|
Environmental Services Committee/ Comité des services de l’environnement
Minutes 3/Procès-verbal
3
Tuesday, 27 March 2001, 9:30 a.m. Le mardi 27 mars, 9h30 Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West
Salle Champlain, 110, avenue
Laurier ouest |
Present /Présents: Councillors
P. Hume (Chair), P. McNeely (Vice-Chair), G. Brooks,
D.
Deans, C. Doucet, G. Hunter, H. Kreling, D. Thompson, W. Stewart
In the absence of the Chair and the Vice-Chair at the beginning of the
meeting, Councillor Thompson called the meeting to order.
Declarations of Interest
No declarations of interest were received.
Confirmation
of Minutes
The Minutes of the Environmental Services Committee meeting of 13 March 2001 were confirmed.
Agenda Items
PRESENTATION /
PRÉSENTATION
1. Presentation on Climate
Change given by Charles Wilson and Mary Anne Strong
ExposÉ sur la rÉduction des gaz a effet de serre
prÉsenter par Charles Wilson et Mary Anne Strong
Charles Wilson gave the aforementioned Presentation. He talked about a Leadership Award recently won by the City of Ottawa from the Canada’s Climate Change Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR Inc.), a national program established by Natural Resources Canada for displaying extraordinary commitment, action, best practices and leadership toward the voluntary reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the winners included BC Hydro, Sask Energy, Bank of Montreal and the City of Ottawa, as Canada’s leading municipality for climate change reduction. This Award was presented to the City of Ottawa on March 3rd, 2001. Councillor Phil McNeely accepted the Award on behalf of the City. There will also be an award presentation by Mayor Chiarelli at the City Council meeting of March 28, 2001.
The following is a brief summary of his presentation –
Climate change is certain air pollution (emissions) trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, acting like a greenhouse. The result is a changing global climate. Natural processes like rotting leaves, exhaust from cars, burning fuel for cars, trucks, industry, heating, cooling, lighting our homes and offices, gas from landfill, etc. cause these emissions.
Environment
According to the United Nation, this is the environmental issue of this century because of the extreme climate changes we are going to see – more severe storms, extreme weather, spikes in temperature, changes in rainfall pattern, resulting habitat and species loss. There are definitely political differences on this issue, but there is a scientific consensus.
Health
This is a big health issue. According to the Ottawa’s Associate Medical Officer of Health, this is one of the priority community health issue of this century. There is an increase in respiratory illness. In Ontario alone there is a 300% rise in childhood asthma; there is about 1,800 respiratory related deaths in Ontario each year because of the particulates in the air, which are related to the climate problem. With the change in climate, we are starting to see migratory diseases, like malaria cropping up in Southern Ontario.
Economy
This is going to
affect all sectors of the economy.
Obviously, the primary ones that are related to environment and resource
issues are fisheries, farms, and forestry.
The secondary ones are recreation and insurance.
Climate change is a
quality of life issue, which will affect the economy, health and
environment. Mr. Wilson discussed
measures to fix this. He noted that the
Climate Change Program at the City of Ottawa is about energy conservation,
using less fuel in all kinds of different areas, using cleaner fuel, sending
less waste to landfills. It is really a
community design issue in a lot of ways, putting people closer to the places
they want to be so they have to use their cars less, providing transportation
alternatives.
There is municipal
momentum on this issue. 370
municipalities worldwide have a commitment on climate change – 70 in Canada
have Council commitments on climate change.
There are active programs in a lot of the leading municipalities in
Canada: Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, Sudbury, Winnipeg, Edmonton,
Calgary, Vancouver…
Why
Municipalities? 50% of Canada’s total
emissions are under the direct or indirect influence of municipalities. Municipalities also control key community
design levers: zoning, land use planning, landfills, infrastructure, access to
building permits, and transportation investments. Cities are the front line on climate change in Canada.
