n6a 4l9 london

300 DuRerin Avenue P.0.Box 5035 London, ON N6A 4L9

London C A N A D A

November 18,2008

P. McNally Acting General Manager of Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer

I hereby certify that the Municipal Council, at its session held on November 17, 2008 resolved:

4. That, on the recommendation of the Acting General Manager of Environmental and Engineering Services 8, City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program:

the report dated November I O , 2008 and the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program, forming part of the aforementioned report, as submitted by the Acting General Manager of Environmental and Engineering Services & City Engineer BE RECEIVED for information;

a Public Participation Meeting BE HELD at the Environment and Transportation Committee meeting on December 8; 2008, to receive input on the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program;

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program at the Public Participation Meeting on December 8,2008;

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide an overview of the Public Participation Meeting to the Board of Control on December I O , 2008; and

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a copy of the draft Program and notice of the Public Participation Meeting to property owners within the Study Area of the W12A Landfill Area Study. (2008-WO4-00) (4/18/ETC) .

Kevin Bain City Clerk

4rg

cc: Chair and Members, Board of Control V.A. Cot& General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services & Acting City Treasurer J. Stanford, Director of Environmental Programs & Solid Waste W. Abbott, Division Manager, Solid Waste Management R. Sanderson, Manager of Realty Services

The Corporation of the City of London Offlce: 519-661-2500 ex?. 6479

www.london.ca F a : 519-661-4892

Agenda Item # Page # -

TO:

FROM:

1

CHAIR AND MEMBERS ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

MEETING ON JANUARY 12,2009

PAT McNALLY, P.Eng. ACTING GENERAL MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL

!I ~ - ~- ~

-& ENGINEERING SERVicES &CITY ENGINEER

11 SUBJECT: 1 W12A LANDFILL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT I I I

~~

AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES PROGRAM

~

RECOMMENDATION

That on the recommendation of the Acting General Manager of Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program:

(a) The draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program attached hereto as part of Attachment " A BE AMENDED by:

i) replacing Section 2.0 clause K in its entirety with the following: Immediately after the owner(s) has given notice to the General Manager, the General Manager will determine when there will be sufficient funds to accommodate the owner's request. As soon as there are sufficient funds, the City and the owner(s) will sign an agreement whereby both parties will agree to clauses k) thru w) below. A sample agreement is provided in Appendix 6.

ii) adding 3921-3931 Glanworth Drive (roll number 800200061000000) to Schedule 1 (Category 3) and to Schedule 2 (Visual Impact Assessment) as well as the corresponding changes to Map 1 and Map 2.

APPROVED. (b) The amended draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program BE

I1 PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca under City Hall (Meetings) include: Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program, Environment & Transportation Committee (ETC) Meeting on November I O , 2008, Agenda Item #3. Update on the Long Term Contribution Strategy for the Sanitary Landfill Reserve Fund, ETC Meeting on December 10,'2007, Agenda Item #IO. Voluntary Property Acquisition Plan, Draft Guiding Principles for a W12A Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation Policy, ETC Meeting on September 11, 2006, Agenda Item #5. Draft Guiding Principles for a W12A Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation Policy, Environment and Transportation Committee (ETC) Meeting on June 19,2006, Agenda Item #I.

I BACKGROUND

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program. The Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program (Draft Program) as submitted to ETC on November 10,2008 is provided in Attachment A,

CONTEXT The W12A Landfill began operation in 1977. It has capacity to continue to accept waste for approximately 15 years based on current disposal rates and approved capacity. It is the only operating landfill site in London and receives garbage generated by all Londoners and many London businesses. In 2008, approximately 250,000 tonnes were delivered for disposal.

In recent years the City has made significant investments in enhancing and upgrading the infrastructure at the landfill. These upgrades have included improvements to the stormwater management ponds and

Agenda Item # Page # - 2

the leachate collection system, installation of landfill gas collection and flaring system and the supply of municipal water to the landfill. The City is committed to continue to improve the operation of the landfill by taking reasonable efforts to reduce or address negative effects of the W12A Landfill site and any potential future expansion through proper design and operation of the landfill.

Developing a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program is part of the City’s overall efforts to reduce or address the negative effects of the landfill an the local community around the landfill. The majority of new or expanded landfills in Ontario have a mixture of mitigative measures, community enhancement and/or compensation programs.

At its November 17, 2008 session, Council received the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program (Attachment A) and directed staff to hold a public participation meeting to receive input, make a presentation on the Draft Program at the public participation meeting, and provide a copy of the Draft Program and notice of the public meeting to property owners within the study area of the W12A Landfill Area Study.

The public participation meeting was originally scheduled for December 8, 2008 but was delayed until January 12, 2009 to accommodate the necessary notification requirements. Public notice of the meeting was provided by direct mailing to property owners within the study area of the W12A Landfill Area Study, notices placed in the London Free Press on December 13,2008 and December 20,2008 and a notice placed on the City’s website.

DISCUSSION: Previous Public Consultation Process Over the last two years, the local community was provided several opportunities to comment on what should be included in a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program. These opportunities are listed below and a summary of the comments received is presented in Attachment A:

June 29, 2006 W12A Landfill Area Study Meeting Series of five open house meetings held with various stakeholders in September and October 2006 Request for written comments in Spring 2008 June 26,2008 W12A Landfill Area Study Meeting

Overview of Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program The Draft Program provides for:

Property Value protection and Property Acquisition Plan so that persons who wish to move or sell agricultural land do not lose money on their properties due to the proximity of the landfill. This plan includes annual payments to the owners of nearby residential and agricultural properties for the “right of first refusal” on the sale of the property. Communify Mitigative Measures Fund which would be used to address special circumstances in the broader community that are not covered by the other sections of the Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program. Public Liaison Committee to serve as a focal point for dissemination, review and exchange of information and monitoring results relevant to the operation of the landfill.

s

Complete details of these features are presented in Attachment A.

Comments Received on Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program At the time of writing this report there was two written submissions and two verbal comments received with respect to the Draft Program. These comments are addressed below:

Verbal Comment # I There may be confusion over what properties qualify for property value protection. Some residents believe that all residents within the study area of the W12A Landfill Area Study qualified for property value protection because the notices were received for completion of the Area Study at about the same time as the notices for the Draft Program were received.

Response It is noted that similar concerns about the differences between the studv area of the W12A Landfill Area Study and area that qualified for property value protection has bein raised at previous meetings and was discussed.

The Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program includes a map as well as a list of all properties that qualified for property value protection. The Area Study includes a different map showing its study area.

3

Verbal Comment #2 and Written Submission # I (sent to ETC via Clerk‘s office) There was a request for completion of a study on the effect of the landfill on nearby property values.

ResDonse This is being reviewed by staff from Realty Services and Environmental Programs & Solid Waste and will be reported to Municipal Council at a later date subsequent to compiling sufficient market evidence to allow for meaningful analysis and conclusions.

Written Submission #2 (sent to City staff) The property at 3921-3931 Glanworth Drive (roll number 800200061000000) was missed and should be added to the list residential properties within 1,500 metres of the landfill.

ResDonse We concur. This change is being recommended.

Proposed Changes to Draft Program Capital requirements for the Property Value Protection and Property Acquisition Plan portion of the Draft Program range from approximately $12,000,000 to $20,000,000. It will not be possible to accommodate all these costs at once. For budgeting purposes it has been assumed that these costs will occur over a 10 year period ($4 million in 2009 and $2 million a year there after).

In order to recognize the annual financial limits for the property value protection and property acquisition plan it is proposed to amend of Section 2.0 Clause K of the Draft Program (shown in bold) as follows:

Immediately after the owner(s) has given notice to the General Manager, the General Manager will determine when there will be sufficient funds to accommodate the owner’s request. As soon as there are sufficient funds, the City and the owner(s) will sign an agreement whereby both parties will agree to clauses k) thru w) below. A sample agreement is provided in Appendix B [of the Draft Program].

k)

CONCLUSION: The recommended W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program represents the best balance between the concerns from residents who live near the W12A Landfill site, the need to ensure that this vital service is available to the residents and businesses of London and the need to be responsible to the ratepayers of the City.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This report was prepared with assistance from Ron Sanderson, Manager, Realty Services; and Charlie Abromaitis, Senior Property Appraiser Negotiator.

