support reducing bag limit 

to 3 or fewer - may support 3 if common sense enforcement (eg more at Xmas), but certainly not 

"fewer"! Think proposal for automated collection would result in extra costs for more (not less) people 

collecting and delays (whoever is proposing this should watch how fast current collection is (often 

with one on the truck firing in bags) and envision problems in narrow alleys for the new truck (again 

delays, expensive and will result in damage). 3 large wheeled bins very akward dragging across a 

lawn for alley collection in summer, and impossible for winter. Will mean more back strain for seniors, 

and would have to move all collection to front yard! For collection in house, must still be able to bag 

some garbage or you have a stinky mess (have seen it in other places). Must also retain ability to put 

our all the yard waste in summer (currently use 3 labelled bins). Proposal for large, expensive 

containers rediculous and will not work for yard waste with large yards like we have here, and "must" 

still be able to use current containers (or you've created unnecessary waste rather than reduced it), 

and be able to put out an appropriate number of bags. Support the need to educate on how to 

separate and recycle, and need to process all compostables, which should allow a "moderate" 

reduction in current bag limits. 

• Why is there going to be a charge (built into the cost of services) for the bins? What are residents 

going to do with their existing bins. We presently have one that we use for garbage that has withstood 

the mishandling by garbage collectors. Granted it is of superior quality that cannot be damaged very 

easily. We also have several bins that have been bashed around and are almost unrecognizable as 

bins but we still use since the collection company will not replace at their expense. Fortunately, they 

are held together by the to and bottom bands (in the case to metal bins) and plastic bins that are 

ready to be disposed of in the recycling program if they were acceptable to it. Unfortunately they do 

not have a Type 2 symbol shown on any part of the bin. 

• cost 

• this questionnaire deals with basic residential situations and larger multifamily buildings. how are 

these proposed changes going to affect those residences with a basement suite? 

• I would like to know if any thought was given to privatising the waste management system. I mean 

letting each resident decide for themselves how their waste is to be managed. For example, a 

resident could decide to take all their waste to the landfill and deposit in recycling, composting, or 

landfill and pay the normal dump fee. Or, the resident could hire a waste collector for curbside pick 

up, in the same way that newspapers are deliivered. Or; a group of residents could rent a dumpster 

with a lock that each member wouild have a key for, the dumpster being emptied only when full, as 

indicated by human monitor or an electronic sensor. The waste collection would be open to any 

business or individual, complying with the usual business regulations. It seems inefficient for the 

collection to be monopolised by one contractor who only has to compete at the time of bidding. 

• I would like to know if any thought was given to privatising the waste management system. I mean 

letting each resident decide for themselves how their waste is to be managed. For example, a 

resident could decide to take all their waste to the landfill and deposit in recycling, composting, or 

landfill and pay the normal dump fee. Or, the resident could hire a waste collector for curbside pick 

up, in the same way that newspapers are deliivered. Or; a group of residents could rent a dumpster 

with a lock that each member wouild have a key for, the dumpster being emptied only when full, as 

indicated by human monitor or an electronic sensor. The waste collection would be open to any 

business or individual, complying with the usual business regulations. It seems inefficient for the 

collection to be monopolised by one contractor who only has to compete at the time of bidding. 

• The provision of 3 different collection bins to each household is ridiculous. The day to day storage 

and therefore use of the bins is a serious headache for those of us who have no reasonable place to 

place the bins. The current system has collection bins (blue box) that are easy to use and other 

waste collection is accomodated very well in our current system. As for a one size fits all idea with 

regards to a reduction to 3 bags from 5, it makes no sense to consider a single person or even a 

couple to a larger family with much more trash to dispose of. I could easily see a disposal system 

evolving where those with more trash than "allowed" would simply drop it somewhere where clean-up 

C10


Appendix 

by city or others is required.; I find our current system to be efficient, effective and the people doing 

the job to be very capable. I have no problem with tweaking the system to include more recycleables, 

but this wholesale, very expensive program being proposed is just another example of the muddleheaded 

thinking of this city council. 

• With current blue bins recycling can/ does end up blowing around. This material ends up being 

garbage instead of recycling. Better to have a box with lid 

• Huge mistake to spend additional funding for automated pickup feature for residential garbage. 

Experience is you will employ as many, but limited space in alleys and damage to fences plus will 

occur. "Another" example of not adequately considering all the consequences of moving to a "costly" 

and "confusing" 3 bins (of different sizes) system. Creates huge amount of garbage (and cost) as I 

have to dispose of current 5 bins, and doesn't consider summer yard waste demands (3 large bins 

not unusual and they do go to compost!). May work in San Francisco where they're crammed into 

row houses and don't have yards, but will "not" work here! Do support more education, reduction of 

bins for regular garbage to 4, and collection of more compost and recyclable plastic, but the rest of 

the plan is ill conceived, expensive, and will be strongly opposed! 

• keep the recyle bins to the lanes. Do not make it necessary to take to front, unless no lanes 

• I currently compost all year round. It concerns me a bit in regards to the quality of the compost that is 

produced by the city's organic waste program. How is the city going to use the compost after? With a 

city wide program it is hard to control what people are putting into the waste program. As a gardener, 

I would not want to use the city compost in my own yard because their could be a risk of diseased 

plant or diseased tree (ie: black knot fungus, etc.) product accidentally being thrown into the compost 

instead of being disposed properly. As a resident of Inglewood, I also have concerns about the smell 

issues we are experiencing each spring and summer when the temperature is above 25C. 

• I am extremely pleased with the direction the City is considering moving with waste magagement! 

• - There was some discussion on having a company use an incinerator to burn the garbage to 

generate electricity. These type of ideas should be pursued. - Typically, a young family of 4 will 

generate more waste than say a middle aged couple. The young family is most likely less able to 

afford the extra costs associated with garbage collection. The least able to afford garbage collection 

will be charged the most. - We currently never generate more than 3 bags per week. Yet, there are 

occassions where we do put out more than three bags. I would feel frustrated if (on the random 

occassion) I was charged for having too many bags set out for collection. - You currently only allow 5 

bags to be collected. What if someone places out 6 small bags, versus someone else who places out 

5 large bags. Are you going to charge the person for placing out the sixth bag? That doesn't seem 

fair. - Everyone focuses on the cost of the landfill. However, a large part of the garbage collection 

cost is due to hiring people to come along to "pick up the garbage". If they drive by, grab the bags, 

and throw them in the truck, they can complete an entire street in just a few minutes. However, if 

they have to stop at every single house, stop, align the hydraulic lifting devices to engage the new 

plastic totes, this will take a very long time to complete just a single street. You will then need to hire 

double the amount of garbage collectors / and specialized trucks. Where are the savings? This new 

program will cost you more! 

