Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Regular Board Meeting Agenda
Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2021
Time: Regular Session - 4:00 PM
Location and Meeting to take place via Zoom Meeting Instructions: Board Members and Staff will receive e-mail notification which will include log-in instructions
Anyone from the public or media wishing to be able to listen to the meeting is required to send an e-mail request to the Authority’s General Manager, Michelle Bishop [email protected] by 11:00 AM of the meeting date. Log-in instructions will be provided. The public and media will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be allowed to participate in the discussions.
LIST OF BUSINESS PAGE NUMBERS
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call of Board Members Present
Marc Bondy
Aldo DiCarlo
Gary Kaschak
Hilda MacDonald
Kieran McKenzie
Gary McNamara
Leo Meloche
Jim Morrison
Ed Sleiman
Regular Board Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 3 July 6, 2021
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
4. Approval of the Minutes
A. June 1, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes 1-21
5. Business Arising from the Minutes
6. Correspondence – No items
7. Delegations – No items
8. Finance and Administration
A. 2021/2022 EWSWA Insurance 22-26
9. Waste Diversion
A. Bike Reuse Program 27-29
B. Blue Box Final Regulation – Transition to Producers 30-36
C. Organics Waste Management & Processing Peer Review 37-39 RFP Update
10. Waste Disposal
A. Tender Award for the Provision of Refuse Hauling and Public 40-44 Drop Off Area Bin Hauling at the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Facilities – January 1, 2022-December 31, 2028
B. Tender Award for the Supply and Service of One (1) Landfill 45-48 Compactor and Service Contract
11. Other Items
12. By-Laws
A. By-Law 12-2021 49 Being a By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority and 1869096 Ontario Limited (operating as Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot) for the Provision of Hauling of Refuse from the Windsor Transfer Station (TS1) and the Kingsville Transfer Station (TS2) to the Regional Landfill
Regular Board Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 3 July 6, 2021
B. By-Law 13-2021 50 Being a By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority and GFL Environmental Inc. for the Provision of Public Drop Off Bin Hauling at the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Facilities
C. By-Law 14-2021 51 Being a By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Toromont CAT for the Supply and Service of One (1) Landfill Compactor with Five (5) Year or 12,500 Hour Standard Manufacturer’s Warranty and Full-Service Repair and Maintenance Contract
D. By-Law 15-2021 52 Being a By-Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Meeting of the Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority
13. Future Meeting Dates
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 Wednesday, September 15, 2021 Tuesday, October 5, 2021 Tuesday, November 2, 2021 Tuesday, December 7, 2021
14. Adjournment
Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Regular Board Meeting MINUTES
Meeting Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Time: Regular Session - 4:00 PM
Location: Zoom Meeting
Attendance Board Members: Aldo DiCarlo – Chair County of Essex Marc Bondy County of Essex Hilda MacDonald County of Essex Gary McNamara County of Essex (Ex-Officio) Leo Meloche County of Essex Gary Kaschak – Vice Chair City of Windsor Kieran McKenzie City of Windsor Jim Morrison City of Windsor Ed Sleiman City of Windsor EWSWA Staff: Michelle Bishop General Manager Cathy Copot-Nepszy Manager of Waste Diversion Tom Marentette Manager of Waste Disposal Teresa Policella Executive Assistant City of Windsor Staff: Anne Marie Albidone Manager of Environmental Services Tony Ardovini Deputy Treasurer Financial Planning Tracy Beadow Project Administrator Dwayne Dawson Executive Director of Operations Natasha Gabbana Manager of Performance Measurement & Financial Administration Stacey McGuire Project Administrator Jake Renaud Senior Manager of Pollution Control Jason Reynar City of Windsor CAO Karina Richters Supervisor of Environmental Stability & Climate Change Mark Winterton City Engineer and Corporate Leader for Environmental, Transportation and Transit
Page 1 of 21
Page 1 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 2 of 21 June 1, 2021
Attendance County of Essex Staff: Mary Birch Director of Council & Community Services/Clerk Mike Galloway County of Essex CAO Sandra Zwiers Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Others: Drew Dilkens City of Windsor (Ex-Officio) Mike Muffels GHD Consulting Hunter Bushnell GHD Consulting Kim Verbeek Landfill Liaison Committee Member (Town of Essex) Chris Nepszy Town of Essex CAO Sherry Bondy Town of Essex Councillor Dan Beaulieu Town of Amherstburg Antonietta Giofu Town of Amherstburg Truper McBride Town of Lakeshore CAO Shannon Belleau Town of Leamington Rebecca Belanger Manager, Planning Services (County of Essex) France Isabelle-Tunks Senior Manager Engineering/Deputy City Engineer (City of Windsor) Zander Broeckel AM800 (Bell Media) Angelo Aversa Bell Media Dave Waddell Postmedia Jacob Barker CBC Wes Muir Veolia Absent: Cindy Becker Financial Planning Administrator (City of Windsor)
1. Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 pm.
2. Roll Call of Board Members Present
Marc Bondy – Present Aldo DiCarlo – Present Gary Kaschak – Present Hilda MacDonald – Present Kieran McKenzie –Present Gary McNamara – Present Leo Meloche - Present Jim Morrison – Present Ed Sleiman – Present
Page 2 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 3 of 21 June 1, 2021
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest
The Chair called for any declarations of pecuniary interest and none were noted. He further expressed that should a conflict of a pecuniary nature or other arise at any time during the course of the meeting that it would be noted at that time.
4. Approval of the Minutes
A. May 4, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes
Moved by Kieran McKenzie Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT the minutes from the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Regular Meeting, dated, May 4, 2021 be approved and adopted.
41-2021 Carried
5. Business Arising from the Minutes
No items were raised for discussion.
6. Correspondence
Mr. DiCarlo stated that Agenda Items 6 A, B and C are all related and thought it was best to go through all of them and then address any questions or comments. He asked the General Manager if this was correct.
The General Manager stated that intent was to allow GHD to do their presentation, as well as Ms. McGuire to present her report. Then follow those two items with the correspondence and discussion on the reports.
Mr. DiCarlo confirmed that Agenda Item 8A and 8B will be presented first and then address Agenda items 6 A, B and C.
A. Mike Galloway, County of Essex CAO Regional Food and Organics Waste Management Plan
Moved by Gary McNamara Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT the Board receive the correspondence from Mike Galloway, County of Essex CAO, as information.
42-2021 Carried
Page 3 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 4 of 21 June 1, 2021
B. Kim Verbeek, Chair Landfill Liaison Committee Food & Organics Waste Project
Moved by Gary McNamara Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT the Board receive the correspondence from Kim Verbeek, Landfill Liaison Committee Chair, as information.