PREPARED BY: : WESLEY ABBOn, P. ENG. DIVISION MANAGER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

11 RECOMMENDED LY

I \ d U

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

September 8, 2008 NVA Y\Shared\SolWaste\ETC-BoC Reports\REl

RECOMMENDED BY:

PAT McNALLY, P.ENG.\

ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES &

23108.doC

Attachment A ETC Report Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

C Vic’Cote, General Manager, Finance & Corporate Services Ron Sanderson, Manager, Realty Services

APPENDIX A - ETC REPORT

DRAFT W12A LANDFILL COMMUNITY EHNANCEMENT

11

AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES PROGRAM

C A N A D A

DRAFT W12A COMMUNITY EN

S PROGRAM

November 2008

Agenda Item # Page # -- 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Property Value Protection and Property Acquisition Plan 3.0 Community Mitigative Measures 4.0 W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee

Appendix B Sample Agreement fo

esidential Waste

Schedule 2

Page

I 2 4 7


1 .O INTRODUCTION

The W12A Landfill began operation in 1978. It has capacity to continue to accept waste until approximately 2024 based on current disposal rates and approved capacity.

In recent years the Corporation of the City of London (hereafter London”) has made significant investments in the enhancing an

leachate collection system, installation of landfill gas collect

infrastructure at the

The City of London will continue to take reasonable effo W12A Landfill and any potential future expansion thro

The W12A Landfill and any potential future exp environment, represent a threat to human healt of the defined community.

The Community Enhancement and M discussed in the next 3 chapters:

Property Value Protection an

Community Mitigative Measu Public Liaison Committee

luding the Right of First Refusal)

, ,id(#, s P i # , 14

2.0 Property Value Protection and Property Acquisition Plan

Basis for Property Value Protection and Property Acquisition Plan The property value protection and property acquisition plan is based on the following principles:

Persons who wish to move or sell agricultural land should not lo the proximity of their property to the W12A Landfill.

The City may wish to purchase land in the vicinity of the la against short and long-term encroachment around the la

The City will offer to pay an annual fee for the ” o properties within the block of land bounded Scotland Drive

and Wellington Road, o residential or agricultural properties with a re o agricultural properties within 1 .O kilometres

The City will offer to provide property value o properties within the block of land boun

and Wellington Road, o residential or agricultural properties that are sou o residential or agricultural properties within 1.5 kil

significant visual impact.

ey on their properties due to

oad, Manning Drive, Scotland Drive

dfill with a residence having a

st 31, 2006 would and therefore are not

hase a “right of first refusal on d solely by the City.

The “right of first refusal” out as follows:

administered according to the procedures set

r the “right of first refusal“ in any

landfill is closed upon the the expiration of the

by the City within ten business days of receipt of the offer, Friday inclusive and does not include a Statutory Holiday.

into three categories as 111 for the different categories are

Annual adjustments for inflation will be made to payments using the formula:

“Annual payment” in Year Y = “Annual payment“ in Year 2009 X CLI Year Y CLI 2009

Where CLI Year Y and CLI 2009 are the Cost of Living, Indices for the year in question and 2009. Cost of Living Indices will be determined by Statistics, Canada for Ontario.

9 Properties which the City will offer to pay an annual fee for “right of first refusal” are presented in Map 1 and listed in Schedule 1 along with their category designation. A property which could belong to two or more categories in Table 1 has been assigned to the category that maximizes the option it would be offered.

15

Table 1 : Annual Pavmenta in 2009 for the "I

Landfill Tonnage for

Previous Year

(tonnes)

0 to 150,000

150,001 to 200,000

200,001 to 250,000

250,001 to 300,000

300,001 to 350,000

Greater than 350,000

lotes a) Categoi Catego value a

lht of First Refusal" for Variobs Property Category Designations

the Landfill's

Category 3

Scotland Drive and Wellington Road

$950

$2,950

ments three times category 3 properties. (ments two times category 3 properties. The butina the available funding among eliaible

ands ( 6 , if the City buys a property, ihe number I payment to the remaining private properties

r August 2006. The available funding was based on the per tonne except for first range which was based on

n annual basis. Persons who have a "life tenancy" on uivalent to the "right of first refusal" payments. Persons who property, sever their properties or build homes on their e done so knowing about the landfill's continued existence

le for "right of first refusal". The City will offer to purchase a "right of properties on a case by case basis and determined solely by the

The Property Value Pr

h) Properties eligible for the Property Value Protection Plan are shown in Map 2 and listed in Schedule 2.

Plan will be administered according to the procedures set out as follows:

i) Prior to placing the property on the real estate market, the owner@) shall notify the General Manager of Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer or a designate in writing that the sale be implemented pursuant to the program.

j) Immediately after the owner@) has given notice to the General Manager, the City and the owner@) will sign an agreement whereby both parties will agree to clauses k) thru w) below. A sample agreement is provided in Appendix B.

k) The City will retain a qualified appraiser to estimate the value of the property as if there is no landfill nearby. Added value to the property by the presenee of the landfill such as improved water supply or "right of first refusal" payments under this program shall not be reflected in the appraised value. The value of the property shall be determined as at the date of the notice.


I) The property owner has the right to hire a qualified property appraiser of their choice and at their cost should there be disagreement the appraisal obtained by the City.

m) If the difference between the two values is less than I O % , the City will accept the higher value as the appraised value of the property and guarantee this value.

n) If the difference between the two values is more than IO%, the choose a third appraiser to evaluate the property. In that e average of all three appraisals as the appraised value of th City will pay the cost of the third appraiser.

0) The values determined by the appraisers shall govern t for the purposes of the Property Value Protection P following the date of the notice in paragraph (i). If a

isers will immediately I accept the arithmetic uarantee this value. The

of the property months perty Value

Protection Plan again after this twelve month peri following.

ner may do so s t to paragraph (s)

p) Following the establishment of the apprais the property at the appraised value. If the property with a realtor who will actively pro Multiple Listing Service.

q) If the owner does not receive a bona fide Offer to Pur

Service, then the owner may req

erty, the City may offer to purchase

advertising and by use of the

months of the date of listing

r) The Property Value Protectio any sale. In other words, rath

n by the City of a right of first refusal in ween the offered price and the

n owner invokes the plan more than once.

In the event Value Protection Plan after twelve months but prior to d the plan, the owner shall pay the full cost of all

three to six years after last invoking the Plan, the cost of

te grounds in extenuating circumstances.

u) The Property Value

v) The Property Value Protection Plan will apply to sales by the estate of a deceased owner who would have been eligible if they were still alive. Subsequent owners who acquire the land by inheritance from an eligible owner are eligible.

w) A subsequent owner who acquires land without application of the Property Value Protection Plan from a parent, spouse or person with who he or she has cohabited, as defined in the Family Law Act, is also an eligible owner under the Plan.

ction Plan will not apply to subsequent purchasers of the land.

, ,;dim#, ;;i 3.0 Community Mitigative Measures

Basis for Community Mitigative Measures Community Mitigative Measures are based on the following principles:

17

Residents in the general vicinity of the landfill will not be subject of a pre-determined amount of residential waste at the landfill.

A "Community Mitigative Measures Fund will be establish special circumstances in the broader community.

It is recognized that the City of London is responsible to nuisance impacts from the W12A Landfill thro appropriate mitigative measures.

The Community Mitigative Measures Fund is b Landfill Site to address anv real or oerceived n

or charges for the disposal

ss mitigative measures and

Nuisance impacts include bdours, ioise, d

Potential negative impacts from the W12A disposed of at the Landfill.

The fund will start with an initial

d less funds spent on on to the Municipal water community initiatives from the

system in Glanworth).

Specifics Community mitigative measures shall be ad

a) Residents in the residential waste

according to the procedures set out as follows:

bject to fees or charges for the disposal of week at the landfill.

b) The City will co

material from C

waste that is disposed of at the Landfill in 2009 to all material (including

ed in subsequent years for inflation. Annual adjustments will

CLI 2009 2009 are the Cost of Living Indices for the year in question and 2009. e determined by Statistics, Canada for Ontario.

d) Payments to th Mitigative Measures Fund will be made no later than March 31 for the preceding year.

e) Funds in the Community Mitigative Measures Fund will be

used to cover the expenses of the W12A Public Liaison Committee, and spent on projects recommended by the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee and approved by City Council.