Where does the City
of Ottawa fit in? There were
commitments made by the former City of Ottawa and Regional Councils to reduce
emissions to 20% below 1990 levels.
Some years ago, Action Plans were developed and implemented by the
former City and Region for corporate emissions that result from the City’s business. The results were tremendous and this is why
the City of Ottawa won the Award – a 19% reduction in former City of Ottawa
emissions by 1998; a 13% reduction in former Regional emissions by 1998; $
millions in annual corporate savings.
Corporate Climate Program
Success
·
City building
retrofit Þ$1,000,000/year (26%)
·
Fleet
improvements Þ13% reduction in fuel use
·
Landfill gas
flaring Þ150 kT emission reduction
·
Streetlight
retrofit Þ$630,000/year (16%)
·
Partnership
funding Þ$800,000 to date; $300,000
already in 2001.
Partnership
Funding
There is money out
there for Climate Change. Programs
brought in about $1 million to date.
This year, the City brought in $300,000 already. The Federal Government pledged $1.6 billion
over the next 5 years for climate change.
The Province is just getting into this now. Some air quality and emission regulations are being anticipated
for the next 5 years. The Federation of
Canadian Municipalities received $125 million from the Federal Government
directly for municipal climate change projects over the next 3 years. Enbridge Consumers Gas gave $750,000 to the
City of Toronto for a climate change program related to buildings.
Community
Emissions
Community emissions
are 99% of the challenge. A Citywide
emissions inventory is almost complete.
A community strategy targeting buildings, transportation, waste, clean
energy and individual actions will be developed for the new City. There are some key programs from the old
City of Ottawa community strategy that are moving ahead. One example is the Better Buildings Program:
Quality of Life in the new City of Ottawa.
This involves community growth/investment; access to jobs and services;
social/health improvements and environmental health. Another example is the District Energy Initiative. This program has been started. It is re-using of reject heat to heat
buildings and is common throughout Europe.
Utility deregulation is making District Energy attractive in Canada. There are a dozen DE projects across the
country. The potential annual emission
reduction in Ottawa/Hull is 166,000 - 800,000 Tons.
Next Steps
·
Complete the
emissions inventory and community strategy for the new City of Ottawa; continue
corporate actions.
·
a climate change
commitment for the new City Council.
·
Continue the
development and implementation of the Better Buildings Program and District
Energy initiative.
·
Integrate climate
change strategy into an overall City Environmental Plan, Mayor’s Summit on
Growth, etc.
Councillor Stewart thanked Mr.
Wilson for an excellent presentation, which answered most of her
questions. She is pleased to see that
finally there is a consensus on climate change being the priority environmental
issue of this century. She is
encouraged to see that the City has its own house in order. She looks forward to participate in the
process of identifying and implementing different opportunities to continue in
focusing on this issue.
Councillor Brooks
spoke in support of the program. He
feels that it is important that the City of Ottawa, as all other cities take
initiative on this issue. Climate
change is nothing new; it is taking place and will continue to take place. However, the rate of climate change is new,
and some of the causes that are taken place.
He talked about an upcoming meeting in Quebec City to address the issue
of climate change. He discussed the use
of fossil fuel in third world countries and the Federal Government’s position
on this issue. He commented on hydro
stations, which are going to be fuelled up using fossil fuel.
In response, Mr.
Wilson commented that there is no doubt some of the different political levels
are just now sorting out on how to address this issue. He pointed out that emission reduction is a
co-benefit of reducing utility costs.
Implementing this program makes good fiscal sense and at the same time
makes good environmental sense.
Councillor McNeely
asked Mr. Wilson to help the Committee in preparing for the March Summit. Mr. Wilson agreed to prepare for the
Committee a more detailed presentation on some of the existing target programs.
Councillor McNeely
is pleased with the 15% return on the dollars invested in this program, and
with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities $125 million’s contribution to
climate change projects.
Following an enquiry
from Councillor Brooks on which budget item this program falls under, Mr.