43-2021 Carried
C. Jason Reynard, City of Windsor CAO Further Information Regarding the Regional Food and Organic Waste Management Plan
Moved by Gary McNamara Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT the Board receive the correspondence from Jason Reynard, City of Windsor CAO, as information.
44-2021 Carried
7. Delegations – No items
8. Waste Diversion
A. Presentation from GHD
Mike Muffels from GHD stated that the purpose of the presentation is primarily to provide information on what types of organics processing technologies exist in Ontario and how they relate to the provincial framework for food and organic waste and how they comply.
Mr. Muffels stated the presentation will provide a brief summary of the policy statement. He will talk about anerobic digestion and alternative technologies that have been brought forward by interested proponents for this project. He will provide a review of each against each other and against the policy again at the end of the presentation. He will also talk about odour management which is a concern with any organics project. Mr. Muffels proceeded with his presentation.
The Chair asked if there were any questions regarding the presentation.
Mr. McKenzie thanked Mr. Muffels for the presentation and believes Mr. Muffels responded to the questions that were brought forward at the previous meeting. Mr. McKenzie asked if there were going to be revisions to
Page 4 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 5 of 21 June 1, 2021
the regulations that would open up other technologies for us to consider under a provincially regulated program.
Mr. Muffels stated that there are pros and cons to all these processes and it depends on which parties are in power and what they think is best on how diversion can be achieved. It is difficult to predict. He stated that composting and digesting are more expensive than landfilling. A food organics ban is being considered that will possibly be released in the fall. This would be a significant policy shift. There is always a potential but right now the direction has been pretty clear but could change with an election.
Mr. McKenzie asked why has the government chosen certain technologies.
Mr. Muffels stated that he is not involved in those studies and what led to the policy statement. He stated that there is a policy to improve our agricultural soils. The composting and anaerobic digestion technologies are well tested and proven in Ontario. He does not know whether the government thought other technologies were proven or unproven but thinks it’s a combination of those policy objectives that led them in this direction.
Mr. Meloche stated the idea of anerobic digestion is a good concept in terms of the return of waste to the soil. He asked how much water would be used and how would we deal with the wastewater.
Mr. Muffels stated the amount of water can vary by the process and how much of the water can be recirculated. It can be a water intensive process and it depends on the treatment.
Mr. McNamara thanked Mr. Muffels for the presentation. He referred to Mr. Muffels comments made in the presentation regarding odours. Mr. McNamara stated that they have an anerobic digester in his community and it produces an awful odour. He stated that Mr. Muffels talked about the science of composting and anerobic digestion but there was very little in the presentation regarding the other technologies and nothing on financials. He asked why it was so narrowly scoped in terms of technology. Mr. McNamara stated that moving forward it’s not just about dealing with the organics itself but also about the landfill. There is a push from the provincial government regarding renewable natural gas. Mr. McNamara stated that in his opinion the scope was narrow and asked why there wasn’t more attention in terms of the science about other technologies.
Mr. Muffels stated that the reason the study and the work done today did not focus on Wright or Bradam is because they are excluded from the policy and will not help Windsor-Essex achieve their policy objectives. If the objectives could be met than these other options might be viable. He is trying to remain neutral on those technologies but they do not comply with this policy statement. It is what the province has decided.
Page 5 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 6 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. Morrison stated that Guelph has tried to position themselves as being a leader in organic waste management and in 2006 had to shut down operations. Then in 2011, they opened a new facility that cost $33 million. It was said to be the best new technology that existed and was based on a composting type of operation. Mr. Morrison stated that it has been brought up in this meeting and previous meetings that we might not be looking at new technology. Mr. Morrison asked if what is being proposed or contemplated the best technology.
Mr. Muffels stated that he thinks we are considering every waste processing option. Ms. McGuire’s presentation will address the specifics of what is being brought forward. He stated that staff have had discussions about how technology can serve multiple interests within Windsor-Essex and multiple objectives like zero energy and zero emissions targets.
Mr. Kaschak referred to the provincial wind turbine project and asked Mr. Muffels if he thinks that the government wants to go with a digestate and a crop enhancer versus renewable energy.
Mr. Muffels stated that it is difficult to say the motivation. Some of the differences between the renewable energy is that we generate too much electricity and there are concerns about rising electricity prices. A key difference with renewable natural gas is that it is a fossil derived gaseous fuel with a significant carbon intensity. There is a benefit of displacing that with a green or renewable natural gas.
Mr. Kaschak asked if we were to move forward with anaerobic digestor type facility, could we pivot that plant to accept a different type of technology.
Mr. Muffels stated that there would be full retooling but you might be able to use the shell. With the Wright technology it might be possible to retrofit something into a tunnel or composting system but would be very difficult. Mr. Muffels stated that it would probably cost more to retrofit than starting from scratch.
Mr. Sleiman asked if the policy is a provincial policy or federal policy. He asked if it means that all provinces have to go along with that kind of policy.
Mr. Muffels stated that this specific food and organic waste framework is a provincial policy. He stated that different provinces and jurisdictions have different requirements and policies. Mr. Muffels stated that Ontario has one of the most comprehensive with specific targets.
Mr. Sleiman asked if the Ontario government is putting a lot of hardship on the residents of Ontario by being restrictive.
Mr. Muffels stated that it would depend on the prospective whether it was considered a hardship or an opportunity. The problem is becoming
Page 6 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 7 of 21 June 1, 2021
increasingly hard to ignore and the emissions that come from this is becoming an increasingly unavoidable problem. The longer we put this off as a society, the more complicated and more expensive it is.
Moved by Gary McNamara Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT the Board receive the presentation by GHD as information.
45-2021 Carried
B. Food and Organic Waste & Biosolids Management Project – Recommendations from the Oversight Committee
Ms. McGuire presented her report.
Mr. DiCarlo asked if there were any questions.
Ms. MacDonald thanked Ms. McGuire for being descriptive and clear in her report. She stated that removing organics from our landfill site is important and we want to be a part of it. She stated that it will be hard to make a decision without knowing the cost to the municipality. When she asked staff if they want to be part of a regional plan, they said yes but there are too many unknowns regarding the cost. They have a biodigester in her municipality and they have conquered a lot of the smell issues as they have been dealing with it for 10 years. She stated that her municipality only has to have a depot and they are not required to have curbside collection.
Ms. McGuire referred the question to the General Manager but noted that they were given the direction to pursue a regional approach. This is the costing that they have pursued up to this point. Ms. McGuire stated that there has been discussion on how to break the cost down by municipality.
