By Catherine O’Hara, REVIEW STAFF

Members of the Flamborough Community Council went on the record to talk trash.

At the Jan. 16 public works committee meeting, the group put forward its recommendations on the city’s Solid Waste Management Master Plan (SWMMP), which is currently under review.

The group of Flamborough residents, which met in December and January to hash out its ideas for a more effective and comprehensive solid waste system, continues to support Hamilton’s 65 per cent waste diversion target. It also endorses bi-weekly garbage pickup as well as strengthened education campaigns and enforcement.

Savings

In its evaluation of the draft SWMMP document, the Flamborough Community Council was focused on maximizing savings to ensure the city’s goal of a zero per cent tax increase was met. Members, too, looked at ways the city could further the lifespan of the Glanbrook landfill site.

“As a council, I think our primary focus was on the reduction of the cost. We were in strong support of the target of a zero tax increase but with the thought that the services still need to be provided,” said Troy resident Vaughan Martin, vice-chair of the local group. “It has to be balanced.”

City staff, in a report to members of the public works committee, identify four “strategic directions” that would allow Hamilton to inch closer to its waste diversion target. They include education and enforcement, service level modifications, waste minimization and diversion opportunities, and multi-municipal collaboration.

Staff also carried out a systems options review, which explored and assessed financial impacts, waste diversion and disposal implications of five systems, namely the status quo, enhanced and maximized diversions, keeping the Glanbrook landfill and investing in alternative disposal technologies.
According to the SWMMP review final draft report, maintaining status quo would be the most cost-effective system. However, it would result in the “earliest closure date of the Glanbrook Landfill.”

Two enhanced plans were proposed. The cost of bolstering diversion and implementing bi-weekly garbage pickup between 2012 and 2036 would be $814 million. These options would extend the life of the landfill by four years, to 2044.

Maximized diversion, at a cost of $941 million, and maximized diversion with every other week garbage collection, totalling $869 million, were options laid out in the report. If rolled out, the Glanbrook Landfill would continue to accept trash until it has reached capacity in 2048. Investing in alternative disposal technology, at a cost of $435 million, would extend the landfill’s lifespan to 2053.

The preferred waste management system, according to the staff report, includes enhanced diversion with biweekly garbage pickup. The Glanbrook Landfill would continue to be the city’s disposal site of choice. The total cost of staff’s foremost proposal is $1.2 billion over the next 24 years.

Following its review of the draft SWMMP, Flamborough Community Council encouraged staff to explore alternatives in the event that Hamiltonians miss their bi-weekly garbage collection.

“You need some sort of relief valve,”’ said Martin, suggesting, “You need to let me, as a citizen, bring my extra garbage to the transfer station, maybe for free.”

The local council, comprised of more than a dozen Flamborough residents, also stated in its recommendations that the city’s proposed education and enforcement programs be strengthened to include increased policing to curb illegal dumping, targeted programs using waste management data to focus on areas that could benefit from increased awareness, and the implementation of support programs to further education campaigns for individuals with language barriers.

The group also suggested the city put a “strong emphasis on multi-residential buildings and owners.”
In multi-residential buildings or complexes, where  garbage is collected from a central location, there’s little accountability or incentive to stick to the city’s container limit. “You can have some anonymity, no one knows how many garbage bags you throw out,” said Martin. “It’s almost like single residentials are carrying the weight of the 65 per cent goal more so than the multi-residential, hence our recommendation to have a stronger focus on the multi-residential units.”

The implementation of a single-stream recycling process should also be explored, noted the vice-chair of the Flamborough Community Council.
To divert recyclables from entering the landfill, comprehensive recycling technologies should be adopted, which would allow more types of plastics to be processed at recycling plants.

In its presentation to members of the public works committee, Flamborough’s community council advises Hamilton’s decision-makers to encourage the provincial government to strengthen its waste minimization legislation, particularly when it comes to packaged goods, “so there will be less material to process at the end of a product’s life cycle.”

“It’s within the provincial government’s best interest to help support something like that so they don’t have to approve more landfills, which is a divisive topic no matter where you live,” said Martin. “If we approach the process in an official way to say that the City of Hamilton supports this initiative…then hopefully that would land more weight.”

At last Monday’s meeting, Hamilton politicians grappled with proposed changes to the city’s waste collection tendering process. The Flamborough Community Council believes many of the issues surrounding the procurement plan are similar to those raised during the SWMMP review.

While councillors chose to defer voting on the process, which affects garbage collection in the short-term, Martin is hopeful city staff and council will take into consideration some of the group’s suggestions.

The Flamborough Community Council, noted the Troy resident, will continue its involvement in the SWMMP review.  “We just want to let everybody know that we are doing the best we can to take a proactive role in the Flamborough community,” said Martin. “Once the master plan comes up for its official review, I believe we will debate this issue again.”