Wilson advised that it falls under the Development Services Department. Ms. Leclair, the General Manager for the
Transportation, Utilities and Public Works confirmed Mr. Wilson’s statement,
and added that the program is included in the policy group of the Development
Services Branch. She also noted that
the Planning and Development Committee received that budget and deferred its
approval on it to April 12, 2001.
TRANSPORTATION,
UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS /
TRANSPORT, SERVICES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS
UTILITY SERVICES BRANCH /
SERVICES PUBLICS
2. Environmental assessment consultation plan and approval schedule
for trail waste facility landfill
PLAN DE CONSULTATION SUR
L’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET CALENDRIER D’APPROBATION POUR LA DÉCHARGE
CONTRÔLÉE DU CHEMIN TRAIL
Ref
N : ACS2001-TUP-UTL-0002
The
Committee received a presentation from Mr. Patrick McNally, Director of the
Utility Services Branch, Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department
on the Trail Waste Landfill Facility – Environmental Assessment Consultation
Plan and Approval Schedule.
Background
·
Trail Road Landfill Asset Management and Landfill Optimization Study
(1998)
·
3 primary options to maximize landfill resource
–
Increase height
–
Increase width (footprint)
– Landfill reclamation (mining)
- Optimization of current site most cost effective option
Approvals Process
·
Landfill expansion requires approval under the Environmental Assessment
Act (EA)
- Proponents
can prepare a Terms of Reference for the EA
- Terms of
Reference approved = EA relates only to the scope of the Terms of
Reference
- Extensive
public and agency consultation included in preparing the Terms of
Reference
·
EA Terms of Reference approved (January 2001)
Trail Waste Facility
Landfill Optimization/Expansion Project
Key Council Input Approval
Points
Annex
A
No. |
Committee and Council
Decision Point |
Estimated
Timing |
|
2 |
Public Consultation Plan
and Council Approval Schedule |
March 2001 |
|
11 |
Preferred Alternative |
September 2001 |
|
19 |
Final EA/EPA Report |
January 2002 |
Solid Waste Planning Process
Current TWFL site life 2008
·Major Studies in Current Waste
Planning
- • 3Rs Study
- Waste
Characterization
- Landfill
Optimization
·Review with MOE
·MOE accepts
Optimization for Scoped EA
·MOE approves EA
Terms of Reference/EA prepared
·EA not approved Broad
Environmental Assessment
1.
Waste Disposal EA
2.
Identification of Preferred Solution
3.
Site Search (2006-2007)
·EA
approved/Redevelop site (2002)
·Diversion
Planning/New Technologies (ongoing)
Conclusions
·
Optimization Study concluded maximize current disposal resource was the
most economic option
- City is in
mid-process which has been successful to date
- Optimization/Expansion
will not preclude other diversion/new technology options
- Council
updated throughout the process
- Objective is
to secure long-range disposal by late 2002.
Based on the comments
contained in the Report that the City has responded to all public and agency
comments to the Ministry of Environment’s satisfaction, Councillor Stewart
inquired about the public’s acceptance of the process.
In response, Mr. McNally
advised that, in general, the public is very much on board and is in favor with
this project, but that is not to say that everybody is in agreement. Staff has worked very hard to develop and
maintain a good working relationship with the rural residents around the
landfill site. He will circulate the
terms of reference to Members of Council.
In response to Councillor
Stewart’s questions, Mr. McNally confirmed that the Departmental Advisory
Committee for Optimization/Expansion of the Trail Waste Facility Landfill will
be comprised of members of the public, and will act as a public liaison
committee, which will allow the consultant and staff to get an initial feedback
and advice on how to dialogue with the community, newsletters, information on
the Web site, as well as seek any input with respect to the technology. Mr. McNally also confirmed that everything
is on budget.
Councillor Thompson enquired
about the Springhill landfill site. Mr.
McNally confirmed that the Springhill landfill site operated by Thomlinson is
working very well with respect to diverting construction and demolition
waste. Most of the waste going to Trail
Road is the residential waste.
