Wellington County garbage collection costs likely to soar by millions

WELLINGTON COUNTY – The county faces a nearly 50 per cent jump in garbage collection costs if council votes in favour of a new contract with Waste Management later this month.

Wellington County staff are recommending the company be awarded a seven-year, $35-million contract for automated, cart-based collection starting in the summer of 2028.

That’s up almost 50%, or $11.42 million, from the county’s current $23.3-million garbage collection contract with Waste Management, which is set to expire next year.

“Every seven to 10 years we do a new curbside collection contract, and on every one of those there's been significant increases,” solid waste services manager Das Soligo told the Advertiser, adding the county had expected a 20% increase.

The current contract was signed pre-COVID, before the cost of seemingly everything ballooned, Soligo noted.

The loss of purchasing power from a devalued dollar is felt on costlier trucks – the county’s contract requires new collection vehicles – and the natural gas to run them. (Because the trucks take up to two years to be delivered, the county would extend its current contract a year to bridge the 2027-28 gap.)

The cost of labour is also up, Soligo added, though automated collection relies on fewer workers.

“We’re receiving market-rate pricing,” Soligo said. “That’s just the going rate … with inflation, the cost of everything has increased.”

The county explored different models for the new contract: continuing to hand-bomb yellow garbage bags, collection with a robotic arm to grab carts, variations of four- and five-day pickup schedules, and bulky item pickup options.

Waste Management was one of five bidders for the new contract, along with Miller Waste, Environmental 360 Solutions, GFL and Emterra.

Miller Waste came in with the lowest bids among the companies in each scenario, except automated, four-day collection, which is what county staff is recommending to avoid disrupting the current pickup schedule.

In that case, Miller Waste’s quote was $5.59 million annually — $628,777 above Waste Management’s $4.96-million quote.

Solid waste committee chair Steve O’Neill said the industry is shifting toward cart-based, automated systems with few companies willing to provide dedicated manual collection.

(With a lack of space for carts, manual collection would continue in the county’s 14 downtown cores, but with black bags.)

O’Neill said the committee was “shocked” at the quotes received for automated collection, let alone the $5.4- to $11.6-million bids for manual-only collection.

“Nobody wants to do manual,” O’Neill said.

“We’re being dragged down that (automation) path whether we like it or not.”

The county sees the move away from manual labour, which can be prone to absenteeism, injury and service disruptions, as a positive.

O’Neill said the five-member solid waste committee was happy overall with the recommendation. He noted residents would receive yard waste pickup coinciding with regular collection days, and be able to toss pet waste in organics bins.

Every municipality must endure change, and though it’s tough for residents, O’Neill said, “people are adaptable.”

Soligo is recommending throwing away the current user-pay system in which residents purchase yellow garbage bags, as collection companies move away from relying on manual labour, and because of complaints about bag costs and quality.

“The user-pay program has proven to be unpopular with some residents who perhaps do not understand or appreciate the waste diversion incentive that it is supposed to represent,” Soligo stated in a report to the committee.

The user fee system, which generates $2.24 million annually, aims to distribute costs of the system onto those using it, according to Soligo.

“Many residents see the program as a costly fee for bags and a number have complained over time, requesting that these costs be embedded in taxes,” Soligo stated.

He added eliminating the bags “would be a welcome change by many residents.”

But it also means the loss of user-fee revenue, so county staff is recommending taxpayers still pick up the tab.

Even after $741,800 in county savings from scrapping the bag program, taxpayers would be on the hook for $1.5 million in the budget.

“People are paying for it one way or another,” Soligo said, adding solid waste services relies on the cash.

Soligo suggested most will end up paying less through taxes.

If the average county household produces a bag and half every two weeks (39 small bags) that amounts to $78 per year. Recovering $1.5 million in lost user-pay revenue through taxes is likely to cost the average household less, according to Soligo.

“Of course our treasury department will do what they always do … looking at the whole system and seeing where there’s opportunities to smooth out increases,” Soligo said.

There’s also the $5.5-million cost of new carts for an automated system. Staff are looking at the cart cost spread across a decade – the new contract, plus three years of renewals – though the carts are expected to last 20 years.

Council has already decided to spend a $4.6-million surplus from last year’s budget on carts, should a vote go in favour of a cart-based system.

The $900,000 shortfall for carts could be made up from development charges, debt or through tax bills.

With all costs factored, automated four-day collection comes in cheaper than sticking with manual collection, but it's slightly more expensive than automated five-day collection.

Soligo’s report states a change to five-day collection, with the disruptions it would bring, isn’t worth saving $20,580.

Waste Management’s established routes, systems and staff in the county would lead to a reliable service start, Soligo stated in his report recommending the company.

County council will vote on the recommendation at its June 25 meeting.