The General Manager stated that Ms. McGuire’s presentation that was presented to the Board at the last meeting gave some very high-level cost estimates to do composting, a service contract or an anaerobic digestion and whether the facility would be on the lands adjacent to the Regional Landfill or at a biosolids facility. GHD has provided us with some very high-level costs, some capital and operating costs as well as some potential revenues. The General Manager stated that what the group has struggled with is that there are 14 alternatives given by GHD ranging from a service contract to building an anerobic digestor. If we were to engage in a service contract with a company then there would a tipping fee that would be negotiated based on volume. It is very different if we are proposing bringing 1,200 tonnes to a facility versus bringing 30,000 tonnes to a facility. If the Authority builds a facility, the magnitude of the facility that would be required varies drastically on the amount of material that potentially could
Page 7 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 8 of 21 June 1, 2021
be delivered to the facility. The General Manager stated that if you look at $30 million net cost over 20 years and it is divided out only by the City of Windsor, then the City of Windsor has to bear the entire cost. If this capital cost is being divided by the City of Windsor and the seven County municipalities, we are able to draw that cost down. This would also be augmented by some industrial, commercial and institutional revenues (ICI) that are received. She noted although there are some very high-level costs, without knowing who is in and who is out, it is difficult to determine what the cost to each municipality would be. She stated that the group would be able to provide more information once we have a better idea which direction the Board would like to proceed.
Mr. Sleiman asked what would be the cost of deferring this project.
Ms. McGuire stated that we have seen the construction costs across the industry escalate over the last few years. She stated that we cannot predict how much the costs will go up or down. The costs would be lower if more municipalities participate.
Mr. McNamara stated these are rough numbers and the more he hears, the more we have to take a step back at look at the investment costs which will be borne by the residents. We also still have a landfill debt. The County is committed, but we do not know what is the initial cost. He wants to feel comfortable presenting a decision to his residents. He feels that a regional approach is good but he has residents that want an anaerobic digester shut down. If it is going to be next to the landfill, there will be an odour for the residents that live next to the landfill. Mr. McNamara stated he thinks there should be a third-party independent peer review of other technologies. He stated that as the Warden, he feels a responsibility to the 7 County municipalities. He stated that London is taking a wait and see approach and he does not believe in that approach. He would like to see a deferral until we have a third-party independent review and they have come back with three basic items: the science, technology and financials. He believes the lead on this should be the Authority independent from the County of Essex and the City of Windsor.
Mr. McKenzie asked for clarification by Ms. McGuire that there is no organics diversion program that won’t have an impact on our tipping fees.
Ms. McGuire stated that was correct. The tipping fees are going to be affected by the actual diversion of the waste from the landfill. She stated that the General Manager could provide more detail.
Mr. McKenzie asked the General Manager what could be the potential impact on tipping fees. He also asked how those numbers may be affected by an organics diversion program.
Page 8 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 9 of 21 June 1, 2021
The General Manager stated that the Authority costs are fairly fixed with the exception of the host compensation to the Town of Essex. When we look at the 15-year plan that has been laid out in order to achieve a balanced budget, what the municipalities fund is the net cost of the Authority operations. Any changes in tipping fees impact the municipalities. When we look at an organics ban at the landfill, we are looking at a reduction of material being delivered by both the municipalities as well as the ICI customers. The good news would be that landfill space would be freed up for the future.
Mr. McKenzie asked if it would be fair to say operationally that we are going to be impacted no matter what. There is an organics diversion program that is being mandated and it is going to happen. We are going to lose some of those tipping fees, however, some of that revenue loss is going to be offset on the capital side by potentially extending the life of the landfill. He asked if that is a reasonable analysis.
The General Manager stated that it is a reasonable analysis. She stated that even if you look at the City of Windsor, who is compelled to have an organics plan with curbside collection that would generate the most material, that material will be diverted from the landfill. Therefore, it will free up landfill space but not to the magnitude as if it was a regional plan.
Mr. McKenzie asked Ms. McGuire if the recommendations allow for other technologies moving forward. Perhaps in July, for example, to still continue to explore the opportunity for a variety of different technologies, not just the two we looked at in the presentation today that could be potentially implemented or deployed to address the organics requirement that we have from the province.
Ms. McGuire stated that the wording was intended to be open ended to allow those technologies with two caveats. One being that it meets the policy statement because that is ultimately what we need to do. The other being that we produce renewable natural gas, in order to help us move towards our energy goals from the City’s perspective, as well as the County’s perspective. She stated how we do that is still unknown and we are able to move forward with a procurement that allows for an open ended sort of technology submission. She stated that knowing which direction the Board wants to take, whether we would want to pursue that or not, would allow us to start delving into how a procurement like that would look. It will be more complicated than a procurement that only looks at one specific technology but it is possible. She stated that this is something that could be explored so it would allow multiple different types of bids from multiple vendors as long as they can prove that it is compliant with the policy and create a renewable energy source.
Page 9 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 10 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. McKenzie asked about selling the gas versus using it for a local purpose, would it offset different costs that we would otherwise incur.
Ms. McGuire stated that was correct. If we were to use the energy credits internally, then we work towards our goals and energy plans and we can count those towards our targets. If we don’t, we would have to find other projects to help us achieve these goals. The reality is that this type of organics project has a high potential to meet those targets compared to others. We would have to get 25% of residents to use bikes instead of cars to achieve the targets. She also stated that it is very difficult to achieve those targets from projects that are not so straight forward like this one and probably close to twice the cost in order to get those benefits from another project. She stated that to not take advantage of these projects would be a missed opportunity.
Mr. McKenzie stated that he has a motion at the appropriate time.
Mr. Bondy stated that was a good presentation and he has an opinion similar to Mr. McNamara. He stated that if he goes to his council, he wants to present something more concrete. He wants to know how much this is going to cost and needs more direct answers even if that means it will take another month. He believes a peer review is the best way to proceed at this time.
Mr. Meloche stated that we need to do our due diligence and he agrees with Mr. McNamara and Mr. Bondy.
Mr. Meloche stated that his biggest concern has to do with the financial numbers. It is easier to estimate capital assets than revenue. He would like more confidence in the numbers.
Ms. McGuire referred to the revenues related to an anerobic digestion scenario at the landfill site. She stated that a lot of that revenue is attributed to the collection of the landfill gases from the landfill that could then be cleaned and processed into renewable natural gas and sold. She stated that is what makes the landfill site so appealing as there is an opportunity to combine these two processes, the organics facility as well as capturing all the landfill gas that is currently being flared and putting it to beneficial use. A lot of that revenue has to do with the sale of the landfill gas which would be combined with the process.
Mr. Meloche stated this is the first he heard of this that we have been flaring off gases and there is an opportunity for recovery. He stated that there needs to be more clarity in the numbers and know where all the revenue streams are coming from. This will give him a sense of comfort in the reliability of the information.