• Smaller households would probably not have a need for a large recycling bin. It would be something 

that might take up excess space. Options should be provided to houses on whether they want to use 

a bin or a box. 

• I appreciate that the City is trying to be proactive. :) 

• Kudos to the city for considering these new changes! 

• It's been good & the expantion & upgrades would be welcome. 

• The windrow snow cleaning system is stupid, they dont do a good job, and it is very inconvenient. 

This windrow snow clean system will hamper the proposed new waste pick up The storage of multi 

containers will be a problem. Wheeling the art out into the alley in winter will be difficult for the elderly 

If the pickup is in the alleys, it will be difficult to specify where home owners are to put the containers 

for truck accessibility. The truck will have to wobble from side to side down the alley to do the 

pickups, may be tough for the truck drivers. 

C11


Appendix 

• Well what we doing now can be a mistake just like long time ago when we use paper bags for pretty 

much all, we will see in time what will be wrong with this new idea. 

• 1. I support all of the above, but i don't agree with the added cost to us. how much is there going to 

be? if this new way is going to reduce man power, then it will reduce costs for wages, WCB claims 

etc , so why would there be a higher cost to all of us? I think if there is a huge cost increase then 

people will not follow your plan. 

• grocery stores , construction sites too much waste make them pay 

• I do not agree with the large box/truck pick up system as it creates a lot of difficulties in placement of 

the boxes so the trucks can access them.Most of our pick up locations are in the lane & this new 

system does not have room in some lanes to properly position the boxes either set in off of the lane 

on your property on in the lane. .I do not agree with front yard pick up locations where it is not 

necessary.Your parking is affected as you need to leave so much room for the bins & truck plus front 

yard pick up detracts from the beautiful street scapes our city has to offer.I doubt that the efficiencies 

of the big box system justifies the startup costs & these other problems.Even though the city 

"provides" the boxes it still costs us through higher utility costs which seem very high already.The 

present system of collecting yard wast during the growing season is adequate, & I am sure, less 

expensive. 

• I do not agree completely with #7. I like the idea of the new bins but paying by the size of the bins I 

have an issue with. Is the bin a 1 time fee or monthly and at what cost? What size are the bins and 

how much do they hold? I agree that the waste management system needs to be overhauled. I 

would like to see the new bins together with a broader recycling program. 

• More work has to be done to find markets that will accept recycled items. Items appear to be 

stockpiled at many facilities. 

• We would need our alley garbage pick up moved to street front pick up to facilitate the larger 

proposed bins. 

• Front yard pick-up on Ian Close - have to drive my garbage around. 

• Strongley agree with plastic recycling as long as something's being doen with it and it's not being 

buried. Love that the city is looking towards composting organic waste. Would also love to see a 

composting facility like Edmonton has. 

• no 

• Composting for condos would be great. 

• SO much can be reduced by recycling more! 

• Make bins available in local stores for people to purchase their own (free market!) 

• Yard waste program seems to be good, I worry about the number of plastics that we recycle that can't 

be recycled with the current program and end up in lanfill. A rolling garbage bin wouldn't work for my 

house. Strengthening recycle and compost programs would be best. 

• Take curbside compost! 

• I compost in my backyard but I would support community composting. 

• I fully support the large bins!!! I lived in Calgary and it was fantastic! I think there should be 1 medium 

size and the same fee for everyone!!! Also it should be front curb pickup. We have back alley 

currently but it would be a total pain to bring the carts out back! 

• Provide "red worms" for self waste management 

• I already have a garbage container and recycling containers. What would happen to these and would 

I get a rebate for them if I used City containers. Would there be a charge for the City containers? 

• I would love to see this program in Red Deer 

• Other communities/provinces offer a free composing container. This would be an asset to offer 

residents of Red Deer this service. Proof of residence is required for a free compose container. 

• People with front garages should have front pick up. 

C12


Appendix 

• No added cost 

• Will this pick up system work during winter months when some of the alleys are difficult to drive down 

and have the bins within reach for the trucks 

• These carts look good but how are thay emptied when the streets have end to parking? The present 

system seems work very well, add more that can be recycled but keep the present pick up.I don't 

believe the mechanical pick up will be more efficient. More blue boxes as we have now work just 

fine. 

• The only problem with having a bag limit is that people who have extra trash may be tempted to take 

extra bags to inappropriate drop offs (e.g. business dumpsters, other people's houses, etc.). 

• I believe we currently pay more than Calgary for our waste management and I would not be in favor 

of a fee increase for better service. If they can do it (with wheeled service and a greater variety of 

recyclables) then so can we. 

• Just that once again those of us that don't have much waste will be paying the same as large families 

with 10x as much. NOT FAIR, just like utilities before the changes being slowly implemented this 

year. 

• Love the suggestions above! Please do it soon! 

• 1. Provide for oil and related products for recycling. 

• I do not think we need to pay for the bins. One of the concerns you have is heavy items for the 

garbage collectors to load. Well there is already a weight limit. Also if they get sore doing this, then it 

is not their job to do. Other professions have to lift heavy items as part of their job description. Also if 

we have to start paying for bins, I for one and I can see others doing this, will have only one bin and 

will not recycle any further and all will go into the one garbage bin. I talked to a few other people and 

they said the same. So really how is this going to help with recycling. It seems the City of Red Deer 

having been making bad choices lately. We pay a lot now for utilities, taxes, etc and now to pay for a 

bin. I don't think so. The City wasted money on the silly bike lanes. Wake up. I do think recycling is 

needed but not if I have to pay for it. I already pay deposit fees. As for yard waste the City makes 

money off it when compositing I do believe and now you want to charge us for giving you this and you 

make money off of it. 

• could larger containers result in bi-weekly pick-ups? 

• I believe that with an increase in recycling products being accepted the amount of waste in garbage 

bins will naturally decrease. I think the only way we can get to less than 3 garbage bags is if 

everything plastic, metal, aluminum and glass is recycled,which is something I would love to see. 

• I do not think we should have to pay for the proposed new collection containers. This should be an 

expense for the collection company which will be having its overheads reduced. 