Councillor Thompson also
enquired about future plan to look at the City-owned Springhill site with a
long-range plan. Mr. McNally advised
that it has to be looked at now, as it is part of the inventory with respect to
disposal capacity. When it was simply
serving the former Township of Osgoode, it had a potentially very long
lifetime. If, for example, we take all
the residential waste to Springhill across the new City, it will be full in a
year.
Councillor Thompson advised
that there has been some discussion about using the facility at Moose Creek for
the eastern half of the City to extend the life of Trail Road. He enquired whether this is in the
process. Mr. McNally advised that there
are a number of ongoing discussions with not only private sector operators within
Ottawa, but also with the Moose Creek facility. Staff recommendation is to move forward on Trail Road and at the
same time pursue other landfill options, other technologies for handling waste,
and other options for diverting waste.
Staff is aware of the Moose Creek operation and had some discussions
with the operators already.
Councillor Kreling requested
clarification on the lifetime expectancy of the Trail Road Landfill. Mr. McNally explained the process of the
different stages with respect to extending the lifetime of the landfill.
Councillor Kreling enquired
as whether technology and other alternatives to landfill would be part of the
optimization process. Particularly with
the environmental process, Mr. McNally advised that, because these types of
approval are difficult to obtain, staff is focusing on optimizing the landfill,
and at the same time, considerable staff time is spent trying to stay up to
speed with other technologies.
Councillor Harder gave the
Committee her confidence in this process.
She advised that people in South Nepean have a real interest in the
Trail Road landfill site now, and have a lot of knowledge about the site. She is pleased to see that the process
includes residential meetings. She
asked that staff provide as much public information as possible.
Councillor McNeely asked
that Mr. McNally expand on the “alternate delivery options” comment in the
report. In response, Mr. McNally
advised that this comment was included as it is one of the options staff was
asked to look at as a step towards transition.
Following Councillor
McNeely’s question on the percentage of diversion of waste in Ottawa as
compared to other Canadian cities, Mr. McNally advised that, when looking at
material put at the curb, about 10% ends up in the Leaf and Yard Program; 20%
in recycling; and about 70% goes into landfill. The Provincial average is about 28% diversion. Ottawa is slightly above. The Ministry of Environment is seriously
looking at steps to move closer to 50% diversion.
Councillor Brooks enquired
about the cost effectiveness of the landfill site. Mr. McNally advised that the work program includes a pilot
landfill mining operation and its cost effectiveness.
In response to Councillor
Brooks’ enquiry, Mr. McNally advised that the Draft Environmental Assessment
Terms of Reference was circulated in June 2000 and will provide him with the
percentage of people responded.
Councillor Brooks also
enquired about the comment in the report with respect to “the unlikely case
that the detailed assessment not produce a satisfactory solution, or should the
Ministry of the Environment not approve the final submission as expected in
early 2002, …” In response, Mr. McNally
advised that staff would have to step back and look at a broader environmental
assessment for waste disposal.
Councillor Stewart asked
staff to comment on mining Trail Road landfill. Mr. McNally advised that, one of the concept of mining, part of
the work plan would be as you get the material out, a new bottom liner is put
in. He pointed that Trail Road landfill
does not have the synthetic liner; there is a clay liner in place and those
stages were positioned on site so that when and if there is a migration of
leachate contaminated ground water, it is still contained on the site. The landfill area is right up against Trail
Road with room to the north. The reason
for that is, based on the design work done then, that if there were migration,
it would remain on the property owned by the City.
That
the Environmental Services Committee recommend Council approve the Public
Consultation Plan and Council Approval Schedule for the Trail Waste Facility
Landfill Optimization/Expansion Environmental Assessment as outlined in Annex
A.
Que
le Comité des services de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver le
plan de consultation publique et le calendrier de l’évaluation environnementale
sur l’expansion et l’optimisation de la décharge contrôlée du chemin Trail,
tels qu’ils sont présentés dans l’annexe A.