Aaenda Item # Paae # 18

4.0 W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee

Basis for Public Liaison Committee The Public Liaison Committee (PLC) is based on the following principles:

The PLC should contain persons living near the landfill.

The City should make every reasonable effort to create

The PLC should be responsible for recommending p for by the Community Enhancement Fund.

Specifics The PLC will be run according to the procedures s

a) Membership is open to any resident of the

c) The PLC will have a maximum of

d) All meetings will be open to th rce to the PLC and will attend meetings as required.

f) The Terms of Refere


APPENDIX A Sample Agreement for “Right of First Refusal”

W12A Landfill “Right of Fi

This agreement is for the period XXXXXXXXX to

The Owner@) agrees the Corporation of the City of Lon Refusal to purchase the Property known as xx Manning hectares described as Part Lot x, Go

payments in Table 1 will be adju payments using the formula:

an on-going Right Of First I of land of approximately x

ents for inflation will be made to

“Annual payment” in Year Y = “An ent“ in Year 2009 X CLI Year Y CLI 2009

Should the Owner Property from a bona fide third party (the ‘‘Third Party Owner shall notify the City of such offer to purchase

y Offer. The City shall have ten ( IO) business days in erty for the same purchase price and on terms and as those contained in the Third Party Offer. If the City ith the provisions hereof, the Owner shall accept the City’s offer to purchase in accordance with the provisions hereof,

or if any material change is made to the Third Party Offer, then the gain give notice to the City hereunder.


The funds paid property.

Signed:

will be divided among all property owners if more than one owner has title to the

The Corporation of the City of London

Property Owner

Property Owner

'1

Landfill Tonnage for

Previous Year

(tonnes)

0 to 150,000

150,001 to 200,000

Date:

350,000

the lory Designations

entia1 or Agricultural Property . . residentialbwelling partially or

Agricultural property partially or

Residential or Agricultural Property within the block of land bounded by

White Oak Road, Manning Drive, Scotland Drive and Wellinaton Road

the Landfill's property boundary or

I Landfill's property boundary or y WlLllll l


APPENDIX B Sample Agreement for Property Value Protection Plan

W12A Landfill Property Va

C A N A D A

This agreement is between the Corporation o f t that is eligible for Property Value Protection.

The owners acknowledge that they wish to sell W12A Landfill Property Value Protection Plan.

The City will retain a qualified appraiser to nearby. Added value made p or “right of first refusal” payments The value of the property shall be stating they wish to invoke the property value protection pl

The property owner(s) may estimate the value of their pro City.

If the difference between the two valu appraised value of the property and guar

the property as if there is no landfill h as improved water supply

ected in the appraised value. tice, by the owner@) to the City

r of their choice and at their cost to nt with the appraisal obtained by the

ept the higher value as the

If the difference betw choose a third a

I O % , the two appraisers wili immediately at event, City will accept the arithmetic

e of the property and guarantee this value.

govern the determination of the value of the property n for a period of at least twelve months

If an owner wishes to invoke the Property Value riod, the owner may do so subject to paragraph (i)

the property, the City may offer to purchase value. If the City does not make such an offer, the owner will list the I1 actively promote the property by advertising and by use of the

ive a bona fide Offer to Purchase within six months of the date of listing y advertising and use of the Multiple Listing

it at the appraised value.

The values det

g) If the owner doe with a realtor who h

h) The Property Value Protection Plan is qualified by the retention by City’of a right of first refusal in any sale. In other words, if the owner receives a bona fide offer less than the appraised value the City has the option of paying the difference between the offered price and the appraised value, or the City may elect to purchase the land at the appraised value. The right of first refusal will be exercised by City within three business days of receipt of the offer, where a business day is Monday through Friday inclusive and does not include a statutory holiday.

i) The following governs the cost of the appraisals if an owner invokes the plan more than once.

In the event an owner invokes the Property Value Protection Plan after twelve months but prior to thirty-six months of having previously invoked the plan, the owner shall pay the full cost of all appraisals.


If the owner invokes the Plan between three to six years after last invoking the Plan, the cost of all of the appraisals shall be paid 50% by the owner.

If the owner invokes the Plan after six years of having previously invoked the Plan, all costs shall be paid by the City.

rchasers of the land.

ner who would

Protection Plan has cohabited, as defi

j) Nothing in paragraphs h) shall prevent an application to the Cit subsections on compassionate grounds i

k) The Property Value Protection Plan will not apply to subse

I) The Property Value Protection Plan will ap have been eligible if they were still alive. S from an eligible owner are eligible.

from a parent, spoose or person with who he or, Act, is also an eligible owner under the PI

owner to waive these

m) A subsequent owner who acquires land without a

Signed:

Map 1 - Properties Eligible for "Right of First Refusal" Payments

23

, ,;di,m # , #,

Map 2 - Properties Eligible for Property Value Protection Plan

24

, ;;de[#, 'Pi#,

Map 3 -Area Exempt from Disposal Fees for Residential Waste

25

26

Schedule I : Properties Eligible Category

Category 1 (Property with residential dwelling partially or wholly within 0 to 500 metres of the W12A

Landfill's property boundary)

(Property with res1 welling partially or

Residential or r iertv with a

holly within Landfill's

Residential or 7 - block of land bouna

:petty within the lite Oak Road,

ive and Wellington Manning Drive, Scotlan

)r "Right of First Roll Number

800201 62000000 800201 941 00000

' 80020~63000000 80020071000000

20072000000 20070000000

0020064000000 80020069000000 80020068000000 80020068010000 80020125000000 80020126000000 80020128000000 80020171000000 80020180000000 80020178020000 800201 85000000 80020186000000 80020187000000 80020138000000 80020158000000 80020157000000 80020156000000 80020139000000 80020174000000 80020190000000 80040078000000 80040077000000 80040076000000 80020121000000 80020075000000 80020076000000 80020082000000

efusal" Payments Municipal Address 3405 Scotland Dr 3502 Scotland Dr 371 3 Scotland Dr 3666 Scotland Dr 3801 Scotland Dr

5435 White Oak Rd 4067 Scotland Dr

3243 Manning Dr 4200 Scotland Dr 4233 Scotland Dr

6523 Christ Church Lane 3378 Glanworth Dr 3388 Glanworth Dr 3402 Glanworth Dr 3452 Glanworth Dr 3674 Glanworth Dr 3744 Glanworth Dr 3735 Glanworth Dr

3830 Glanworth Drive 3912 Glanworth Drive 6368 White Oak Rd 4059 Glanworth Dr 4100 Glanworth Dr 4248 Glanworth Dr 4260 Glanworth Dr 4267 Manning Dr 4481 Manning Dr 4412 Manning Dr

5801 White Oak Rd 4451 Scotland Dr 4391 Scotland Dr 4436 Scotland Dr

4348 McDougall Close 4342 McDougall Close 5751 Wellington Rd S 5529 Wellington Rd S 5595 Wellington Rd S

, 5615 Wellington Rd S 5879 Wellington Rd S

4261 Scotland Dr 4166 Scotland Dr

3583 Westminster Dr 3513 Westminster Dr 3483 Westminster Dr

con 7 s Pt Lot 19 3540 Glanworth Dr 3476 Glanworth Dr

6601 - 6603 Wellington Rd I

21

Schedule 2: Properties Eligible for Property V-lue Protection Plan

Category

Property Value Protection Plan

Property Value protectior Plan dependent on Visua

Impact Assessment

800201 58000000 80020082000000 80020083000000 80020162000000 80020166000000 80020167000000 80020190000000 800201 94000000

8002017300000

80020157000000 80020156000000 80020138000000

412 Manning Drive 691 Manning Drive 540 Glanworth Drive 76 Glanworth Drive

100 Glanworth Drive 248 Glanworth Drive 725 White Oak Road 801 White Oak Road

0020130000000 861 White Oak Road 0040078000000 583 Westminster Drive 0040077000000 513 Westminster Drive

80020062000000 602 White Oak Road 80020070000000 368 white Oak Road

, &e4#, Date

Sept. 21,2006

Sept. 26,2006

Sept. 27,2006

Sept. 28, 2006

Oct. 4,2006

28

Location Invited Stakeholders* South London Community Centre landfill Lambeth Community Centre the landfill Lambeth Community Centre Lambeth Community Centre of the landfill Lambeth Community General public Centre

Property owners &tenants within 500 metres of the

Property owners & tenants within 501 to 1,000 metres of

www gethelp.com (community group)

Property owners & tenants within 1,001 to 1,500 metres

APPENDIX B - ETC REPORT

Comments on Draft Guiding Principles for a W12A Landfill Site Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation Policy

In September and October 2006, a series of open houses were held to discuss the Draft Guiding Principles for a W12A Landfill Site Community Mitigative Measures and Compensation Policy. The date, location and invited stakeholders to the open houses were:

Comments received at the open houses were summarized and sent to all persons who attended a meeting or lived within the study area for the W12A Landfill Area Study in May 2008. Also included with the summary of comments was an update on programs and policies at other landfills. Persons were advised they could send additional written comments on the draft policy to the City until April 25, 2008.

