RISK ANALYSIS:

There will still be a risk of illegal dumping and its associated hazards (fire, rodents, etc.) with all options presented. This risk is rated significant in all options and should be monitored by the Manager of Environmental Services. Currently, a bylaw exists that attributes the responsibility of removal to the abutting homeowner.

Additional risks to Option 1 and 2

With Options 1 and 2, there is a moderate risk that budgetary funds would be lacking if the demand for curbside collection is greater than anticipated. The Financial Matters details an anticipated tipping fee and labour fee. This figure is highly speculative. Should the program prove to be more popular, the tipping fee and labour / benefit costs could grow quite quickly. This risk would be partially mitigated if Option 3 (user fee) was approved in conjunction with either Option 1 or 2. Furthermore, there remains the significant risk associated with illegally dumped items (fire, rodents, etc) since collection may not happen for several days after the request for service. Impatient residents may resort to dumping illegally.

There is also a moderate risk of an increase of WSIB claims should the service be provided by CUPE Local 82 workers. The items eligible for the bulk program are by nature awkward to handle and over 44 lbs. (the current limit for waste containers). Even when using safe lifting techniques, employees will be at increased risk of injury. The Financial Matters includes a cost estimate for one claim, however, more than one claim could cause a budget breach. This risk could be marginally mitigated by employing contracted forces for the service. However, their anticipated costs for similar claims would be factored into their rate.

Lastly, a moderate risk exists from issues arising from bedbugs and infestations. A work procedure would be developed to address these issues; however, delays in service are likely to occur.

Additional risks to Option 3

If Option 3 is coupled with either Option 1 or 2, there is a moderate risk for a lack of budgetary funding. If the request for service is less than anticipated, the revenue predicted will not be realized. This risk is partially mitigated by a reduction in tipping fees, however other costs will remain. This risk cannot be further mitigated until a full year of service has passed and actual request levels are known.