• Didn't Hitler have a Master Plan? How many ways can we say UGLY BINS??? While I share the 

idea of less plastic on compost going into the dump, using the Master Plan of large ugly bins that 

must be stored somewhere.... needs a re-think. Way to make a nice neighbourhood look trashy - pun 

intended. 

• I think it's fantastic that you are addressing these important issues right now. 

• The large bins work in front yard pick up, but will not work in alley pick up. Dragging these bins 

throuhg a foot of fresh snow will be a pain, and will be a constant complaint, especially for seniors 

and vulnerable people in our society. 

• Well this addresses all of my main concerns for Red Deer! Wow! 

• Ongoing education for ciizens, particularly in multiple family residences, also schools. 

• Though I now live in a single family dwelling, I have lived in an apartment and saw much opportunity 

for more recycling. Multi-family dwellings allow for even more efficient recycling because of higher 

density and closer proximity of facilities (including in-suite or floor collections. 

• Making it as easy as possible for residents with help with compliance. Simplicity should be aimed at. 

C13


Appendix 

• Multi-family units often have terrible compliance (i.e., it's easy to dispose of a large amount of 

garbage in a dumpster), so while I personally don't need in-suite collection containers, any initiatives 

to help people think of recycling are a good idea. 

• I am a grade 2 student and I would like to see better waste management in our school programs. 

Including learning about waste management and speakers at school ( we like to learn and help out 

our parents) Thank you for doing this is is a big part of our future. 

• Some communities have a free share location where people can drop of reusable items and take 

what they like this reduces waste to landfill ( sorted by type of item and somehow weather protected) 

or more kick it to the curb days say monthly People will do it if it is easy the easier we make it the 

more buy in you will get from the general public. Look into the city of Pittsburg Penn. Green program 

and incentives that city has done an amazing job in waste reduction especially in public buildings and 

businessess including including restauants and hotels and other businesses. Some citys have 

business incentives for buy less packaging programs.Reducing waste we produce is much more 

important than effective to ellimination of the problem then finding ways to recycle,or dispose or defer 

it. Just stop producing it in the first place. 

• There needs to be rules in place with warnings and fines for those that do not recycle or compost. 

• Better disposal methods for big items such as furniture, appliances, etc. 

• What about promoting composting and picking this up with yard waste all year long. 

• Please do not add to the waste by sending out fliers regarding waste management. I do not support 

the idea of mandating the use of only clear garbage bags to ensure recyclables are not put in 

garbage. We must encourage residents to recycle by making it easy, not by penalizing the 

alternative. 

• the local hen laying incentive needs to be expanded, as it can help reduce organic waste, as well as 

increase local sustainable food resources 

• Advertise any iniciatives on the back of paper and on the envelopes sent out with utility bills 

• If the city goes with wheeled plastic carts, I do not want a cart much larger than a standard round 

garbage can. I am concerned about storage room in the garage. 

• bring the system back to being ran by the city and not contracted out to a private company 

• I do want to compliment the men who do the pick up of garbage they work in all types of weather and 

pick up some rather messy stuff. Well I support the mechanized pick up I have difficulty in seeing 

how it would work effectively in the alleys where there is a limited space. On the street, it would only 

work where there was no on street parking. 

• stop increasing the costs 

• This looks to be a chamge for change sake not addressing the root cause of the issue. Significant 

package is required to maintain a safe and hygenic model for delivery of goods. the use of the large 

bins you are proposing they are not very forgiving in terms of moving around and they are very 

difficult to move in the snow. Maybe you should research the impact they are already having in other 

jurisdications that have implimented them. (Sherwood Park) 

• Would like to see the new plan implemented.Stony Plain and ST .Albert have similar plans and they 

seem to work well. 

• New trucks and bins are very costly. How can this be facilitated with existing equipment? 

• Household recyclables should be collected pre-sorted: paper, glass, cans, plastics 

• I think the yard waste program and the blue box system is great. Perhaps encouraging people to 

compost would be a great idea. I do realize many people don't have a convenient space to do that in. 

A reduction in the 5 bag limit is a great idea. Three bags seems to be alot but perhaps when there 

are more people in a household there would be more garbage. With 2 people in my household, there 

is only 1 bag of garbage in every 2 weeks. The different sized garbage bins might just be the answer. 

• Have you looked at large bins for garbage like businesses use for 4-6 residential houses. Automatic 

truck pick up, fewer stops, instead of individual one? 

C14


Appendix 

• Again... What are the costs??? 

• In my area (Isbister Close) one truck goes down the alley, another down the street for homes with no 

alley. This is a duplication of traffic and effort - 4 trucks go past our home on garbage day. 

• Edmonton has some great programs and services that I would love to see in Red Deer. Their ReUse 

Centre is a great example of utilizing "junk" for creative and business purposes. The predecessor of 

these was Garbage Fairs/Reuse Roundups/Reuse Fairs. I received training for coordinating these 

and have printed information. They also train interested community members to become Master 

Composter/Recyclers; these people receive free training that they pay off by volunteering their time to 

train city residents on how to minimize waste at home, through demonstrations and workshops. I 

have enquired into taking this training, but they currently only offer it to City of Edmonton residents. I 

would love to take this training myself and train Red Deer residents to become Master 

Composters/Recyclers. Lots of information is other the City of Edmonton website. My name is [on file] 

and if you wish to speak to me about these initiatives, you can call me at [on file]. Thank you. 

• If you have one smallish item you'd like to get rid of, you have to pay a base rate of $7 to enter the 

Waste Management facility. That's for up to 250 pounds and we rarely have that much. Usually it's 

just one or two things that we'd like to get rid of in an environmentally responsible way. You can save 

up until you have more items in order to make it more cost effective, but if you want to get rid of the 

item NOW, I think this cost actually encourages people to toss smaller things in the trash even if they 

could have been dealt with more effectively at the facility. I wonder about offering a reduced rate - 

something like "two toonies" for "two things" with a total weight of 50 pounds (or whatever). I know 

that could add to your costs if lots of us took advantage of it, but I wonder if the cost would be worth 

it... Just a thought. We usually only have one bag, but... I'm wondering if going from 5 to 3 for some 

people may be a steep jump. Have you considered 4 for a year or two, then 3? 

• I come from a town on Vancouver Island that has curbside composting and recycling. The garbage 

limit is 1 bag every two weeks. Five bags creates laziness and puts way too much in the landfill 

unnecessarily. 

