Waste Management

Oxford County manages a leading waste management program, consistently reaching top rankings for waste diversion in its class among Ontario municipalities. Garbage and recycling are collected at curbside from approximately 52,500 households, through an external service provider across six area municipalities, and service agreements in the remaining two area municipalities.

Oxford County maintains one active waste management facility located in the Township of South-West Oxford on Salford Road (Oxford Rd 46). The site has received domestic, commercial and industrial solid non-hazardous waste including municipal biosolids and non-hazardous industrial sludges for onsite disposal since mid June 1986. Oxford County strives to divert as much material from landfill as possible through a variety of composting, recycling, and diversion programs. Waste management assets are managed and maintained to meet provincially issued system and facility operating permits. This portfolio is categorized into seven components. They are assets associated with closed landfills, the active landfill including monitoring wells, diversion program assets, facilities, leachate collection system, gas collection and flaring system and other furniture and equipment. 

Inventory

Replacement costs were determined by recent tenders where possible, and by estimates from consultants and County staff if inflated historical costs were deemed to be insufficient.

For the active landfill site, the current anticipated year of closure is 2053. The County continues to look at maximizing the usage of the active site through diversion and reduction efforts. Currently there have been no discussions around a new site once the active landfill reaches capacity, therefore the replacement costs do not reflect this. The leachate collection system is generally anticipated to last until landfill closure, and therefore replacement would not be required.

Condition

The percentage of assets in poor or critical condition has increased from 2% as reported in the 2024 AMP to 3%. The percentage of assets in good or excellent condition has decreased from 94% as reported in the 2024 AMP to 89%. As assets continue to age their condition rating will decline until lifecycle strategies are triggered and completed.

The facilities component is primarily in good to excellent condition as the Waste Management Administration Building was constructed in 2018 and the Landfill Scalehouse in 2023, representing 84% of the replacement costs for this component. The gas collection system has several components being replaced over the next few years as the original components are starting to meet replacement and rehabilitation timelines.

Key Performance

The County is committed to providing a safe environment for the public and staff, and operating the landfill and the gas collection and leachate collection systems in a way to reduce odours and any environmental harm that can occur during landfill operations.

Proposed Levels of Service Review

Staff reviewed multiple scenarios over a 30-year period as this portfolio has significant funding needs in this period that would not be appropriately reflected if looking at the average funding over a 100-year period. Further information on the scenarios reviewed is included within the AMP document. In addition to existing assets, staff factored in the financial requirements for opening the south fill area at the landfill through five cell expansions based on a 2023 Technical Memorandum from an external consultant. It is imperative to complete the analysis using a holistic approach as both the asset lifecycle needs and cell expansion requirements are funded from the Landfill and Waste Diversion Reserve Fund. All scenarios assume the annual contribution level is achievable over the entire period. Based on total landfill capacity and cumulative waste to December 31, 2024 the anticipated year the landfill would reach capacity is 2053. The scenarios assume a consistent waste diversion rate and do not consider the organics diversion program which may increase the amount of waste diverted from landfill by 10%-20% as the current impact on diversion and landfill life expectancy is unknown.

Based on the analysis, staff are recommending Scenario D, the target annual investment level of $1,042,000. Staff identified an improvement area to review lifecycle strategies for various facility components as it may be beneficial in the long-term to not anticipate a run-to-failure strategy for some assets. Once incorporated this may result in marginal reductions to the annual investment required.

Funding Gap Analysis

Planned Investment Level
Inflationary increases are included in the table below in both the required investment and planned investment figures. Upcoming lifecycle needs are significant, resulting in the reserve balance being drawn down and less interest revenue generation. Reductions in interest revenue will require a proposed investment change to maintain a similar overall contribution level.

Proposed Investment Change
In addition to the planned investment level changes, staff are proposing an annual increase to the Landfill and Waste Diversion Reserve Fund of $50,000. The additional contribution does not directly correlate to a levy increase as tipping fees (an alternate revenue source) are reviewed annually as part of the budget process. At the end of 2035 this cumulative change, along with inflation would result in a contribution level of just over $1 million not including interest generated on the reserve. While this would be approximately $1.36 million including anticipated interest and exceeds the recommended Scenario D based on the 30-year analysis period, the interest revenue will continue to decline in the subsequent 10-year period as more reserve funds are used towards lifecycle needs.

County staff continue to promote waste diversion efforts with the goal of extending the life of the active landfill and in support of the County’s Zero Waste goals. Enhanced efforts in this area may defer the timing of the cell expansions, reducing the overall annual funding need. It is important to note that this analysis does not incorporate the need for a future landfill site once the active site reaches capacity.

Comparison of required investment to proposed investment (millions)