The following is a summary of the comments and questions at the open houses and written comments received this spring. The comments and questions have been categorized by which guiding principle they most closely relate to.

Draft Guiding Principle I - Community Responsibility

Draft Guiding Principle 1 states:

The City of London will continue to take reasonable efforts to reduce or address any current negative effects of the Wl2A Landfill Site as well as those that could result due to potential future expansion. This will be accomplished through the proper design and operation of the landfill.

Comments received were:

Local residents should be notified when biosolids are being disposed of at landfill.

More visual screening required around stormwater management pond #2/3. Should implement collection and processing of source separated organics ("green bin" program).


Draft Guiding Principle 2 - Protecting the Community and the Environment ~~

haft Guiding Principle 2 states: The Wf2A Landfill Site or any potential future expansion should not impair the environment, represent a ‘hreat to human health, or result in a significant economic loss to any member of the defined :ommunitv.

Comments received were: Will the draft policy be applied to businesses or home based businesses?

There should be a peer review of documents on the W12A Landfill.

Some property owners have put off decisions about their properly and should be compensated for any loss as a result.

Need commitment that policy will be upgraded with changes at the site.

There needs to be a mechanism that will give residents confidence that any commitments from the City will be honoured.

The proposed draft policy is warranted based on landfill activities that have taken place since 1973 as a “modernization” and updating. We do not believe that the policy established should in any way be contingent on future impacts.

Land owned before 1976 should be eligible for additional compensation.

Only land owned prior to Municipal Council approving the Wl2A Landfill Site Community Mitigative Measures and Compensation Policy should be eligible for additional compensation.

Land purchased after Municipal Council approves the W72A Landfil/ Site Community Mitigative Measures and Compensation Policy should not be eligible for certain compensation.

“Free” municipal water should be provided to nearby residents.

Property tax exemptions for nearby residents.

Draft Guiding Principle 3 - Zones of Landfill Influence

)raft Guiding Principle 3 states: t may not be possible to prevent all nuisance impacts from the landfi/l (e.g., odours, noise, dust, lifter). The City of London would establish Zones of Landfill Influence that coincide with appropriate distances whereby residents and property owners who clearly demonstrate they have suffered nuisance impacts kom the W12A Landfill Site and/or the potential future expansion would be entitled to mitigative neasures and/or compensation subject to supportive documentation.

The City of London is proposing: zone of influence of up to 1,500 metres

variable mitigative measures distance from the landfill (i.e., more measures for properties closer to the landfill)

more measures for homeowners as comDared to vacant landowners

Comments received were: Will the “zone of influence” be increased if other waste management facilities (e.g. composting, leachate pre-treatment plant, eco-industrial park, etc.) are located in the area? The outer ring for the mitigation and compensation policy should have the same limits as the limit established for the W12A Area Study. Zones should terminate in the middle of concessions as opposed to some arbitrary distance.

Are the zones measured from the fill area, landfill property boundary or from all areas that involve garbage recover and reuse?

Zones should take into consideration homes on haul route.

30

Draft Guiding Principle 4 - Home and Property Value Protection

)raft Guiding Prlnciple 4 states:

-he City of London would implement a Home and Property Value Protection (HPVP) Program to ensure bat homes and property owners located within appropriate distances from the W12A Landfill Site and my potential future expansion would not suffer financially from their location near the landfill site.

The City of London is proposing: to have a home and property value protection plan

it will guarantee fair market value of the property with the assumption that the landfill is not present

maximum distance to be eligible for HPVP is to be determined

Comments received were: Will the HPVP apply to new homes constructed around the landfill?

Will the HPVP apply retroactively to properties sold prior to the draft policy being approved?

Will the HPVP be based on land as residentiaVagricuIture land uses or will it recognized the potential for industrial/commerciaI uses?

Will the HPVP be continued for the entire operating life of the landfill?

Should include all homes north of Glanworth Drive in HPVP.

Area for HPVP should be extended to 2 kilometres.

Area for HPVP should be extended to 3 kilometres.

Area for HPVP should be extended to all of the former Township of Westminster.

Draft Guiding Principle 5 - Financing Community Mitigative Measures and Compensation

)raft Guiding Principle 5 states:

:unds being set aside for community mitigation measures and compensation would be based on the ruantity of waste being disposed of since nuisance impacts from a landfill are directly proportional to the ruantity of waste being landfilled.

'he City of London is proposing: that mitigative measures be dependent on the quantity of waste disposed at the landfill; $0.30 to $0.60 per tonne disposed would be placed in a fund annually ($65,000 to $1 30,000 based on current levels of incoming garbage)

persons living closer to landfill should get more than persons further away

maximum distance to be eligible for mitigative measures is to be determined

no requirement to have owned property prior to landfll being established.


Will tenants be eligible for community mitigative measures and compensation?

Will residents with a life-long lease be eligible for community mitigative measures and compensation? Will new homes constructed around the landfill be eligible for community mitigative me compensation?

and

I drink bottled water because of water quality concerns; will I be compensated for the cost of the water?

Continued on next page)

31 Aaenda Item # Paae #

The area's poor electricity supply needs to be improved.

Mitigative measures and compensation should be directed towards local residents; not residents further away.

Will level of mitigative measures be increased if other waste management facilities (e.g. composting, leachate pre-treatment plant, etc.) are located in the area? When would higher levels of compensation start?

Will the level of mitigative measures decrease if the quantity of garbage to the landfill decreases? Will there be a minimum level of mitigative measures regardless of the quantity of waste going to the landfill?

The area that can dispose of garbage at the landfill at no charge should be increased to include more rural areas.

The area that can dispose of garbage at the landfill at no charge should be increased to the former Township of Westminster.

Draft Guiding Principle 6 - Property Acquisition


The City of London would continue its process of acquiring property in the vicinity of the landfill that would increase the buffer zone from the active portions of the existing W12A Landfill Site and the potential future expansion area. The basic principle to be employed by fhe City of London in acquiring land voluntarily under this Policy is that compensation to the owner would be based on the fair market value of their home and/or property as if the landfill was not there.

The City of London is proposing: to have a formal voluntary property acquisition policy.

City would offer to buy any residential/agricultural property within 1 kilometre of the landfill if the property owner wanted to sell. This does not apply to property located on the north side of highway 401.

Comments received were: Need to have assurances that lands acquired outside of "core block* will not be turned into industrial land.

Area for property acquisition should be extended to 2 kilometres.

Properties that the City purchases must have proper upkeep and not change the character of the area.

, \5b[#,q;i

Draft Guidlng Principle 7 -Community Enhancement Fund

32

)raft Guiding Principle 7 states: Re City of London recognizes that there may be special circumstances where the proposed mitigative qeasures, compensation, home and property value protection; and property acquisition may not iddress the situation. For these circumstances, it is proposed to establish a Community Enhancement ‘und. Projects undertaken by Community Enhancement Fund would be decided on a case by case iasis and be approved by Municipal Council. ‘he City of London is proposing:

to have a Community Enhancement Fund

initial investment of $100,000 to $150,000 with additional investment of $0.075 to $0.15 per tonne disposed in the landfill each year ($15,840 to $31,680 in 2005 based on incoming tonnage)

a volunteer Advisory Committee will assess proposed projects on a case by case basis. Municipal Council would be required to issue the final approval to fund the projects

first project covered a portion of the costs incurred by residents to connect to the new Glanworth Water Supply.