Page 10 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 11 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. Morrison asked the General Manager if the maturity of the landfill debenture is factored into this when the debenture is fully funded in 2031. He asked if this could be a significant factor in financing this endeavor.
The General Manager stated that the debenture will be paid in 2031. Beginning in 2032, those funds would be redirected into the perpetual care reserve. The current approval states, unlike Landfill 3 and Landfill 2, the perpetual care of this landfill needs to be included in the funding of the landfill as it is operating now. It can’t become the problem of the next generation. So, where the City of Windsor is funding just over 90% of the perpetual care costs of Landfill 3, as well as paying for the current landfill, the intent is for that to not happen again. We don’t want to be paying for closed Landfill 3, the closed Regional Landfill and another landfill. The way the setup is designed, is that we fund that perpetual care upon completion of the debenture up until about 2040.
Mr. Morrison stated that the City and the County levels have made some very aggressive commitments about greenhouse emission and climate change. Mr. Morrison asked Ms. McGuire to comment on what is the likelihood that we can meet the goals that have been put forward if we don’t move forward in this direction.
Ms. McGuire referred the question to Ms. Richters as she is involved in both the City and the County’s environmental plans.
Ms. Richters stated that this project was identified as a response to the climate change emergency. She stated that we are more in control of this project and the outcome compared to other activities that we have in front of us. The City is taking the steps to get the community on board but we rely on the community to change their methods, like cycling or walking. She stated that if we do not achieve it here, we will have to make it up elsewhere and it will most likely be something that will be more costly in order to achieve the same greenhouse benefits.
Mr. DiCarlo invited Mr. Galloway to speak to Agenda Item 6A.
Mr. Galloway stated that the letter is self-explanatory in relation to some of the thoughts that the County has produced since the last meeting. The peer review would look at the science, the finances and the technology and all the items that have been discussed at this meeting. He stated that some of the items discussed at this meeting are concerning because there is not a lot of answers to some of the questions being asked. A peer review would look at these three areas of this particular initiative and project.
Mr. McKenzie asked what is the timeframe if we were to undertake this kind of process.
Page 11 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 12 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. Galloway stated that we would not want to unduly hold up some of the process and good work that has been done up to the current date. He would anticipate that a peer review should be done within a 60 or 90 day period. The peer review would validate and look at the science, the finances and the technology piece. He would not want to be involved nor would he suggest that the City CAO be involved. The estimated timeline would be to bring back something at the September board meeting.
Mr. McKenzie asked if Mr. Galloway considered whether or not we could ask the same of the Technical Working Group or along with our existing consultant to go through the same process that he is suggesting with another consultant.
Mr. Galloway stated that his recommendation would be for the EWSWA to direct a third-party independent peer review. There will be some questions asked of the Technical Working Group as well as the consultant that’s been used up to date. That would be his preference or suggestion and recommendation.
Mr. McKenzie stated that a tremendous amount of information has been brought forward. He recognizes that there are still some questions that need to be answered and a review needs to be undertaken. In regards to those asking for financial data, an analysis can’t happen until we have some certainty around some of the variables. He does not believe this has anything to do with a lack of expertise or knowledge.
Mr. Galloway stated that he is always trying to ensure that his elected officials are fully informed when they are making a decision. In this particular case and listening at the last meeting, as well at this meeting, he would respectfully submit that there are still a lot of questions yet to be answered. He believes that some of the work of a peer review, especially on the financial piece, could solidify some of the concerns around the financial aspects of this project.
Mr. McKenzie asked Ms. McGuire if the Technical Working Group, along with the consultants, have the capacity to undertake the process of developing a review to provide information on the science, the financial piece and the technology.
Ms. McGuire stated that in her opinion they do. The Technical Working Group is made up of EWSWA staff, County of Essex staff and City of Windsor staff and they were appointed by the EWSWA Board. GHD is an expert in the environmental field and waste diversion. She does not she see why they wouldn’t have the expertise. She stated that the financials were not part of the original scope of this project. She thinks that it would be easy enough to expand that scope and look into multiple scenarios but it would take some time. She believes that we have that expertise in house.
Page 12 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 13 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. McKenzie asked Ms. McGuire what would the timeline be if the Technical Working Group would undertake this process.
Ms. McGuire stated that the timeline could be less because there would less catch up to do and there would be less review of the work that already has been done. Ms. McGuire thinks that this could be done within 30 to 60 days.
Mr. Kaschak stated that GHD is a world class engineering firm in waste diversion so he does not think we should be questioning the science aspect. The technology that the province has laid out for us has been dealt with. Financially, he would like to see more numbers. He does not see a need for a peer review. He thinks there should be financial review. He suggested the General Manager, as the former finance officer of the Authority, prepare a financial analysis within 30 to 60 days and report back at the August meeting. He does not see the need to look back and question the work that has been done by GHD because it was quite a thorough report on what is pertinent in today’s provincial regulations.
Mr. McNamara stated that an independent review is what we need and the request by Mr. Galloway is appropriate. Mr. McNamara is not comfortable with the decision and we need to have some level of comfort that he does not have now. He stated that peer reviews are done all the time on many situations. He cannot justify spending this kind of money and commit his municipality. There also concerns with the landfill. Those dollars are there to make sure that we can take care of the landfill. We need to protect the landfill. The landfill is an asset and needs protection and to ensure that is the last one we have. He believes 30-60 days is not a long time considering the amount of money.
Ms. MacDonald stated that she wanted to make it clear to members of the Board, that this was not about not trusting the consultant or thinking they were not professional. She stated that they felt like private public partnerships wasn’t explored at all. There is a feeling among them that there has only been one point of view brought to the table. They would like to see other points of view and some other opportunities and other ways of looking at this. She stated that by rushing them, confidence was not built. It is about the financial ability to carry this and to go back to their municipalities and pay for it. She stated that they have to do their due diligence but they also have to see what other opportunities are there.