CARRIED
corporate services
department /
services
généraux
fINANCIAL sERVICES /
SERVICES FINANCIERS
3. 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE OPERATING BUDGET REVIEW
Examen du budget de
fonctionnement de 2001 du Comité deS SERVICES DE l’eNVIRONNEment
Ref. N : ACS2001-CCS-ESC-0001
Since
most Committee Members had already seen the Corporate Overview slide
presentation at other previous standing committee meetings, Councillor Hunter
asked the Chair to direct the Director of Financial Services, Lloyd Russell to
dispense with it, and get right to the point of the Environmental Services
Committee issues. The Committee agreed
with Councillor Hunter’s request.
Councillor Hume, the Chair
of the Committee, having not seen the Presentation, requested that he be
provided with a copy of the slides.
Mr. Russell gave a very
brief overview and made the following comments. As all members are aware, budget direction was to bring back a
budget with a tax freeze. He referred the
Committee to the line entitled “Net
Taxation Requirement” on the budget
sheet. Each of the activities in the
budget has a Net Taxation Requirement Line.
He pointed out that the only program that is tax-supported is the Solid
Waste function. The other utilities,
such as water, sewer and storm water will be the recommendations of staff and
are rate-supported. He clarified the
elimination of the Osgoode Tag Bag Program issue, which was left for budget
discussion. Funds would be transferred
from revenue to taxation and no net impact is anticipated.
Ms.
Rosemarie Leclair, the General Manager of the Transportation, Utilities and
Public Works (TUPW) Department presented the Committee with the Department’s
Operating Budget, in particular the Utility Services Branch budget; the Utility
Services Branch is one of the five branches in the Department. She gave an overview of her department in
order to help the Committee consider the Utility Services Branch budget. Copy of the slide presentation is on file
with the City Clerk. TUPW Department’s
mission is to build and operate transportation and utility services, to meet
community expectations and to provide optimal value in an integrated, safe and
environmentally responsible manner. She
briefed the Committee on the Departmental structure. The Service Delivery Model adopted is built on the founding
principles for the new City of Ottawa - the three founding principles being
Citizen-centered, integration and competitiveness.
Citizen-centered - The Department will continue to provide reliable, quality and
affordable services, as well as safe and environmentally responsible
services. The Department has a 24-hour
a day, 7-day a week operation in many services. One of the new things with this service delivery model is common
use of the Client Service Centers as well as the consolidated call center for
seamless customer contact. The
Department will also continue to be committed to ensuring clear lines of
accountability for programs and outcomes with performance measurement framework
in place, and to focus on outcomes and outputs.
Integration - Common focus and objectives
Functional
alignment of common activities (e.g., coin collection, sign manufacturing)
Street
level activity integrated to full extent possible
Shared
resources, equipment & facilities
Integrated
business systems (MMS, GIS) facilitate day-to-day operations
Full
use of Centers of Excellence within Department
Use
of corporate Centers of Expertise.
Competitiveness - Efficient and effective in-house service delivery
Performance
measure framework in place to assess service delivery
Continuous
improvement culture to ensure that service delivery remains cost effective
Competitive
model to determine service delivery mix that meets service expectations at
optimal value
Use
available technology to increase efficiency
Increase
efficiency & reduce costs through business process reviews
Develop
external markets for provision of service
Service
delivery that leverages alternative service delivery mechanisms.
Amalgamated/Restructured
& Streamlined
Savings of $23.1M by end of Year 3
Year 1: $7.2M 102 FTE’s
Year 2: $6.7M 96 FTE’s
Year 3: $9.2 M 87 FTE’s
$23.1M 285 FTE’s.
2001 FTE Reductions
Level 2-5 Management 86
Administrative support 16
Total 102.