• A lot of people just don't realize what to do - take apart cardboard boxes for example 

• While I like the idea of wheeled carts, storage room for them can be difficult and the larger size is a bit 

more of an eyesore. I'm less supportive of the garbage bins. I think it would be much more effective 

to just reduce the maximum number of bags collected. 

• Put the methane emissions to some use if possible, burning with a blue flame would reduce toxins 

and green house emissions. 

• Put the methane emissions to some use if possible, burning with a blue flame would reduce toxins 

and green house emissions. 

• Where do you propose that these larger container be stored? I live in a row of townhouses that does 

not allow for access to the curb from the back yard. Also parking is at the rear with dozens of cars in 

the back so there is no room in the back for extra garbage containers and/or recycle bins. It seems to 

me that Red Deer residents already pay plenty for water and garage disposal so increased rates are 

not welcome especially for families on fixed incomes. Your statements of "...current five garbage bag 

limit to three bags or fewer" is rather open ended. I am in favor of reduction to three bags but not 

"fewer" what ever that might be????? 

• The single most important thing we can do is limit how much garbage can be picked up. People will 

complain, but it is the best way to get people recycling/composting or what the other initiatives are. 

Without a strict limit, there will be no change. 

• Would we see a reduction on our monthly bill if all these programs come in? I see savings with the 

pick up, as only one driver would be required. Also with reducing us down to 3 bags would we see a 

savings or will you be charging us the same as the 5 bags now then charging us more when we go 

over the limit? 

• Currently, we compost almost all vegetable based organics, using the resulting compost on our 

garden. The new program is a good thing but would not have much effect on us. 

C15


Appendix 

• i am fine with paying for the cost of containers for automated pick up and pay a rate relative to the 

size of container IF the container sized for 3 bags of garbage matches the present waste pick up fee. 

• keep up the good work trying to make this City a leader in Waste Mngt!! 

• I really appreciate the pilot for collecting organic waste! Provide a big bin for apartment buildings! 

• some areas may only need community containers rather than individual ones in senior complex areas 

or senior townhouse areas as they do not had much wastes 

• If we go to a wheeled garbage bin, there needs to be a fee plan for extra garbage. Most of the year I 

could use one size of bin, but there are some occasions where I would have more garbage. 

• Different sizes of garbages bags. Red Deer NEEDS to expand our plastic recycling. 

• Apartments are generally small enough as it is, and forcing people to keep 3 multi-coloured bins in 

their suites is unreasonable. Adding yet again to the rising cost of utilities in the City "to save the 

environment" puts further financial strain on residents of the City who are already facing rising 

electricity bills, gas bills, water bills, tax bills, etc. etc. etc. 

• What will happen to our boxes if they are damaged, either by wind, or when put down after being 

dumped? Since we have paid for them, are we responsible for their maintenance? My boxes have 

been thrown by the WM people in the past--and ended up in the street to be damaged by vehicles. 

• I object to the fact that this is so costly. I would like the city to explore the use of waste for energy 

and also the city can make money on the recyled materials and compost. Why are these cost not 

returned to taxpayers. also, it's a big cost for a truck with two men to go out to pick up each kind of 

garbage. This will mean 4 different trucks. These use fule and pollute the environment. Bins are 

good in that they allow less people to be involved but should not cost the consumer anything. The 

city needs to see if there could be one truck that would do it all. Also, I don't see why the cost has 

gone up over %50 in the last five years when no other utility has gone up this much. 

• I live in a condo development, mostly one person homes. I have very little need for weekly garbage 

pickup, I have no yard waste and I recycle as much as possible, why am I required to purchase these 

bins which are too large for my needs, or will there be an alternate system available. Also, I have 

visited cities where there are 3 or 4 bins available and they are picked up on different days, this 

creates a continual unsightly streetscape with blue or whatever colour bins at streetside each day and 

many people never bring them in. As it is only an aesthic problem it may not matter to some although 

it does to me. 

• I am concerned about the loss of jobs and cost of purchasing new garbage trucks. Has the City 

through this through as well as they did the dissasterous bike lanes? City Council is on thin ice in my 

mind. This is just another waste of our tax money. 

• There needs to be more recycling bins in the city for commercial/business use. My workplace does 

not have a cardboard bin that is available to us, yet there is space next to the garbage bin and it 

would be utilized if there was one near our building. 

• I believe the sooner these improvements are implemented, the better. 

• Re #11 above: Conscientious of what is recycled or thrown out I would think that expanding programs 

as described above should reduce the number of bags. If I need to put more than 3 bags out I would 

not want to be charged extra / billed for that. 

• Better education and suggestions to households on how to save money by reusing containers, buying 

products in bulk with less packaging, etc. is a much better idea than forcing plastic carts on people. 

Back alley pickup would be impossible with this system as well. Utilities are ALL skyrocketing. Adding 

yet another fee to households is unacceptable. 

• I believe the system in R.D. is exceptional. Consumers just have to participate in the recycling 

program in order for it to work better. 

• While I agree with allowing multi-family residences with MORE waste allowance, I DO NOT think the 

city should cover those costs. The residences should add the extra costs for extra features to THEIR 

fees & divide accordingly. 

C16


Appendix 

• Where to put bin. Leave in back alley beside garage is it safe. Can put in garage - no room / eye sore 

in back yard - no room 

• I strongly support recycling of all sorts, but haven't heard of the cost for limited incomes. 

• we need larger bins! 

• Collection of used oil. No cost for residential owner to dispose material at the waste management 

site. 

• comment to question #11: limiting will encourage misuse of other facilities and improper waste 

management 

• Edmonton has a "re-use" centre downtown where items such as books, craft items, corks, empty 

binders, yarns, etc are donated and the public can purchase for their use (e.g. classrooms, summer 

camps, crafters). I would like to see Red Deer establish this type of facility. Perhaps in partnership 

with a non-profit such as Cosmos or the Hub downtown. 

• I would like to see a methane capture initiative, particularly at the old landfill. 

• More free days at landfill. I think very large containers are unsightly. Smell of organic waste in green 

bins. Really interested in waste energy! 

• Thanks for asking! 

• containers seem large, where to store them - I have front street pick up comment to question #14: 

the least expensive way for out tax dollar 

• Want compost pick-up badly. 

• I do not want to see a reduction in bags per household - we recycle & normally have 2-3 but 

sometimes we have more 

• Get everyone a job!! Response to question #3: homeless! 

• The city should not restrict the number of garbage bags but should implement a charge per bag 

system. This is more fair to all sizes of families 

• I very strongly disagree with using an automated system. 