Mr. Dilkens stated that the conversation has been very interesting. He agrees that this will be a lot of money to move forward. He wanted to remind the members of the Board that the Authority was created after many years of all of them doing the work independently. In 1994, the Authority was created to be the unified voice for waste management in Windsor and Essex County. About 10 years ago, he was the Chair of the Authority and they brought the idea forward that had come up through different members
Page 13 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 14 of 21 June 1, 2021
who had gone to conferences and the idea of organics recycling. It was clear even then that we have a 0% chance of meeting the provincially mandated waste diversion goals unless we introduced an organics stream into the system. The former General Manager and the team who were in place did some work and came back with some numbers. It was clear that it didn’t make sense at the time when we weren’t mandated. The diversion targets were simply targets. There was no mandate at the time. He believes that we all have a shared goal and interest in trying to find a way to deal with this. There is pressure on the City to meet the timelines that are in place and referred back to the goals and objectives that created the Solid Waste Authority, is that we are managing all of this as a collective system. He thinks it would be unfair to say that this is only the City’s responsibility. The Solid Waste Authority acts as the regional body so it makes sense to have this regional body acting to deal with the waste streams for the whole community. From their perspective, this is a responsibility of the Authority and we’re trying to meet the timelines imposed by legislation. To the extent that we’re unable to do that, the Authority has to consider the risk that they have to deal with any fines or punishment that would come as a result of not meeting the legislated timelines. He stated that none of us want to deal with that. The shared goal is to deal with the waste in the most prudent way possible. If the City of Windsor is first, he can guarantee it will be just a few years after that before it’s legislated for all municipalities in the province of Ontario. He stated that the economies of scale only make sense if everyone participates. It makes sense to operate as a system. He looks forward to the conversation that will come back, hopefully in 60 or 90 days, and that we can create a pathway that makes sense for the betterment of all residents in the region.
Mr. McNamara stated that after listening to Mr. Dilkens, he is probably 90% in agreement. He stated that no one said that the City has to do it alone. We all need to understand the diversion piece is a reality we have to face. We have to make sure the plan is solid, that it makes sense and that we can defend it to the public. If we’re going to meet our other requirements and meet our energy plans within our respective communities, we want to make sure we have the best technology moving forward. We do not need something that just gets us over the hump. We need something that is going to take us into the future. He stated that no one is going to say in 90 days that the City is on their own.
Mr. Bondy thanked Mr. Dilkens for his comments. Mr. Bondy asked the General Manager if the Authority or the County of Essex was involved in selecting GHD and if they were part of the evaluation process.
The General Manager replied no. The process started before we met as Board to look at a regional solution.
Page 14 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 15 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. DiCarlo introduced Agenda Item 6B, the correspondence from the Chair of the Landfill Liaison Committee. Mr. DiCarlo asked Ms. Verbeek to speak to the item.
Ms. Verbeek thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. Ms. Verbeek stated that she represents the residents that live around the Regional Landfill. She has been a member of the Landfill Liaison Committee (LLC) for 15 years and the Chair for the last couple of years.
Ms. Verbeek stated that she thought the Authority was purchasing the adjacent lands to expand the landfill. The residents already have issues with odour and trucks. There are many unknowns that are being talked about. She asked if we have the capacity as this is a water intensive process.
Ms. Verbeek stated that the LLC was upset that this was being considered and thought the adjacent lands were for expansion and not this project. They hope that they will be looking at other sites.
Mr. DiCarlo asked if there were any questions for Ms. Verbeek. No questions were asked. Mr. DiCarlo stated the next agenda Item is 6C, a correspondence from Jason Reynar, City of Windsor CAO.
Mr. Reynar stated that this has been a good debate and discussion. He did not have anything to add but was available to answer questions.
Mr. Kaschak asked if Mr. Reynar could elaborate regarding the $250,000 fines noted in the letter.
Mr. Reynar stated that the Authority, under Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) will deal with the compliance and the MECP can impose $250,000 per day fines. He noted that the MECP would not take such a draconian approach as long as they are moving towards the goal and demonstrated process. There is an expectation that they are working towards the objective. There are many communities that have an organics process in place. He is happy to support the General Manager and continue dialogue and the opportunity to work with Mr. Galloway and the General Manager and try to get to a solution and some recommendations in September.
Mr. DiCarlo asked if there were any other questions. No other questions were asked. He stated that brings us to end of all of the presentations and correspondence on the organics.
Mr. DiCarlo asked Mr. McKenzie for his motion.
Mr. McKenzie stated that his motion is that the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority undertake to identify a proponent to conduct an independent review of the proposals brought forward the Food, Organics, Waste and
Page 15 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 16 of 21 June 1, 2021
Biosolids Management Project Oversight Committee and the consultant and analyze those findings through a financial and technical perspective and report back to the Board in a maximum of 90 days.
Mr. DiCarlo asked if anyone seconds the motion.
Mr. Morrison seconded the motion.
Mr. McKenzie stated that we all collectively want to implement a waste diversion program that has that objective in mind given the framework we have. He understands why the peer review is wanted. He wants the same thing and wants information to bring back to his residents. The costs are a major consideration and wants to be assured that we are working towards the best solution. The reality is that the province has given us a mandate and we have to rise to this challenge. Hopefully, after we go through this analysis, that we are able to come back in 60 or 90 days, should this motion pass, and this review is completed, that we are able to proceed with this waste management project as a region. As a member of this Board and as a member of this community, he thinks that the opportunities that are presented to us are too great to allow this to pass us by without moving forward.
Mr. DiCarlo asked if there were any other questions or comments.
Mr. DiCarlo asked Mr. McKenzie if he could include also receiving all the presentations and delegations before we vote.
Mr. McKenzie stated that he will take that as a friendly amendment if that is how it is intended.
Mr. DiCarlo stated yes, it is. He stated that he believes it was seconded by Mr. Morrison. Mr. DiCarlo asked Mr. Morrison if he was okay with the friendly amendment. Mr. Morrison was okay with this.
Mr. McNamara stated as a point of order, he would like to have all the information as received as Mr. McKenzie’s motion is being adopted. He would like to have them separated.
Mr. DiCarlo stated that was fair. Mr. DiCarlo asked Mr. McKenzie if we was okay with this.
Mr. McKenzie stated that he was fine with this and he is fine with the original motion that he tabled.
Mr. Bondy asked for the motion to be clarified. He asked Mr. McKenzie if he stated that he wants the Oversight Committee to do this review.
Page 16 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 17 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. McKenzie stated no. Mr. McKenzie stated that he is asking the Solid Waste Authority undertake to identify a proponent to conduct an independent review of the proposals brought forward by the committee.
Mr. McKenzie stated that he asking for an independent body to review the proposals that have been brought forward by the Steering Committee and to conduct the analysis of the financial and technical pieces. He stated that the motion that he brought forward is trying to achieve precisely what has been articulated by Mr. McNamara and the other County members of the Board.
Mr. Meloche asked for more clarification on Mr. McKenzie’s motion with respect to how he worded the motion. He liked that Mr. McNamara talked about the three points, the technical, scientific and the financial as part of the whole overall review. He thinks that Mr. McKenzie’s wording seemed to limit that. Mr. Meloche asked Mr. McKenzie to clarify that point.
Mr. McKenzie stated that he would open to a friendly amendment. Mr. McKenzie stated that when he hears the three pillars that individuals want to see clarified, the science, financial and technology, he feels that science and technology are very close and seem redundant. He is not looking to limit the scope of what could potentially be reviewed if this is the terms of reference. He is open to accommodating any revisions to the motion.