Model Objectives
Provide consistent delivery approach across the
City
Achieve horizontal integration across Branches
to increase efficiency and achieve cost savings
Eliminate duplication and better use
specialized skills and equipment
Promote competitive approach to service
delivery
Leverage Centres of Expertise concept in
support of operational requirements
Increase use of technology to control costs,
measure performance and monitor service delivery against benchmarks
Meet all legislated requirements.
Budget
Assumptions
Same
service levels and programs as 2000, unless specifically noted
Changes
from rationalization of standards, business processes and protocols to be
phased in over 2001 and 2002.
Budget
Challenges
Increased
service demand/ usage/ inventories
Inflationary
pressures
Evolving
regulations and legislation
Aging
infrastructure and equipment
Maintaining
service standards.
Budget
Outcome
Adjustment
for growth $6.8M 2 FTE’s
Adjustment
for inflation $5.1M
Adjustments
for legislative requirements $0.5M 4 FTE’s
Loss
of Revenues $1.0M
_______
$13.4M 6 FTE’s
Amalgamation
savings ¯ ($7.3M) (102
FTE’s)
Fares/
fees/ revenues ¯ ($8.0M) _________
($15.3M) (102
FTE’s)
Net change
2000-2001 ¯ ($1.9M) (96 FTE’s)
Details on TYPW
Expenditures and Revenues are on file with the City Clerk.
2001 Budget Summary
Expenditures $401.5M
Revenues $149.6M
Net Requirement $251.9M
Ms. Leclair requested that
the Environmental Services Committee approve the Utility
Services Branch budget on Page 4-179.
She
gave an overview on the Utility Services budget of $92.5M, which represents 23%
of the total TUPW Budget of $401.5M.
Utility Services Mission
To manage the water, wastewater and solid waste
resources on behalf of the residents of the City of Ottawa through education,
promotion, development and delivery of integrated services to the community.
Branch
Expenditures
Solid
Waste $35.4M
Water $29.3M
Stormwater
& Wastewater $27.8M
Details
on the Branch expenditures are on file with the City Clerk.
Branch
Services
Drinking
Water treatment & distribution including 4 communal well systems
Drinking
water quality
Wastewater
Collection & Treatment
Stormwater
services
Municipal
Drainage
Environmental
programs including surface water quality, biosolids, water efficiency
Solid
waste collection,
Landfill
operations at 2 sites,
Waste
diversion programs.
Services Adjustments
To be implemented in 2001
Solid Waste Collection – Osgoode
Leaf and Yard Collection – Rockcliffe
Under Review
Biosolids Management Plan
Landfill Site Operation
Municipal Drainage Study.
Budget
Pressures – Growth in the Utility Branch has added
$2.6M, 2 FTE’s for
5
wastewater pumping stations
Glencairn
Biofilter
Increased
solid waste tonnages
Water
& sewer system growth.
Budget Pressures –
Regulatory
Requirement to meet enhanced MOE legislative
requirements, including
Increased operator training
Increased reporting to public
Total pressure
$0.5M, 4 FTE’s.
Budget
Pressures – Inflation/Energy
Loss
of preferential hydro rates
Increased
fuel costs
Total
pressure $2.0M.
Budget
Outcome
Total
Pressures $5.1M 6 FTE’s
Amalgamation
Savings ($1.3M) (18 FTE’s)
Increased
Revenues ($0.8M)
Net Change 2000-2001
$3.0M (12 FTE’s)
Expenditures $92.5M
Revenues $16.8M
2001
Net Requirement $75.6M.
Following
Councillor Hunter’s enquiry on major increase for the materials and supplies,
Ms. Leclair confirmed that increased hydro and fuel costs are the major contributors
for the increased requirement.
Councillor
Hunter raised the issue of water and wastewater functions, as opposed to some
other functions carried out by the former Regional municipality, which were
rate-supported rather than tax-supported, meaning that the rates paid for water
and sewer surcharge would cover the costs.