Comments received were: There should be funding for local residents or groups to pay for legal and professional services in evaluating reports and proposals from the City.

What does the City propose to do that would provide a IocaNy constituted group of citizens with the authority and funding to pursue objectives that may be at odds with the City (W12A Landfill Zone Group with legal standing recognized by the City of London and funded to seek legal and technical advice when disputes arise)?

Community Enhancement Fund should start at $500,000 (equal to money that would have gone to Township under old agreement between 1993 and 2006).

Municipal water should be provided to more locations (Manning West of Scotland, Glanworth Drive from Glanworth to White Oak Road, White Oak Road from Glanworth to Manning).

Water to Glanworth should not be eligible for funding from the Community Enhancement Fund.

City Council should not have control over Community Enhancement Fund.

Draft Guiding Principle 8 - City of London and Property Owner Agreements


Residents receiving a direct financial benefit as a result of one or more of the aforementioned programs should be required to confirm in a written agreement that the financial benefit being received is reasonable compensation for any impacts that may not be mitigated.

The City of London is proposing:

to have up to four agreement forms: 1. Home & Property Value Protection 2. Voluntary Land Acquisition 3. Direct Compensation and Mitigative measures (at the property level) 4. Community Enhancement Fund


Agreements and correspondence from the City need to be clear and in language a “lay person” can understand.

Any agreements must be specific in nature and not preclude additional mitigative measures or taking action aaainst the landfill.

1 .


APPENDIX C - ETC REPORT

Draft Guiding Principles for the Development of a W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures and Compensation Policy

(June 19,2006 Meeting of ETC)

1. The City of London would continue to take reasonable efforts to reduce or address negative effects of the W12A Landfill Site and any potential future expansion through proper design and operation of the landfill.

2. The W12A Landfill Site or any potential future expansion would not impair the environment, represent a threat to human health, or result in a significant economic loss to any member of the defined community.

3. It may not be possible to prevent all nuisance impacts from the landfill (e.g., odours, noise, dust, litter). The City of London would establish Zones of Landfill Influence that coincide with appropriate distances whereby residents and property owners who could potentially suffer nuisance impacts from the W I N Landfill Site and/or the potential future expansion would be entitled to mitigative measures andlor compensation.

4. The City of London would implement a Home and Property Value Protection (HPVP) Program to ensure that homes and property owners located within appropriate distances from the W12A Landfill Site and any potential future expansion would not suffer financially from their location near the landfill site.

5. Funds being set aside for community mitigation measures and compensation would be based on the quantity of waste being disposed of since nuisance impacts from a landfill are directly proportional to the quantity of waste being landfilled.

6. The City of London would continue its process of acquiring land within the block of land bounded by the following streets: Manning Drive, Scotland Drive, White Oaks Road and Wellington Road; and other appropriate parcels of land that would increase the buffer from the active portions of the existing W12A Landfill Site and the potential future expansion area. The basic principle to be employed by the City of London in acquiring land voluntarily under this Policy is that compensation to the owner would be based on the fair market value of their home andlor property as if the landfill was not there.

7. The City of London recognizes that there may be special circumstances where the proposed mitigative measures, compensation; home and property value protection; and property acquisition may not address the situation. For these circumstances, it is proposed to establish a Community Enhancement Fund. Projects funded by the Community Enhancement Fund would be decided on a case by case basis and be approved by Municipal Council.

8. Residents receiving a direct financial benefit as a result of one or more of the aforementioned programs should be required to confirm in writing that the financial benefit being received is reasonable compensation for any impacts that may not be mitigated.

0.2% to 0.4%

$15,000 to $40,000 per year

0.6% 2.5%

$50,000 to $200,000 to $60,000 per year $250,000 per year

Equal to 114 of payments to nearby residents

Equal to 1/3 of Equal to payments to payments to nearby residents nearby residents

34

APPENDIX D - ETC REPORT

Comparison of Alternative Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Programs

This appendix contains: A comparison of the level of funding for each of the four alternative programs (Table D-I) A comparison of who qualifies for mitigative measures for each of the four alternative programs (Table D-2) A comparison of the three methods that have been used at landfills in Ontario to determine the amount of funding (e.g., number of tonnes, % of tipping fee revenue or set annual payments) A comparison of the two methods that have been used at landfills in Ontario for determining who should receive funding: set distance from the landfill or based on predicted impacts from site specific assessments (e.g., noise, dust and odour assessments).

Table D-I -Comparison of Funding Levels for the Four Alternative Programs

Consideration Alternative Comi

Existing Practice

unity Enhancement 81 Mitigative Me; ures Programs

Draft Program 2008 - Option B

Draft Program 2006

Draft Program 2008 - Option A

Funding $0 $0.31 to $0.60 per

tonne $0.60 to $0.75 per

tonne $0.80 to $1.00 per

tonne

$0 0.8% to 1.2% 1.5% to 1.9% 2.0% to 2.5% % of Tipping Fees

Approximate Payment to nearby Homeowners' (within 500 metres)

$0 $2,100 to $4,200 $5,250 $3,500 to $4,000

I Currently no paymen ts

$0.31 per tonne based on amount formerly paid to township (with inflation) $0.60 per tonne consistent with Essex-Windsor landfill, approx. double the low rate

rn Increase of 25% to 125% over maximum payments in draft program 2006 Higher payments than many landfillsl Higher payments than all other landfills if tonnage increases

may be subject to taxes

Higher amounts

B Decrease in payments as more properties qualify

b Higher payments than all other landfills if tonnage increases

may be subject to taxes

I Higher amounts Comments

Funding $1,000,000 to $5.000.000

$10,000,000 to $20.000.000

$1 2,000,000 to $20.000.000

$15,000,000 to $30.000.000

Level of funding depends on the real estate market at time of sale &the no. of properties the City wishes to purchase.

D Council has option not to purchase properties

$0

$0

$0

Comments

to $O"' per I $0.25 per tonne 1 $1.00 per tonne tonne Funding

% of Tipping Fees

Approximate Funding'

Comments 9 Currently no

paymen ts

- on annual tonnage

Agenda Item # Page # --

Consideration I

35

Existing Practice Draft Program Draft Program Draft Program 2006 2008 - Option A 2008 - Option B

Table D-2 -Comparison of Who Qualifies for the Four Alternative Programs

Agriculture properties within 1 kilometres

1 ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ I Alternatlve Community Enhancement 81 Mitigative Measures Programs

Agriculture Agriculture properties within properties within 1 kilometres 1 kilometres

programs

Properties south of hwy 401 and within 1 kilometre

a

. Properties south of hwy 401 and within 1 within 1 kilometre kilometre

Properties south of hwy 401 and

a, P 2 n

c 8 .- 3 CI

0 .c.

Properties in Properties in Properties in Factors to Qualify decision by on basis a case Scotland, White Scotland, White Scotland, White

Oak, Manning, Oak, Manning, Oak, Manning, Wellington block Wellington block Wellington block

Similar or better than other municipal programs (except Green Lane Landfill and Warwick Landfill)

Not applicable 52

Includes properties with significant visual impact which is consistent with program of Warwick Landfill

Homes within 1.5 kilometres (including leachate pre- treatment plant)

I Not applicable

Homes within 2 kilometres

I Community mitigative measures will be directed towards local residents whereas most other programs direct funds to local municipality.

+ 110to120

Not applicable Distance for agricultural properties greater than or equal to most other programs

Distance for homeowners greater than or equal to most than other

Distance for agricultural properties greater than or equal to most other programs

Distance for homeowners greater than or equal to most other programs

Distance for agricultural properties greater than or equal to all other programs

Distance for homeowners greater than or equal to other programs

Number of Properties

Comments

Properties with a significant view of the landfill

Not applicable 37 to 43 37 to 43

none

Homes within 2 kilometres

110 to 120

Consistent with program of Green Lane landfill

Agenda Item # Page #

Assessment

36

receive payments

Basis for Level of Payments There are three methods that have been used at landfills in Ontario to determine the level of payments: number of tonnes, % of tipping fee revenue or set annual payments. A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each method are presented in Table D-3.