• Need to benchmark zero waste communities in Canada and strive for a leadership role alongside 

those communities. 

• I would like to see a designated day for larger items. Many people don't have trucks to get rid of 

certain large items. I know other smaller cities do this once a year 

• What are other leaders doing in this area? 

• Stop dictating to residents. 

• Good, efficient system! 

• Make more accessible in public buildings (schools, college, etc) 

• Comment to question #5: instead of becoming a "leader", we should be a participant Comment to 

question #11: people only put out what they need to Comment to question #12: They can carry 

garbage out like single family households do 

• bi-weekly pick-up for SFD. Bag tags (full user pay) for those with more than 2 bags / week / 

household 

• The extended operation hours that the waste management facility has (had?) are very inconvenient 

for residents. Comment to questions 7 & 10: Only support this for front (curbside) pickup for houses 

with garages. It is too difficult to drag across yard / through snow. Comment to question 12: They can 

carry their recycle bin outside to a common pick-up location like everyone else. 

• Just that improvements are needed - see comments, other side (question #6) 

• Quit raising costs that are all ready high enough for some people! 

• I love the cart idea. I have many many bags of garbage each week (too embarassed to say just how 

many), and instituting a large blue box system that i can wheel down my drive way would motivate me 

to recycle and a would have less garbage. A double whammy as they say. 

C17


Appendix 

• The pilot would only be beneficial if all three garbage bins were used. Otherwise, the blue box would 

not be used more than it is now. Other cities have this concept and easy for household to adapt. We 

would have to revert back to the street curb pickup versus the lane way as we and others would not 

be able to wheel bins out. 

• Although I wholeheartedly support this initivtive, I have some concerns as to the size of the proposed 

containers. For residents such as myself, we have very limited storage space for three such 

containers as quite a few of residences have neither back alleys or front to back walkways. I am very 

familar with the City of Calgary containers and would not have room for all of them in our limited 

garage(front) space. Consequently they would have to be stored outside in the front of our house, 

which to say the least, will be very unsightly. 

• Don't bring in this new waste management collection it is a waste of money.The new collection bins 

will be too heavy and to hard to clean.I already compost I don't need a composting bin.Why have a 

separate discussion about waste management that I didn't know about.They should have a 

discussion at meet the city departments they have at one of the malls in the spring.I already use the 

blue box for recycling.New waste management bins are not needed. 

• This is more city of red deer nonsense. I do not agree with this and will do what I can to fight against 

it. It may also have been a good idea to tell people how much these bins would cost seems like you 

are making it a secret because they're going to be really expensive. You say modest in the paper, 

your idea of modest and the population of this city may be different. 

• some way of reducing the furniture toilets etc. that is getting dumped into dumpsters in multihousing 

areas & commercial areas. 

• At what kind of price to the residence of Red Deer is the city looking at for these large bins? 

• Different regulations should be considered where there is back alley pick up Vs street pick up. 

• re: question 8 We have no yard waste,and very little food waste. We have yard care in our complex 

and a garberator for food waste. 

• No complaints 

• More compost knowledge 

• I feel we all need to recycle as much as is possible. This would certainly include more plastics, 

particularly #5. 

• The problem with increasing costs or reducing the number of bags of garbage allowed each week is 

that a LOT of people will just haul their junk to the nearest bin or can, their neighbour's or the corner 

store. We somehow have to get people to buy less material that ends up in the garbage in the first 

place. We have to get people more on-board the whole Reduce-Refuse-Recycle-Re-Use-Re-Think 

train of thought and action. 

• its about time, Every other city has been doing it for years. I thought that Red Deer would have been 

on of the ones that was leading the way... 

• Please put this into place quicker than 10 years. We needed new management 10 years ago - I lived 

in Lethbridge 6 years ago and they collected all types of plastic. We need to move ahead of 

everyone else and recycle as much as possible rather than loading up the dump. Thank you for 

making this a priority. I think that it is pointless to have different sizes of garbage cans for purchase - 

people will just pick the smallest size and then there will be bags of garbage sitting in the street 

beside the can because they can't fit all their garbage in. 

• Get the bins, 

• What about collecting shredded paper from homes? 

• Look to other countries and cities, e.g. Germany and Montreal, for existing successful cutting edge 

waste mgmt. programming 

• 50 percent is compost 

• Consider looking at the system that Sherwood park implemented and their success in reducing waste 

and involving the community 

C18


Appendix 

• I would not want front yard pick up. I would prefer it to stay in the alleys 

• I disagree with the proposal to charge per size of bin for garbage. I also disagree with reducing the # 

of bags. I feel that these potential changes unfairly penalize people who choose to have a larger 

amount of children, or who have extended family living with them. I would prefer an incentive 

program to reduce # of bags,and more public education on composting, etc. 

• having a one day a week/month where residents could recover materials from the scrap metal and 

electronics area may be a feasible avenue to investigate. The city could charge the same rate for 

removal as the drop-off rate, with waiver of liability. There are always numerous small engine, bicycle 

and television/ computer items that are thrown out that other people could recover/fix (recovery fee, 

same as drop offf). The people that would make use of this program are mosly likely the people who 

personally make drop-offs at the waste management site already. They would also be the ones most 

likely to return any unusable parts/pieces ( disposal fee #2) and keep garbage from collecting into 

"residential junkyards" you could also include a building materials recycling area. good or leftover 

building materials. ie. unused (packaged) shingles, whole (60% or more) lumber/plywood, concrete 

blocks etc. and charge a fee for people who both drop off and pick up. This would also reduce the 

amount of building material going into the landfill. 

• Manual collection of recycling provides the ability to get high-quality (GLASS FREE) products that are 

actually valuable on the market. Look at Saskatoon Curbside Recycling, which had great success at 

selling their items. Lorras messed it up and tried to use the big blue bins (which adds bits of glass to 

everything, devaluing it all). Don't follow that example, just learn from SCR and realize we generally 

don't need a lot more recycling space, we need quality recycling of all sorts of products instead. Also, 

I am OK with the garbage bag limit being reduced to 3 bags but I want the ability to go over the 

garbage bag limit a few times a year (we rarely have more than one bag but if I do a big annual clean 

up of broken, unrecycleable items, that can be a lot of garbage) and to have the size of the bag count 

for something, too. 

• Should be mandatory for property owners to supply proper recycling facilities where there is a shared 

trash area 

• See #6. 