Mr. Meloche would like to make a friendly amendment that the broad scope be included in the motion.
Mr. DiCarlo asked Mr. McKenzie if he was okay with the friendly amendment.
Mr. McKenzie stated yes. He is not looking to limit anything. He would be comfortable with leaving it up to the General Manager to sort the details of what broad scope means.
Mr. DiCarlo asked Mr. Morrison if he was okay with this amendment as well. Mr. Morrison was okay with this.
Mr. DiCarlo asked the General Manager is she was okay with this.
The General Manager stated yes and that she will take a collaborative approach and work with both the City and the County to make sure that the scope includes all of the items that they would like included in the review. She would hate to endeavor into a process and then find out that something may not get captured. If it is the choice of the Board to have a peer review, she wants to make that everyone is confident with what comes back to the Board.
Mr. DiCarlo asked Mr. Meloche if this captures his intent.
Mr. Meloche states that it does capture his intent.
Page 17 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 18 of 21 June 1, 2021
Mr. McKenzie stated the motion reads that the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority undertake to identify a proponent to conduct an independent review of the proposals brought forward by the Food, Organics, Waste and Biosolids Management Project Oversight Committee and the consultants and analyze those findings through a financial, technical and science perspective and report back to the EWSWA Board in a maximum of 90 days.
Mr. DiCarlo asked if there were any other questions or clarifications. No other items were raised for discussion.
Moved by Gary McNamara Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT the Board receive the report Food & Organic Waste & Biosolids Management Project – Recommendations from the Oversight Committee as information.
46-2021 Carried
Moved by Kieran McKenzie Seconded by Jim Morrison THAT the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority undertake to identify a proponent to conduct an independent review of the proposals brought forward by the Food, Organics, Waste and Biosolids Management Project Oversight Committee and the consultants and analyze those findings through a financial, technical and science perspective and report back to the EWSWA Board in a maximum of 90 days.
47-2021 Carried
C. EWSWA Outreach Activities
The Manager of Waste Diversion stated the Authority participates annually in outreach activities in Windsor-Essex. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Authority had to take a different approach to reach residents as many of the events the Authority participates in have been cancelled. The Manager of Waste Diversion highlighted the outreach activities:
• The “Recycling Recharge” campaign was created to help address common issues that were noted with the Blue Box collection. This campaign was conducted through a postcard mailout, local radio and social media ads, the EWSWA.org website as well an updated “OOPS” sticker. This will continue throughout the year. • To celebrate Earth Day 2021, the Earth Day Committee, comprised of regional partners, used the GooseChase app to present a “virtual”
Page 18 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 19 of 21 June 1, 2021
Earth Day Scavenger Hunt. This “virtual” event was well received with 4,000 submissions. • The Annual Truckload Sale was cancelled as result of Ontario’s COVID- 19 lockdown order. The sale will be rescheduled when the provincial parameters around COVID-19 change. • The Annual EnviroTips newsletter and on-going communication will continue. This year short educational videos will be added to the Authority website as resources for teachers and community groups.
Mr. McNamara asked if the 25th anniversary recycle carts are available for purchase. The Manager of Waste Diversion stated they are available and can be purchased through local Home Hardware stores.
Moved by Marc Bondy Seconded by Gary Kaschak THAT the Board receive the Update on Annual EWSWA Outreach Activities Report as information.
48-2021 Carried
9. Waste Disposal
A. Tender Award – Cleaning and Flushing of Landfill Leachate Systems
The Manager of Waste Disposal stated that on May 6, 2021, a tender was issued for the Provision of Equipment, Materials and Labour for the Cleaning and Flushing of the Leachate Collection Systems at Authority sites. The recommendation is to award the contract to Hurricane SMS Inc. at a cost of $75,500.
Two (2) submissions were received from Hurricane SMS Inc. and Wessuc Inc. Hurricane SMS Inc. was the low bid.
The 2021 budget included an amount of $121,000 for the cleaning and flushing of all three (3) Authority sites.
Moved by Gary McNamara Seconded by Kieran McKenzie THAT the tender price of $75,500 excluding HST, submitted by Hurricane SMS Inc. for the Cleaning and Flushing of Leachate Collection Systems be accepted by the Authority; and that the Board authorize the execution of an agreement between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority and Hurricane SMS Inc. to this regard.
49-2021 Carried
Page 19 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 20 of 21 June 1, 2021
10. Finance and Administration – No items
11. Other Items
No other items were raised for discussion
12. By-Laws
A. By-Law 10-2021
Moved by Leo Meloche Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT By-Law 10-2021, Being a By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement Between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority and Hurricane SMS Inc. for the Provision of Equipment, Materials and Labour for the Cleaning and Flushing of the Leachate Collection Systems at Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Facilities.
50-2021 Carried
B. By-Law 11-2021
Moved by Leo Meloche Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT By-Law 11-2021, being a By-law to confirm the Proceedings of the Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority be given three readings and be adopted this 1st day of June, 2021.
51-2021 Carried 13. Future Meeting Dates
Tuesday, July 6, 2021 Wednesday, August 11, 2021 Wednesday, September 15, 2021 Tuesday, October 5, 2021 Tuesday, November 2, 2021 Tuesday, December 7, 2021
14. Adjournment
Moved by Jim Morrison Seconded by Ed Sleiman THAT the Board stand adjourned at 7:41 pm.
52-2021 Carried
Page 20 of 52 Regular Board Meeting MINUTES Page 21 of 21 June 1, 2021
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Aldo DiCarlo Chair
Michelle Bishop General Manager
Page 21 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Administrative Report
June 17, 2021
To: The Chair and Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority From: Michelle Bishop, General Manager Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 06, 2022
Subject: 2021/2022 EWSWA Insurance
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to update the Board on the Authority’s comprehensive insurance program renewal for the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.
Discussion
The Authority's insurance broker is Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc. (AON).
The total value of the Authority’s property and processing equipment is greater than $19,000,000. In 2020 the insurer that had insured this program since 2014 did not provide the Authority with a renewal option as it no longer insured recycling facilities. AON was challenged with securing alternative coverage and negotiating premiums. In 2021 AON was again challenged to secure coverage for the entire replacement cost. AON ultimately was able to secure insurance for 100% of the replacement cost of all Authority assets by splitting the policy. Below is a table outlining the coverage details. If the Authority was to have a claim the 3 companies would pay their portion of the total cost less the deductible.