Table D-3 : Alternative Methods for Determining Level of Payment

Number of Tonnes

I Set Annual Payments

Advantaaes Impacts are related to the

Incentive to reduce waste going quantity of waste

to the landfill Impacts are related to the quantity of waste

Stable funding reauirements

Disadvantages I Funding requirements vary from year to year

Funding requirements vary from year to year Works best at private landfills where majority of waste pays tipping fees No incentive to reduce waste

Basing the level of payment on the number of tonnes is recommended because of the possible changes in waste quantities coming to the landfill (i.e., possible introduction of green bin program, changing business waste quantities, etc.) and the majority of the waste going to the landfill is municipality generated and not charged a tipping fee.

Basis for Who Qualifies There are two methods that have been used at landfills in Ontario for determining who should receive payments: set distance from the landfill or based on predicted impacts from site specific assessments ( e a . noise. dust and odour assessments). A comDarison of the advantages and advantages of each . - . method are. presented in the Table D-4.

‘

Table D-4 : Alternative Methods for Determ

Everyone treated the same Option to include properties I without a house

1 Rationale for which homes Site Specific

ing Who Qualifies Disadvantages

Selected distance can be seen as arbitrary

Homeowners often do not accept results of studies Homeowners the same distance from the landfill may be treated differently Properties without a home cannot receive payments

It is proposed that “right of first refusal” payments be made to nearby neighbours based on a set distance from the landfill. The proposed distance for “right of first refusal” payments is greater than the distance that would likely qualify based on site specific assessments.

A “hybrid method is proposed for determining who qualifies for property value protection. The hybrid method includes both a set distance approach (all properties within 1 kilometre or within the Scotland, White Oak, Manning, Wellington block) and a site specific approach (any homes greater than one kilometre with a significant view).

Agenda Item # Page # m1711 TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS

ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

!I MEETING ON NOVEMBER 10,2008 I! II PAT McNALLY, P.Eng. I ACTING GENERAL MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL

11 FROM:

!I 8 ENGINEERING SERVICES &CITY ENGINEER I! 11 SUBJECT I DRAFT W12A LANDFILL COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT II I I AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES PROGRAM I1

u RECOMMENDATION

That on the recommendation of the Acting General Manager of Environmental & Engineering Services & City Engineer, the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program:

(a) The Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program a

(b) A Public Participation Meeting BE HELD on December 8, 2008 at the Environment and

hereto as Appendix "A" BE RECEIVED; 4 Transportation Committee meeting to receive input on the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program;

(c) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program at the Public Participation Meeting on December 8, 2008;

(d) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide an overview of the Public Participation Meeting to the Board of Control on December 10, 2008; and

(e) Staff BE DIRECTED to provide a copy of the draft program and notice of the public meeting to property owners within the study area of the W12A Landfill Area Study.

PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca under City Hall (Meetings) include:

Update on the Long Term Contribution Strategy for the Sanitary Landfill Reserve Fund, Environment E!. Transpottation Committee (ETC) Meeting on December 10,2007, Agenda Item #IO.

Voluntary Property Acquisition Plan, Draft Guiding Principles for a W12A Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation Policy, ETC Meeting on September 11,2006, Agenda Item #5.

Draft Guiding Principles for a W12A Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation Policj, Environment and Transportation Committee (ETC) Meeting on June 19,2006, Agenda Item #I.

1 BACKGROUND

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to receive the Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program. It is proposed to provide a copy of the draft program to nearby property owners and hold a Public Participation Meeting at ETC on December 8, 2008 to seek input.

CONTEXT

The W12A Landfill began operation in 1977. It has capacity to continue to accept waste for another 15 years based on current disposal rates and approved capacity. It is the only operating landfill site in London receiving garbage generated by all Londoners (population 360,000) and many London

Agenda Item # Page # .si Dl 2

businesses. In 2007 226,000 tonnes of garbage were disposed of at the landfill. Year end estimates for 2008 suggest that 240,000 tonnes will have been delivered for disposal.

In recent years the City has made significant investments in enhancing and upgrading the infrastructure at the landfill. These upgrades have included improvements to the stormwater management ponds and the leachate collection system, installation of landfill gas collection and flaring system and the supply of municipal water to the landfill. The City is committed to continue to improve the operation of the landfill by taking reasonable efforts to reduce or address negative effects of the W12A Landfill Site and any potential future expansion through proper design and operation of the landfill.

Developing a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program is part of the City’s overall efforts to reduce or address the negative effects of the landfill on the local community around the landfill. The majority of new or expanded landfills have a mixture of.mitigative measures, community enhancement and/or compensation programs.

DISCUSSION:

Public Consultation Process The local community was provided several opportunities to comment on what should be included in a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program. These opportunities are discussed in the next section and listed below (a summary of the comments received is presented in Appendix “ B ) :

June 29,2006 W12A Landfill Area Study Meeting Series of five open house meetings held with various stakeholders in September and October 2006 Request for written commentsh Spring 2008 June 26,2008 W12A Landfill Area Study Meeting

Development of Alternative Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Programs The steps in the development of the community enhancement and mitigative measures program were:

Step 1 Review Comments of Area Residents The first step was the review of comments received from local residents about property value protection, mitigative measures, property acquisition, etc. from the past several years and during the current W12A Landfill Area Study process.

Step 2 Review Other Landfill Programs Staff contacted both private and public landfills to determine the type and level of community enhancement and mitigative measures provided by other landfills. A summary of what is provided at other landfills is presented below:

CornmunitylLanMill

Privately Owned WM - Wawick BFI - The Ridge Walker - Niagara

Toronto - Green Lane Region of Niagara - Grimbsy Oxford County - Salford Brantford - Mohawk Region of Halton - Halton Hamilton - Glanbrook Ottawa -Trail Road Peterborough - Peterborough Region of Waterloo -Waterloo Essex-Windsor

Publicly Owned

New or expanded in last 20 years

Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes

Property Value

Protection1 Acquisition

Plan

J J J

J J Y

informal informal

X

X

J J J

Community Fund

Direct Payments to Residents

J J J J J J

X J X X

X x X X

X x X X

x X

J J

J J X X

,,A# , ,Pa,#,

Sept. 21, 2006

Sept. 26, 2006

Sept. 27, 2006

Sept. 28, 2006

3

South London Community Property owners &tenants within 500 metres of the Centre landfill

Lambeth Community Centre Property owners & tenants within 501 to 1,000 metres of the landfill

Lambeth Community Centre www gethelp.com (community group)

Lambeth Community Centre Property owners &tenants within 1,001 to 1,500 metres of the landfill

~

In general, most landfills have a property value protection plan or an informal policy of land acquisition. Many landfills approved or expanded in the last 20 years typically provide payments to area residents and/or the local municipality.

Step 3 Preparation of Draft Guiding Principles The report Draft Guiding Principles for a W124 Landfill Site Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation P o k y was prepared by staff (many departments involved) in 2006 for the purpose of beginning dialogue with the local community around the W12A Landfill Site. The Drafl Guiding Principles outlined those principles that would be followed by the City of London regarding mitigative measures, property value protection and the operation of the WI2A Landfill and any potential future expansion at this location.

The report was presented to the ETC on June 19,2006 who recommended endorsement in principle to Municipal Council with minor amendments. The Draft Guiding Principles were endorsed, in principle, by Municipal Council on June 26, 2006 and are presented in Appendix “C.

Step 4 Preliminary Input The Draft Guidina Principles were presented to the public at the June 29, 2006 W12A Landfill Area Study meeting. hitial feedback was provided by the public at the meeting including several comments on the proposed property acquisition plan. Written comments were also received following the meeting.

Step 5 Revisions to Draft Guiding Principles As a result of public input the Drafl Guiding Principles were revised to provide more details on the proposed acquisition of land around the landfill. Residential and agricultural properties south of Highway 401 and within one kilometre of the landfill property boundary would be considered for acquisition. The revised Draft Guiding Principles were presented to the ETC on September 11, 2006 and were approved by Council September 18,2006.

Step 6 Stakeholder Meetings Further input on the Draft Guiding Principles was obtained from a series of drop-in sessions held with various stakeholders in September and October 2006. The date, location and invited stakeholders to the open houses were:

I Date I Location I Invited Stakeholders* I

I Oct. 4, 2006 I Lambeth Community Centre I General public All meetings were open to the public but specific stakeholders were invited to certain meetings.