• It should also be made easier to find out exactly what can be recycled in a blue box and where to go 

around town to recycle things that can't be like batteries etc. 

• Should investigate high temperature-low emission burning programs at waste collection site such as 

Denmark uses to avoid the landfill issue 

• Smell in the summer, southend examples vanier inglewood stink from the dump 

• Nothing else to say about waste management (seems like they do a great job) but couldn't answer 

question 11 properly due to wording of the question. I would support going down to three bags of 

garbage but not fewer. There was no response for this adjustment to your statement. Just sayin'. 

• I think Red Deer has been behind Calgary & Edmonton waste-wise and has not given environmental 

concerns enough priority in this area and am so happy to see this issue being assessed. 

• Have a free spring/fall clean day for paint & other hazardous waste 

• Encourage people to water their lawns minimally not every second am here in Deer Park....Education 

is the key necessity for us all.. 

• My household usually puts out one bag per week. Why are we paying the same as the family across 

the alley that puts out numerous bags per week. A pay per bag system is most fair and would actually 

encourage recycling. 

• There should already be in place mandatory recycling collection bins at multi family units. Many of 

the proposed intiatives/pilot projects have been implemented in the province of Alberta. "Pilots" are 

not necessary, just implement them, look at the results from the cities who are doing the services. 

Grande Prairie has one of the most comprehensive recycling program in the province (please not that 

they are not close to available markets, due to their geographical location), the City of Red Deer 

needs to take a closer look at their program/services. Please recycle styrofoam!!!!!!! London Drugs 

C19


Appendix 

accepts styrofoam, they actually ship it to the west coast for recycling, Grande Prairie includes 

styrofoam in their recycling program. Thank You 

• Our condo has no recycle bins. None on Bennett Street do. All buildings should have some recycle 

bins I think. 

• When city sends info to us, please use the least expensive paper. We do not need high gloss and 

fancy colours to read and understand basic info. 

• How about a pay per bag system? Sell stickers to residents and then have the garbage people pick 

up only bags with stickers. That way individuals get to decide how much they want to spend. 

• I would be upset if the allowable bags were reduced to 3 or less as some weeks we don't even have 

one but the next week we may have more. We very seldom have 5 bags in our garbage box but once 

in a blue moon we do. We try not to but as a family of 4 we sometimes need that 5 bag limit. 

• Seniors discount 

• See comments listed above. I think I agree with the direction the city is moving in. I'm glad this "aster 

plan" is being updated! 

• bring back the coupons for $5.00 off dump runs. You currently charge for blue box whether people 

use it or not - larger containers should be provided for free to those who actual do recycle. 

• More public education is needed. People need to understand why it is important to recycle more and 

to have less garbage. People need to understand that it is worth the miniscule amount of effort 

needed to recycle over putting into the garbage. 

• the garbage in the ditches and fields south of the dump is bad 

• Do a pilot project in one neighbor hood first, not a new affluent one but a lower income with more 

multi family units. 

• Turn all our garbage into energy. Stop using the landfill. 

• What are the benefits to the citizens of this whole change, or does it end up costing them more due to 

the monthly bin rental cost? Bins would protect garbage from birds and dogs...good idea!!! 

• User pay 

• 1 - my recycling need is very small. 2 - my garbage put-out is quite small. 3 - believe that "waste not, 

want not". 

• Bag limits are unfair, there are times we generate no waste. Curb bins cannot be checked without 

wasting time so a bag limit is pointless. As well what is to stop others from overloading my bins. 

Brandon Manitoba has a bin system and requires bins all on the same side of the lane and makes for 

efficient use of manpower, here the trucks do each lane 4 times in a pickup. 

• Be mindful of your limitations as this may increase the amount of unwanted garbage found in ditches 

lining our streets/highways. 

• I like all of the above ideas, but I am worried about too much of a cost increase for the residents, it is 

expensive already. 

• Why aren't we using a waste to energy systems such as that used in Sweden? Their system is so 

successful that they have to import waste. 

• I'm happy to know that it's going in the direction of more comprehensive recycling 

• I wish you would amp up public knowledge about the yard waste recycling - the number of plastic 

bags of leaves I see going to the landfill each fall and spring is terrible. Could you consider giving 

away some free yard waste bags to heavily treed areas, with a note talking about the importance of 

composting them? 

• Nope, the above should have summed it up!!! Get your priorities straight, then work from there. This 

city has to get it together on way more importtant issues. 

• I would need to know what the cost of these larger bins are. I know in other provinces there is a 

minimal cost that is covered by the property taxes. 

C20


Appendix 

• It is too bad one truck couldn't do it all as seems counter productive to have three different vehicles in 

the summer. The powers that be in the city are worried about too many vehicles on the road and 

idling and then have all the garbage trucks using the same roads they want to have fewer vehicles 

on. Makes absolutely no sense as to their reasoning. 

• If you charge by size of container we will have a lot more garbage disposed of in parks etc 

• Not at this time 

• Im not sure if I want the city spending a bunch of money changing recycling bins already - the old 

ones work ok and some people might not be able to handle the bigger ones with wheels. 

• In other places the use of automated collection of wheeled bins has been in operation for some years 

and is hugely successful. 

• I would like to see the City be a real model for reduction of waste through its own practices and to 

publicize those practices. For example - ban on bottled water sales in City facility, no use of 

styrofoam disposables at City facilities or events, policy on reduction of promotional giveaway items, 

etc. 

• Moving to bins is a good idea but I disagree with the pricing model suggested. Garbage can fluctuate 

throughout the year for various reasons as well as household size. Rather than using the penalty 

approach, let's implement an actual recycling / composting program which Red Deer is sorely lacking. 

• Even though we can do more I think Red Deer should feel proud of the job done so far. We are WAY 

ahead of Calgary. 

• I BARLEY FILL THE LITTLE BLUE BOX, WHY OH WNY WOULD I WANT A BIGGER ONE THAT 

COSTS ME MORE????? 

• Just make sure the fee is managlbe for all incomes same across the board 

• start charging more to people that have more bags of garbage every week and less to households 

that have fewer - the landfill prices are way too expensive 

• I do not want to pay monthly for a garbage can. Paid garbage cans will probably get stolen at the 

homeowners expense. 

• If you reduce the # of bags allowed and the hours of operation of the dump and make the costs to 

dump too high people are going to dump there refuse in alleys and back roads etc.You are asking for 

trouble when the neighbors put their trash on someone else's propertyy to avoid extra costs. 