Insurer Expiring Policy Renewal Zurich 60% 50% Echelon 30% 20% Northbridge/Chutter Underwriting 10% 10% Northbridge/Stewart Underwriting 0% 20% Total 100% 100%
Page 1 of 5 H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - 2021 EWSWA Insurance July 6 2021.docx
Page 22 of 52 2021/2022 EWSWA Insurance Page 2 of 5 June 17, 2021
Premiums
The following table summarizes the various coverages and related premiums. As highlighted in the table the 2021/2022 program represents an overall increase in premiums of $86,994 from the prior year. This equates to an increase of 20%.
2021/22 2020/21 Premium Class Premium Premium Increase
Property & Equipment $263,560 $213,984 $49,576 Contractor's Equip. $27,722 $27,337 $385 Environmental $42,187 $40,179 $2,008 Owned Automobile $26,973 $23,661 $3,312 General Liability $43,615 $33,000 $10,615 Umbrella Liability $42,350 $35,000 $7,350 Errors & Omissions $16,135 $13,530 $2,605 Boiler & Machinery $2,982 $2,840 $142 Directors & Officers $5,979 $4,402 $1,577 Crime $9,200 $8,000 $1,200
Total Premium $480,704 $401,933 $78,771 PST on All but Auto $36,298 $28,075 $8,224 Total $517,002 $430,008 $86,994
The increase in the premium for property and processing equipment is related to the insurer’s evaluation of the recycling industry as a whole in Ontario and not of the Authority’s operations in particular. The insurer has deemed recycling operations to be of a greater risk due to recent claims across the province. Therefore, premiums to their customers have been adjusted to reflect this claims experience. As a matter of information, the Authority’s last claim related to its recycling operations dates back to 2005.
The Authority has a very different risk profile than a municipality, in particular the risk associated with the operation of a fibre recycling facility is significantly higher than most other municipal operations.
Along with the above noted value of property and equipment the Authority also insures approximately $5,000,000 in contractor’s or rolling stock equipment. This includes equipment such as front end loaders, bull dozers and the compactor at the Regional Landfill. Although the Authority’s values increased from the replacement of a front end loader, grass cutting equipment and a lift truck in 2021 the premium increase was a modest $385.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - 2021 EWSWA Insurance July 6 2021.docx
Page 23 of 52 2021/2022 EWSWA Insurance Page 3 of 5 June 17, 2021
Liability insurance increases were partially due to the increase in sales of recycled material to the USA. Higher commodity prices for the sale of recycled material are currently being received from US customers than Canadian customers. The insurer is of the opinion there is potentially a higher level of risk associated with selling material to the USA then selling material in Canada.
Deductibles
The following table summarizes the deductible amounts for the various classifications:
Class 2021 / 2022 2020 / 2021 Deductible Deductible Property & Equipment $100,000 - $250,000 $250,000 Contractor’s Equipment $2,500 - $50,000 $2,500 - $50,000 Environmental $25,000 $25,000 Owned Automobile $5,000 $5,000 General Liability & Legal $5,000 $5,000 Umbrella Liability $10,000 $10,000 Directors & Officers $15,000 $15,000 Errors & Omissions $5,000 $5,000 Boiler & Machinery $10,000 $10,000
In 2020 the insurers requested a change in the amount payable as a deductible in the event of a claim under the property and equipment program from $100,000 to $250,000 per occurrence. For 2021 AON was able to negotiate a reduction to $100,000 for claims under $1,000,000 at the Administration office and the Kingsville Transfer Station 2. The insurers were unwilling to reduce the deductible at the Regional Landfill or the Windsor Material Recovery Centre.
The deductible for the contractor’s equipment policy varies depending on the value of the equipment. For example, if there was a claim on a piece of equipment with a value of less than $25,000 the deductible would be $2,500, however, if the claim was on a piece of equipment such as the compactor at the Regional Landfill that has a value of approximately $1,200,000 the deductible would be $50,000.
Financial/Budget Implications
The 2021 budget document includes an expenditure of $420,900 for insurance related costs with approximately $200,000 incurred as of the term expiration date of May 31, 2021. The portion of the renewal for 2021 will be $269,760 for a total projection of $469,760 resulting in an unfavorable variance of ($48,860) for 2021.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - 2021 EWSWA Insurance July 6 2021.docx
Page 24 of 52 2021/2022 EWSWA Insurance Page 4 of 5 June 17, 2021
In 2020 the Authority Board approved establishing an Insurance Reserve in the amount of $250,000. The reserve would be used to fund and mitigate the potential financial risk to the Authority in the event of a claim. This reserve is reviewed annually as part of the budget process to ensure adequate funds are available. The reserve would need to be replenished in the event of a claim.
Also, the County of Essex is conducting a Regional review of general liability insurance. The goal is to determine whether opportunities exist to pool coverage needs for the Region and/or identify viable alternatives to the current policy structure. Authority Administration will be working with the County on this initiative to identify any potential cost savings.
Additional Information
Since 2014 the Authority has participated in annual Risk Control Assessments. Each year an insurance company representative performs a site visit at the Essex- Windsor Regional Landfill, Windsor Recycling Facilities and Windsor Transfer Station. To date there have been no critical control recommendations received.
Additionally, the Authority has addressed all important and advisory recommendations identified by the insurer as well as implemented additional risk mitigation items as deemed necessary by Authority staff. Some of these items include:
• Additional video cameras installed to ensure all areas of public access are clearly visible. • New gates installed at the Windsor site to ensure site is secure. • Replacement of all security and fire detection equipment at all sites. • Installation of an automatic fixed suppression system on the Regional Landfill compactor. • Annual infrared scanning on all the electrical panels in the recycling buildings to ensure there are no hot spots that could lead to an electrical failure. • Annual fire hydrant testing to ensure an acceptable flow and pressure rating is achieved. • The fire department has been invited to tour the Windsor facility annually to ensure they are familiar with the site. • All metal halide light fixtures have been replaced with LED fixtures to reduce the inherent fire risk associated with exploding metal halide fixtures.
Unfortunately, although the above steps have been taken by the Authority to reduce the potential for claims the insurer still feels that the risk level is higher than acceptable and consequently has increased premiums and deductibles.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - 2021 EWSWA Insurance July 6 2021.docx
Page 25 of 52 2021/2022 EWSWA Insurance Page 5 of 5 June 17, 2021
Prior to the expiration of the policy AON requested quotes from over 40 different insurance carriers. AON will continue to work throughout 2021 to ensure that the Authority is getting the best available coverage and pricing.
Recommendation
1. That the Board receive the report pertaining to the 2021/2022 Insurance program as information.
Submitted By
Michelle Bishop, General Manager
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - 2021 EWSWA Insurance July 6 2021.docx
Page 26 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Administrative Report
June 22, 2021
To: The Chair and Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority From: Catharine Copot-Nepszy, Manager of Waste Diversion Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 06, 2021
Subject: Bike Reuse Program
Purpose
To provide an update to the members of the EWSWA Board on the creation of a formal bike reuse program in Essex-Windsor.