He questioned the corporate philosophy of having revenue from those
functions/bills reported in another place away from the expenditure, which
could not be an easy way to match revenue and expenditure.
Mr.
Russell advised that it is a function in this year’s budget process, where
everything was allocated back to departments and the revenues had been gathered
in one corporate account. He does not
think this process would continue in future budgets. All aspects of the utilities would be incorporated in future
budgets, so that the rates would be entirely in the budget shown against the
activities, as would be the Capital and pay-as-you-go requirements. The process for this budget year is
different and unusual, and would not necessarily continue for future
budgets. The development process
undertaken by the Ottawa Transition Board was that staff would simply come to a
bottom net requirement.
In
the event that Council approves the elimination of the Tag Bag Program in
Osgoode, and the cost for the collection of solid waste will go to the
taxpayers, Councillor Thompson enquired whether the revenue from reducing the
cost, as per the agreement with Tomlinson to operate the landfill site, would
offset the cost of collection for the residents.
Ms.
Leclair noted that in the TUPW Department report, the concept is that currently
the residents are paying a fee for the tags, that fee would disappear, the
residents would no longer be out of pocket, and the difference would be
collected through the tax base to be consistent with the approach used for all
other residents of the City of Ottawa in terms of garbage collection. She thinks that it is a financial policy
issue as to whether or not a specific revenue for landfill operation would get
directed back specifically to that area as an asset.
Mr.
Russell advised that the revenue would have been picked up as part of
aggregating the 2000 budgets, and should now reside in the overall solid waste
numbers as shared expenses. He
confirmed that the cost for waste collection for Osgoode residents would be
based strictly on assessment.
Councillor Stewart expressed concern about the reduction of 102 FTE’s. Ms. Leclair clarified that the Utility Services Branch portion of reduction is 18 FTE’s, and 102 FTE’s are across the total department. Out of the 18 FTE’s approximately 6 to 10 FTE’s come from other than storm water, which is newly amalgamated. She feels more staff is required to keep up with the evolving regulations and legislation. She wants assurance from the top that there is going to be ongoing review that there are enough personnel to perform the vital duties of these utilities and measures in place to address problems early as opposed to during the next budget cycle. Ms. Leclair explained that the amalgamation savings are 18 FTE’s; 6 new FTE’s are being brought forward for approval, so the net reduction is 12 FTE’s. The Department is not being reduced to the full scale to address amalgamation savings. There will also be continuous audits, through the use of external resources, to look at the structure, the processes, the resourcing against the legislation and the requirements to ensure proper staffing and operation.
Councillor
Hume enquired whether the potential to generate electricity is more attractive
now that the City has loss its preferential hydro rates. Mr. McNally advised that staff is waiting to
see the outcome of the hydro deregulation, but these projects are not on the
2001 budget.
Councillor
Hume finds it very difficult to find where tipping fees come in as it is
related to the actual cost to operate the landfill. Mr. McNally briefed the Committee on tipping fees and operating
cost. Mr. Russell advised that the
actual tipping fee revenues received by the landfill operation is shown as
revenue in the budget on Page 4-184.
However, an element of that revenue goes into the compensation fund, and
the pro forma for that particular fund would be in the Capital Budget book.
Councillor Hume questioned the
status of the cost of operating wastewater treatment plant. Mr. McNally advised that the cost is still
in the same area as in the past, and a detailed analysis could be provided, if
required.
That the Environmental
Services Committee recommend that Council approve the 2001 Draft Operating
Budget Estimates for the Environmental Services Committee
Que
le Comité des services de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver le
premier projet de budget de fonctionnement de 2001 pour ledit Comité.
CARRIED
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS
Better
Buildings Presentation
Councillor McNeely asked that the Committee
receive at a future meeting the Better Buildings Program Presentation referred
to by Mr. Charles Wilson during his presentation on Climate Change.
The Chair will endeavour to arrange for the
Presentation on behalf of the Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.
_________________________ _________________________
Committee
Coordinator Chair