• I have been in cities where the garbage carts are used with success. 

• A definite focus on multi units is mandatory. There is an unnecessary degree of waste from these 

buildings 

• Yes, while I support those initiatives, I would not want to incur a large cost to implement them. Also, 

what happens if a neighbour has a lot of garbage but just dumps it onto someone else's property? 

How do you control this type of behavior? 

• i think you need to know how many people are in each house. when i lived by myself i would use less 

than 1 bag a week but know having kids, pets, and others in the house we go through alot more 

waste. we recycle, but you it's not just plactics the city needs to up the recycle but boxes as well.. just 

saying 2 pizza boxes fills a garbage bag. also instead of charging for these bins (which people steal, 

or the wind blows them away and so on) give rebates for those that do recycle and maybe compost! 

• The bigger bins are an awesome plan 

• My waste and recycle is picked up in the back alley, the proposals for the new bins for both garbage 

and recycle would be impossible in the winter! I could not carry the bins over the snow to where my 

pick-up is. 

• Blue bags would provide better protection from the elements while allowing better in home sorting for 

those of us without garages. I live in a bilevel duplex with. No garage. My blue box lives outside on 

my back porch as i is too dirty to bring indoors, and I dont want it in my kitchen. A blue bag system 

could be set up in my utility room beside the paid recyclables. 

• Although the containers are nice, I can see them disappearing into someone else's collection. 

C21


Appendix 

• This sounds all fine and good...but if the price of the bills goes up anymore than it already has. It will 

be rediculious and nobody will want to pay for it. 

• There are limits to how much space homeowners & apartment dwellers have to place additional 

containers. 

• I believe if the city is planning any sort of waste management upgrades such as new bins for waste or 

recycling, upgraded signage, advertising, bag limits etc. SHOULD NOT be the residents' 

responsibility to have to pay for any of it! If this is a pilot launch of the program it should be free. 

• I would support a bi-weekly recycling pick up if we were to move to a bigger wheeled bin. This would 

help to reduce the cost of implementing changes significantly. Re garbage: right now I pay a flat 

amout for up to 5 bags of garbage per week. The city is suggesting a change to 3 bags because of 

the increased allwable recycling, I also agree this may encourage people to recylcle more. However, 

what I do not agree with is the increased charge to the resident if you choose a larger garbage bin 

size. The change to the bin inself with, I'm assuming here, allow for fewer emplyees needed in that 

the routes with be quicker, I think it is unfair for the resident to pay more for the largest bin size when 

it doesn't look like 5 bags, or even 3 bags of garbage will fit in one large container. If I am incorrect 

then I would agree that if the largest size was as large as three bags then it would make sense to 

decrease the charge if you choose a smaller size. In saying this though, it should be a savings to 

choose a smaller bin, not an increase to choose a smaller. but in saying this, the cost is no greater 

for waste management to pick up a small bin as opposed to a large bin. So, I would need more 

information before I could effetively give an opinion. Hence the unsusre status of the above question. 

• The city should consider turning garbage into something Useful 

• the need of composters, like the City of Calgary, perhaps Red Deer could sell composters at a 

discounted price to City residents 

• The only problem with paying for size of bin for myself would be that some weeks I'm not able to get 

my garbage out so the next week I might have 2 or 3 bags for the two week period 

• I don't agree with the automated collection feature because jobs will be lost. 

• Better recycling and compost is key. This has to come instep with garbage collection limits to make 

this feasible. 

• I am glad that you are considering recycling more plastic, that is my one beef when throwing out my 

garbage. I try and purchase only #2 plastic, but it is not always a possibility. Having the option of 

other recyclable plastic is a huge draw for me. Thank you. 

• I am aghast at the amount of garbage that is directly put into my mailbox every week, much of it 

partially sponsored by the City in the form of unwanted Advocate and Express flyers. I have had 

experience with the Québec model of the "Publisac", which is a semi-weekly bag of flyers distributed 

widely... and from which one can opt out by simply posting a sticker on one's mailbox. Reduction of 

waste starts by reducing the waste I do not wish to collect myself in the form of unwanted printed 

material. With online payment of bills, essentially, the only thing I get in my mailbox is junk, which 

ends directly into my blue box. Our household would take three weeks to fill a blue box from the 

waste we actually generate (and we recycle everything that can be and do garden compost with our 

food waste); however, with the junk mail we get, we do need to put out the blue box every week, most 

of it being filled by waste not of our generation. The City has the power to regulate what ends up in 

our front-door garbage (mail) container. A substantial amount of waste would not have to end up at 

the waste management facility if it were reduce at the source (and I expect I am probably with the 

majority of Red-Deerians here). 

• disagree about getting charged EXTRA. We are already pay for the services and we already have 

experienced several tax hikes- this should be incorporated into the city's budget. How can we justify 

cleaning up our city at a cost when we have useless bike lanes, artwork behind closed doors at the 

new RCMP buildings and other useless tax payer spend. 

• Please continue with yard waste program, would love to see community wide compost collection 

• Thank you for making a change for the better! 

C22


Appendix 

• We are so far behind the times. Other cities have been doing what you suggest years ago. Lets work 

hard to get this going as quickly as possible! 

• I can't fully support reducing the weekly maximum as often times our household fails to get our 

garbage to the back alley for pick up day thus resulting in large fluctuation from our household. I 

appreciate that the current waste removal staff seem to be mindful that this happens sometimes and 

are very forgiving. And I like the idea of larger blue boxes but would like to be able to put blue bags 

inside. 

• Education in schools about the benefits of composting/recycling, as well as how to do it properly 

would help encourage students to influence their parents to accept changes to how we manage 

waste. 

• I lived in red deer when they implemented there plastic bins. I think it works great, but there is no 

charge for having a bin. 

• sometimes one garbage bag is plenty, but sometimes a person needs 5 when really cleaning or when 

forgot previous week. 

• be realistic on decisions...sometimes there is always one on the council who will at some point come 

out with the dumbest idea..like the bike lanes. So lets be sensible about this...we don't have to be a 

leader at anything...as long as it is done right..respectful..and sensible!!!!!!! 

• Edmonton has an EXCELLENT waste management system. Please try to model after their systems 

as much as possible. 

• educating public on how and why to be concerned about personal waste very important 

• The only way to reduce garbage bag limit is increase recyclable items 

• Television advertising would be fantastic if Red Deer had a TV Station.. When are we going to get a 

TV Station to advertise business in our City ??? 