Step 7 Update on Other Landfill Programs Finalizing the policy (program) was delayed in order to consider pending changes to the community enhancement and mitigative measure programs of some nearby landfills (e.g., Green Lane Landfill and Warnick Landfill) as well as changes to codes of practice and guidelines for waste management planning by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The information on changes to the programs at nearby landfills had been requested by local residents.

Step 8 Notice to Stakeholders A third opportunity was provided to nearby residents to comment on the Draft Guiding Principles in March and April 2008. At that time nearby residents were provided the additional information gathered on the programs of nearby landfills and a summary of the comments received to date.

Step 9 Stakeholder meeting on June 26,2008 A further open house was held on June 26, 2008 for interested residents to update them on the status of Drafl Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program and explain the next steps.

Agenda Item #

mil 4 Page # zl

Step I O Preparation of Alternative Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Programs Four draft community enhancement and mitigative measures programs have been developed for consideration. These alternatives are presented in the next section and listed below:

Alternative One based on the existing practices Alternative Two based on the Draft Guiding Principles Alternative Three based on staff recommended modifications to the Draft Guiding Principles Alternative Four based on providing measures better than the programs at other landfills

Alternative Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Programs

Four alternative community enhancement and mitigative measures programs are presented for consideration. Table 1 (next page) .lists the types of mitigative measures that are included, the level of funding and who qualifies for each of the four alternative programs:

A comparison of the level of funding and a comparison of who qualifies for each of the alternative programs is presented in Appendix "D. Also included in Appendix "D" is a comparison of the three methods that have been used at landfills in Ontario to determine the amount of funding (e.g., number of tonnes, percent of tipping fee revenue or set annual payments) and the two methods that have been used at landfills in Ontario for determining who should receive funding (e.g., set distance from the landfill or based on predicted impacts from site specific assessments).

The four alternative programs are summarized below.

I. Existing Practice - Not Recommended There is currently no formal community enhancement and mitigative measures programs but the City does provide free disposal of residential waste to area property owners and considers the purchase of nearby properties at fair market value on a case by case basis.

The City of Ottawa recently expanded its landfill and provided no community enhancement and mitigative measures program to area property owners however most new or expanded landfills have a community enhancement and mitigative measures program.

This alternative is not recommended because:

,it is not consistent with the Draft Guiding Principles endorsed by Council in 2006 most other large private and public landfills do have a formal community enhancement and mitigative measures program it would be viewed as unfair by the local residents

2. Draft Program 2006 - Not Recommended The Draft Program 2006 is based on the community enhancement and mitigative measures outlined in the Draff Guiding Principles for a Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation Policy that was endorsed by Council for the purpose of beginning dialogue with the local community around the W12A Landfill Site in 2006.

The Draft Program 2006 provides for payments to nearby residents, property value protection/property acquisition, community mitigative measures and an advisory committee to recommend how money in the Community Mitigative Measures Fund is spent. The rationale for the types of community enhancement and mitigative measures that are included and the approximate level of funding are detailed in the Draft Guiding Principles. Public input on the Draft Guiding Principles is provided Appendix " B .

This alternative is not recommended because:

changes to the community enhancement and mitigative measures programs of nearby landfills since release of the Draft Guiding Principles public input received requesting changes the Draft Program 2006 was not as forward-thinking as the more recent polices/prograrns around other landfill sites

5

Table 1 -Alternative Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Programs

Consideration Alternative Communitv Enhancement and Mitiaative Measure Programs - Draft Program

2006

- Draft Program 2008 Option B

J or "right of first refusal' on sale of property)

Existing Practice

Draft Program 2008 Option A

J or '"right of first refusal" on sale of properly)

J 'ayments to rlearby rleighbours

'roperty Value 'rotectionl jcquisition

Limited (free disposal)

Limited (no formal policy)

J J J

:ommunity vlitigative Measures x J J J

'ublic Liaison 2ommittee

Limited 4dvisory Committee for Community Mitigative

Measures Fund)

J J x

3asis of Level of 'ayments to Vearby Propertiesa

$0.80 to $1 .OO per tonne

($200,000 per year)

$0.31 to $0.60 per tonne

($75,000 to $120,000 per year)

$10,000,000 to $20,000,000

$0.60 to $0.75 per tonne

($150,000 per Year)

$12,000,000 to $20,000,000

$0

$5,000,000 to $1 0,000,000

F'roperty Value Protection/ kquisition

$30,000,000 to $50,000,000

$0.075 to $0.15 per tonne ($15,000 to $40,000 per year)

$0.25 per tonne $1.00 per tonne

Community Mitigative Measures"

($50,000 to $60,000 per year)

($200,000 to $250,000 per year) $0

Starting balance of $1 00.000 to

Starting balance of $350,000

Starting balance of $350,000

$150;000

Homes within 1.5 km of approved landfill Agriculture properties within 0.5 km

Homes within 1.5 km of approved landfill and leachate pre- treatment plant Agriculture properties within 1.0 km . Properties south of 401 and within. 1 kilometre Properties in Scotland, White Oak, .Manning, Wellington block Homes with a significant view of the landfill

mitigative measures and projects

recommended by the W12A Landfill

Public Liaison Committee and

approved by City Council

!50,000 tonnes per yc

Homes within 2 km of approved landfill and leachate pre- treatment plant Agriculture properties within 1.0 km Properties south of 401 and within 1 kilometre Properties in Scotland, White Oak, Manning, Wellington block Homes within 2 km

Payments to Nearby Neighbours

Not applicable

Properties south of 401 and within 1 kilometre Properties in Scotland, White Oak, Manning, Wellington block

Property Value Protection/ Acquisition

Decision on a casebycase

basis


recommended by the W12A Landfill

Public Liaison Committee and

approved by City Council

lr.


recommended by the Advisory

Committee and approved by City

Council

3 between 200.000 tc

Community Mitigative Measures

Not applicable

ed on annual tonna -a) Annual funding b

6

3. Draff Program 2008 - Option A - Recommended Draft Program 2008 -Option A is based on the staff's recommended modifications to the Draft Guiding Principles after receiving input from the local community and considering the City's desire to potentially acquire land in the area. A copy of the proposed Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program is provided in Appendix " A .

This program provides for payments to nearby residents for a "right of first refusal" on the sale of their property, property value protectionlproperty acquisition, community mitigative measures and a Public Liaison Committee.

Key changes based on public input are:

Higher payments to nearby residents in exchange for a,"right of first refusal" on the sale of their property Higher payments to the community mitigative measures fund Include homes with a significant visual impact in the property value/property acquisition plan Expand the role for the Advisory Committee to include liaison with the City on operational matters and review of reports

The recommended level of funding is near the top funding level (as compared to other landfills) for each measure in the Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measure Program except for community mitigative measures. Most other landfills have significantly higher levels funding for community mitigative measures but this money is directed towards the local municipality and not area residents. Overall, the measures proposed in Draft Program 2008 - Option A for area residents are as good as or better than other landfill programs in the Province.

This alternative is recommended because:

it represents the best balance between the concerns from residents who live near the W12A Landfill Site, the need to ensure that this vital service is available to the residents and businesses of the City of London and the need to be responsible to the ratepayers of the City it is generally consistent with the Draft Guiding Principles endorsed by Council

4. Draft Program 2008 - Option B - Not Recommended Draft Program 2008 -Option B has the same measures as Draft Program 2008 - Option A but more property owners are eligible for the programs and provide higher levels of funding for each measure. The level of community enhancement and mitigative measures in the Draft Program 2008 - Option B was based on reviewing several different programs from across the province and selecting the "highest" level of funding for each measure.

