Summary#

On October 8, 2026, Calgary’s Audit Committee carried a motion to receive the Contractor Management (Mixed Service Delivery Pilot) Auditing Project report for the corporate record and recommend that Council do the same. This is a committee recommendation; Council’s decision is the next step. The report’s goal is to give Council information about the accuracy of reporting on the pilot, which compares public and private delivery of residential black-cart collection.

• The audit found that reporting was objective and accurate enough for high-level conclusions, but that some environmental and financial measures need stronger accuracy and explanation.
• City staff agreed to the audit’s five recommendations. These include improving data controls and cost calculations, explaining assumptions in future reports, and formalizing GFL’s sanding and sweeping services.
• The pilot remains in place: GFL collects black carts in District 1, while the City’s Waste & Recycling Services provides the comparison service in District 3. The committee motion does not change the service model or contract.

What it means for you#

• Residents: The committee decision does not directly change black-cart collection, fees, or services. The audit concerns how the City reports and calculates pilot results.
• City staff: Waste & Recycling Services agreed to work on the audit’s recommendations, with listed commitment dates from March 31, 2027, to June 30, 2028.
• GFL: The audit found that GFL provided sanding and sweeping services worth about $125,000 in 2024 and $124,000 in 2025 without a formal contract or contract amendment. Staff agreed to formalize those services.
• Council: If Council receives the report, it will have the audit findings and staff’s planned corrective actions on the corporate record. The committee has not decided whether to continue or end the pilot.

Money#

No overall cost estimate for the audit or the corrective actions is provided.

• The audit recalculated 2024 savings under the City’s existing method as $1.018 million, about $80,000 more than the $939,000 reported by staff. The report says staff corrected the figures in 2025 reporting.
• Staff agreed to improve how future savings are estimated, including separating costs that change because of outsourcing from costs that would remain anyway.
• The report does not state the cost of staff time or systems work needed to carry out the recommendations.

What is unclear#

• Council has not yet decided whether to receive the report or what to do about the pilot’s future.
• The report does not say what future service model staff will recommend when the extended contract term ends.
• It does not estimate the cost of the corrective work or set out how the City will verify that each recommendation is complete.
• The report says staff will formalize GFL’s sanding and sweeping services, but does not state the contract terms or cost.

Case for#

• The City Auditor found that District 3 was a reasonable comparison for District 1, supporting the basis for comparing public and private collection.
• The audit identified specific reporting errors: 2024 District 3 reporting missed two safety incidents and reported one property-damage incident instead of two.
• Staff agreed to improve environmental data controls and document procedures for safety and property-damage figures.
• The audit found that the cost-saving method was the most reasonable of five methods considered, while recommending improvements before future service decisions.

Case against#

• The audit found that the cost method included some costs that did not change with outsourcing and used one growth rate across different cost categories. This could make the estimated savings less useful for deciding how services should be delivered.
• The audit found that the reported 2024 savings were about $80,000 below its recalculation under the same method.
• GFL provided sanding and sweeping services worth about $125,000 in 2024 and $124,000 in 2025 without a formal agreement, despite City procurement requirements for purchases over $75,000.
• The committee motion only receives the report and recommends Council do the same; it does not itself require staff to complete the corrective actions.