• We recently moved from Calgary and it "hurts" me every time I throw another plastic container in the 

garbage, so for me, that is #1 concern that I would like to see worked on. I know other cities use the 

organics recycling program (and Calgary is testing it), but I also know that having my own compost 

container helped in reducing our organic waste. 

• Instead of blue carts, a cheaper alternative is to use blue bags. I lived in halifax and with using the 

green bin and recycling every kind of plastic and paper my garbage was 1 can or less every 2 weeks 

and that was with a baby using disposible diapers. 

• More knowledge about yard waste when people put them in a plastic bag it's a shame it then 

becomes garbage and not compost 

• cannot think of additional comments/suggestions except I would rather not have to pay the same as 

someone who disposes of more waste than my house 

• - fully support user pay, including full cost recovery and manufacturer source fees - thanks for asking! 

• Sure we want to reduce the amount of garbage per household but to go from 5 bags, down to 2 as 

being the master plan. Reducing to 2 bags is just a cash grab and won't reduce waste as intended. 

Make it realistic. Start by reducing by a single bag to 4 to start with for a year, then ultimately head to 

3. I personally aim to have no more than 3 bags, sometimes I hit 2 sometimes it is 5 depending on 

the time of year. Biweekly pickup is just going to make the city dirty. It will take twice as long to pick 

up garbage as there will be extra bags, unless the specialized bin grabber is purchased. The 

unpaved back alley's of Red Deer look disgusting as they currently are, imagine 2 weeks worth of 

garbage sitting out there being picked at by wildlife, not to mention the smell. 

• Need to look at better hours at the current landfill and the possibility of being open on sundays 

• I think paying for your garbage based on use is a good idea. Money talks. Hopefully this would 

encourage people to reduce their waste. Unsure how this would work in an apartment complex 

though? 

• Better facilities throughout the city for recycling and waste. It is difficult to watch people throw papers 

or drink bottles in the trash. 

C23


Appendix 

• While I appreciate the concept of The City providing waste bins in three different sizes, my household 

waste produced every week really depends on the week. At Christmastime, for instance, a big bin 

would have been needed, but normally, we might need a smaller bin. I like the current flexibility I have 

to choose how much waste I put out every week and not being limited by bin size. 

• It definitely seems like we are moving in the right direction and I would really like to see these 

initiatives implemented. 

• I think that the current blue boxes are the best. I don't htink that charging for a certain size garbage 

cart is reasonable. A household does not always have the same amount of garbage each week. But 

the plastic garbage cart would help to keep magpies and other pests out of the bags. 

• The five bag limit is just fine; I don't want to feel like a criminal because I do put out five bags 

occasionally but one to two most of the time! 

• Increasing recycling potential; tying waste management, composting initiatives, garden support & 

encouragement and the keeping of urban hens can lead to significant reduction in city waste 

production from homes. (My family of 4 produces less than one small garbage bag worth of trash 

each week.) 

• I think we need to do something perhaps like how Olds does theirs. I dont agree thogh with the $$$ 

for the garbage bins. I think everyone should be given the same size of bin and charged the same 

amount of money 

C24


Appendix 

Appendix D: Full list of comments to Question 9, ICI Survey 

Do you have additional comments or suggestions you would like to share about the waste 

management system in Red Deer? 

• Need a more accessible place for businesses to put shredded paper into recycling. 

• Consider a volume vs weight for charging for certain items. A cubic meter of soil/sod waste costs the 

same as 50 cubic meters of Styrofoam. The soil sod is beneficial to the environment, while the 

Styrofoam is really a hazardous waste. 

• General population needs an incentive, any way you can create a benefit to the individual will 

increase the change of them agreeing to change. 

• I believe fees are a great idea to deter disposal of recyclable products. As long as the fees are done 

in a way that those doing the right thing don't get charged. 

• We should have more recycle programs available. 

• Need more community recycling depots / drop-offs 

• What steps would be taken to stop illegal dumping if bans were introduced? We badly need recycling 

options for industrially generated scrap wood and styrafoam. 

• Recycling bins for boxes and paper should be provided beside dumpsters for downtown businesses 

• No, sorry. I am new to Red Deer and poorly informed at this point. 

• Recycling costs too much on a business level. We cancelled our bin a year ago. 

• Recycle more than code 2 plastics 

• I think this is a worthwhile area to pursue. 

• There should be at the very least a recyling program for the downtown. 

• We need to see an expansion in the varieties of plastics we can recycle. Issues of consumerism need 

to be discussed along with investigating incentives for retailers to choose products with less-impactful 

packaging. 

• I would like to see an enhanced recycling program in Red Deer: more types of plastics accepted and 

more materials. As a business owner, we don't seem to have many options when it comes to 

recycling in Red Deer. 

• Thank you for improving this program, long overdue. 

• A materials recycling for construction (drywall, steel studs, etc) would be fantastic 

• Glad to see this approach coming to life for the City of Red Deer. We have been composting at Berry 

Architecture for quite some time now! 

• Perhaps financial incentives could be established to encourage businesses to do the right thing inside 

of the wrong or lazy thing, ie. giving those contruction firms credits for bringing in materials that could 

be re-used/re-cycled. 

• I am unsure about No. 8--I need to give it some more thought because there will be instances where 

some businesses produce small amounts a recycled material or substance and the economics of 

recyling may not justify it or the extra environmental costs would outweigh the benefits. 

• With a alternative recycling solution Already available in Red Deer for C&D waste, the landfill bans 

should be put in place ASAP 

• Commercial recycling bins for cardboard and plastics need to be placed in heavy commercial areas 

such as downtown. 

• how about doing something for residential services. costs for seniors 

D1


Appendix 

• Offer a contractor dumping area for material. Many contractors are pressed for time, are aware of 

rules and expectations but are kept from backing to the bin. Problematic as some material is very 

heavy and dangerous for both the landfill workers and the contractors. 

• One would expect that if landfill fees are high enough, businesses would be looking for alternatives to 

landfilling. There are private enterprises that will pick up waste food (for example) in places that use 

it as animal feed or for some other purpose that benefit both parties. Wouldn't it make more sense to 

help entrepreneurs develop this market instead of having the City take it on at a cost to all of us? I 

do not think that the City of Red Deer needs to be a "LEADER" because that just means more taxes. 

We need all levels of government to get smaller, not bigger. 

D2

Integrated Solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP) The City of Red Deer

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?