This program is not recommended because:

it is financially unsustainable at this time less consistent with the Draft Guiding Principles endorsed by Council than Draft Program 2008. Option A

Recommended Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program A copy of the proposed Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program is provided in Appendix " A and discussed below. The Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program has four components with items 1 and 2 linked together:

1. "Right of First Refusal" Payments to Nearby Neighbours 2. Property Value Protection and Property Acquisition Plan 3. Community Mitigative Measures 4. Public Liaison Committee

1. "Right of First Refusal" Payments to Nearby Neighbours The City will make annual payments to the owners of nearby residential and agricultural properties for the "right of first refusal" on the sale of the property. Key features of the "right of first refusal" payments are:

annual payment varies based on distance from the landfill and amount of waste being disposed at the landfill property owner must renew the agreement on an annual basis

Agenda Item # Page #

Elm

Type of Property Distance from Landfill’ (metres)

Agricultural or Residential Property with a Permanent Residence

0 to 500 501 to 1,000

1.001 to 1.500

7

Annual Payment for “Right of First Refusal’’ Based on

Existing Waste Quantities to W12A Landfillb

$5,250 $3,500 $1.750

0 tol,OOO Agricultural Property without a Permanent Residence $1,750

a -Distance is measured from the landfill property boundary to the nearest corner of the house for residential and agricultural properties and from the landfill property boundary to the nearest corner of the property for agrlcultural properties without a residence.

b Estimated payment based on an annual tonnage between 200,000 to 250,000 tonnes per year

2. Property Value Protection and Property Acquisition Plan It is proposed to establish a Property Value Protection Plan so that persons who wish to move or sell agricultural land do not lose money on their properties due to the proximity of the landfill.

Property Value Protection would be provided to residential and agricultural properties south of the 401 and within one kilometre of the landfill and properties within the block of land bounded by White Oak Road, Manning Drive, Scotland Drive and Wellington Road gcJ residential properties having a significant visual impact.

The value of the property will be based on values assigned by qualified appraisers. The City will generally have the option of buying the property (property acquisition) or paying the difference between appraised value and any bona fide offer (property value protection) for the property. In general the City is interested in purchasing residential and agricultural properties south of the 401 and within a kilometre of the landfill @properties within the block of land bounded by White Oak Road, Manning Drive, Scotland Drive and Wellington Road.

The Property Value Protection Plan will not apply to subsequent purchasers of the land or to persons who purchase their property after August 31,2006. Persons who purchased their residential or agricultural property after August 31, 2006 would have bought their property knowing about the landfill‘s continued existence and are not eligible for property value protection.

3. Community Mitigative Measures It is proposed to establish a ”Community Mitigative Measures Fund“ which the City would contribute $0.25 for every tonne of waste buried at the landfill. The money in the fund would be used to address special circumstances in the broader community that are not covered by the other sections of the Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program.

The fund will start with an initial balance of $350,000. This represents the funding (including inflation and interest) the City would have paid to the former Town of westminster between 1993 and 2008 had the City and Town not have been amalgamated less funds spent on community initiatives from the Landfill Reverse Fund (Le., funding connection to the Municipal water system in Glanworth).

Funds in the Community Mitigative Measures Fund will be:

used to cover the expenses of the W12A Public Liaison Committee (next section) 0 spent on mitigative measures and projects recommended by the W12A Landfill Public Liaison

Committee and approved by City Council.

Agenda Item # Page # --

Minimum Cost

8

Maximum Cost

4. Public Liaison Commit! ee It is proposed to establish a Public Liaison Committee (PLC) to serve as a focal point for dissemination, review and exchange of information and monitoring results relevant to the operation of the landfill. The PLC will also recommend projects or undertakings to the City that would access funds from the Community Mitigative Measures Fund.

It is proposed that the administration costs of operating the PLC including the cost of meeting places, clerical services and technical experts will be paid by the Community Enhancement Fund.

The Terms of Reference for the PLC would be developed by its members in consultation with the City.

Funding Recommended Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

The cost of the recommended Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program is estimated to range from $280,000 per to year to $610,000 per year as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Estimated Cost of Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

Operating Cost’ $200,000 $21 0,000 Annualized Capital Cost $80,000 $400,000 Total Cost $280,000 $610,000

, , e d a l q # , ;;#,

The estimated m’aximum cost of $20,000,000 of the recommended Plan is based on:

9

0

0

purchasing all eligible properties within 1,000 metres of the landfill south of highway 401 purchasing all eligible properties within block of land bounded by Manning, White Oak, Scotland and Wellington paying an average 10% price premium (price between market value and what the property sold for) on the remaining properties

The ETC Report Update on the Long Term Contribution Strategy for the Sanitary Landfill Reserve Fund (December, 2007) provided an analysis of the required contributions in order to fund future landfill costs. Included in the landfill costs in the December 2007 analysis was $10,000,000 for future land acquisition and/or property value protection plan payments.

To cover the estimated additional $2,000,000 to $1 0,000,000 in costs of the proposed Property Value Protection/Acquisition Plan will require an increase in the annual contribution to the Sanitary Landfill Reserve Fund of $80,000 to $400,000. Increased capital costs (purchase of additional properties) can be funded from cost savings at the landfill and additional revenues generated from any properties that are purchased.

A leachate pre-treatment plant will be constructed in 2009/2010 beside the landfill. This will eliminate the need to truck leachate off-site for treatment. There will be a net savings of approximately $250,000 a year.

As previously discussed, the draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program includes annual payments to property owners within the vicinity of the landfill for the “right of first refusal”. These payments will not be required if the.City purchases the property. There would be a net reduction of approximately $78,000 per year in “right of first refusal” payments if key properties were purchased. This would increase to $130,000 per year if all properties were purchased.

Additional revenue will be generated from the properties purchased (agricultural land will be rented out; some of the houses will be rented out). The net revenue.after allowing for loss of property tax revenue and paying property management costs (assumed to be.25% of revenue) is estimated to be approximately $135,000 per year if key properties are purchased and approximately $225,000 per year if all properties are purchased.

Total operational cost savings at the landfill and additional revenues generated from properties that are purchased are estimated to range from $463,000 to $605,000.

It should also be noted that the cost of the Property Value Protection and Property Acquisition Plan can be controlled by adjusting the number of properties that are purchased versus paying the difference between the market value and what the property sold for.

SUMMARY:

Developing a Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program is part of the City’s overall efforts to reduce or address the negative effects of the landfill on the local community around the landfill. Most new or expanded landfills have a mixture of mitigative measures, community enhancement and/or compensation programs.

The recommended W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program represents the best balance between the concerns from residents who live near the W12A Landfill Site, the need to ensure that this vital service is available to the residents and businesses of the City of London and the need to be responsible to the ratepayers of the City.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

This report was prepared with assistance from Sal Circelli, Division Manager, Solid Waste Operations; Anne Boyd, Waste Diversion Coordinator, Ron Sanderson, Manager, Realty Services; and Dave Mounteer, Solicitor; Lynn Marshall, Solicitor and has been reviewed by the Corporate Management Team.

10

PAT McNALLY P.E

jeptember 8,2008 IWA Y ~ h a r e d \ S o C - B ~ R ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ \ R E P O ~ O Z O ~ . ~ ~

List of AoDendices to the ETC ReDOrt

Appendix A Draft W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

Appendix B Comments on Draft Guiding Principles for a W I N Landfill Site Community Mitigative Measures & Compensation Policy

Appendix C Draft Guiding Principles for the Development of a W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures and Compensation Policy

Appendix D Comparison of Alternative Draft Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Programs

C Vic Cote, General Manager, Finance & Corporate Services Ron Sanderson, Manager, Realty Services

January 2,2009

Jack Sifton Chairperson WWWGETHELP.COM

I am writing regarding the Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program. We are unable to provide our written comments by January 2,2009, as requested. It is worth noting from OUT perspective that until recently this was called “Community Mitigative Measures and Compensation Policy”.

Part of the reason for this is that many months ago we requested that a study be conducted that would provide more than just a “feeling” about which properties were affected by the Wt2A Landfill and how it affected values and uses (enjoyment) of those properties.

In early October, I was informed that a study had been conducted and completed but no written report had been received. By mid November when we still had no information we undertook steps to initiate our own study.

On December 4,2008, we commissioned a professional real estate appraiser to undertake a study for our Committee.

That study is not yet complete. Since many of our comments as a committee centre on the area that is impacted and the extent of that impact, it is impossible to provide the best informed recommendations or comments to the Environment and Transportation Committee at this time.

We will attempt to participate fully at the Public Participation Meeting scheduled for January 12,2009. We hope that any information we bring forward will receive a fairer hearing than was recently experienced at a Public Participation Meeting before the Planning Committee. ,

We ask that this letter form a part of that Agenda.

Note: I have‘inciuded a copy of a letter I sent to Planning Committee today regarding the December 8,2008, meeting.

chairperson 5595 Wellington Rd. S.

n6a 4l9 london

Documents