Background
Currently, bikes that are brought to one of EWSWA’s Drop Off locations are recycled into the appropriate scrap metal area as they are not part of a formal waste diversion program. This item is not currently tracked through the EWSWA scale software system, so it is estimated that a few hundred bikes in total are recycled annually.
At the May 4, 2021 the EWSWA Board Meeting, member Councillor McKenzie brought forth the idea of EWSWA creating a bike reuse program with Bike Windsor Essex (BWE), who is an advocacy group that promotes safe cycling in Windsor- Essex. As a result, the EWSWA Board recommended that the EWSWA administration investigate this new program idea and provide a report at a later date.
Discussion
The EWSWA administration performed a brief inquiry to see what other municipalities in Ontario were doing with their bicycles at end-of-life. It was noted that municipalities had different strategies in place specific to their resources and programs. Five municipal bike reuse program initiatives were highlighted through this review: London, Toronto, Brampton, Waterloo and Guelph.
Page 1 of 3 H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Bike Reuse Program July 6, 2021.docx
Page 27 of 52 Bike Reuse Program Page 2 of 3 June 22, 2021
All municipalities except for Guelph worked with community partners and were successful. What was noted was that the municipalities connected residents through promotion and education to their bike reuse drop off. From here, the community partner was responsible for collecting and distributing refurbished bikes back into the community. Some municipalities even collected and distributed bikes at their own depot.
Along with these program considerations, effective health and safety, liability, and other measures were also noted as being critical to this program. Furthermore, program tracking measures like: the number of bikes collected, refurbished, and distributed, as well as, the kilograms of bikes recycled as scrap metal were captured to monitor and assess the success of the program.
Other program criteria that the EWSWA would be interested in, is that bikes are dropped off in one piece for safer management and use of this space until collection occurs. Further criteria would include the timely removal of bikes and that unsalvageable bikes are recycled at EWSWA Drop off Depots appropriately. While visiting the site, protocols must be followed by the community partner as well as the holding of a certain level of insurance and WSIB coverage to reduce liability.
As for the distribution and/or sale of bikes, the EWSWA would be interested in supporting the underprivileged in our community through this program (e.g., Earn A Bike Program) where feasible. The EWSWA expects that bikes for purchase are accessible to residents in both Windsor and Essex County.
Although a partnership with BWE may be considered sole sourcing, as BWE is a not-for-profit organization that works closely with both the City of Windsor and the County of Essex on promoting active transportation in the region, the EWSWA is recommending that this direction is appropriate. Finally, the EWSWA will review this partnership annually along with the submitted annual report from the community partner.
Budget Impact
The only financial impact with this bike reuse program is the need for bike racks, signage and paint at both Public Drop Offs in Windsor and Kingsville that would allow for the separation of bikes from scrap metal. While the loss of revenue to the EWSWA through the sale of scrap metal is currently negligible, this program aligns with EWSWA’s mission to manage solid waste through Reduce, Reuse and Recycling programs. Finally, promotion and education for this program will be minimal in cost and will be covered through the creative reallocation of the existing budget from other projects.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Bike Reuse Program July 6, 2021.docx
Page 28 of 52 Bike Reuse Program Page 3 of 3 June 22, 2021
Recommendation
That the Board endorse a partnership between Bike Windsor Essex and the EWSWA that will create a formal Bike Reuse Program in Essex-Windsor and allow the EWSWA to enter into a formal agreement with Bike Windsor Essex.
Submitted By
Catharine Copot-Nepszy, Manager of Waste Diversion
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Bike Reuse Program July 6, 2021.docx
Page 29 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Administrative Report
June 21, 2021
To: The Chair and Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority From: Michelle Bishop, General Manager Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 06, 2021
Subject: Blue Box Final Regulation Re: Transition to Producers
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to inform the Board that on June 3, 2021 the Environment Ministry posted the final Blue Box Regulation 391/21 to the Environment Registry of Ontario. The major impact stemming from the regulation relates to producers assuming the full cost of Blue Box programs across the Province. Currently, the net cost of each municipality’s Blue Box program is paid 50% by the municipality and 50% by producers; where a producer is defined as a brand holder, retailer or importer.
Background
The regulation is welcomed by Ontario municipalities as it will relieve the burden of costs that are now included in municipal budgets. The regulation, once enacted, would come under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 and would make producers fully responsible for blue box programs. There is a potential for savings of approximately $3M-$4M per year for Essex-Windsor.
The regulation is intended to:
• make producers responsible for collecting and managing blue box materials, which comprises of designated products and packaging, • expand the scope of blue box materials collected and managed, • maintain or improve existing blue box services, including creating one common curbside blue box collection system across Ontario,
Page 1 of 7 H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Blue Box Final Regulation July 6 2021.docx
Page 30 of 52 Blue Box Regulation Page 2 of 7 June 21, 2021
• expand blue box services to additional sources, such as multi-unit residential buildings, schools, retirement homes, long-term care homes and some public spaces, • collect a consistent set of materials in blue boxes across the province, and • make producers responsible for meeting management requirements for blue box materials, such as diversion targets.
Discussion
Final Regulation – Highlights
Service
Residents in the City of Windsor and the 7 County municipalities will continue to receive collection every 2 weeks. While the Authority currently operates a 2 stream system (red box & blue box) the producers may choose to move to a single stream (one box) system at some point in the future.
Designated Materials • packaging, including aerosols • printed and unprinted paper • single-use packaging-like products, like foils, trays, and boxes • single-use food and beverage service items like straws, cutlery, plates, food service ware
Eligible Sources • all communities regardless of size (except the Far North) • all residential dwelling types • all schools • all publicly run retirement homes and long-term care facilities • public spaces including parks, playgrounds and sidewalks (based on a density formula)
Recovery Targets
The regulation sets out specific targets the producers need to achieve in a two- stage process. The table below illustrates that even the stage 1 targets are higher than the current targets.
Existing Stage 1: 2026- Stage 2: From Target Category Diversion Rates 2029 Target 2030 Target (2018) Paper 72% 80% 85% Rigid Plastic 48% 50% 60%
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Blue Box Final Regulation July 6 2021.docx
Page 31 of 52 Blue Box Regulation Page 3 of 7 June 21, 2021
Existing Stage 1: 2026- Stage 2: From Target Category Diversion Rates 2029 Target 2030 Target (2018) Flexible Plastic 7% 25% 40% Glass 68% 75% 85% Metal 54% 67% 75% Non-Alcoholic Unknown 75% 80% Beverage Containers
Transition Schedule
The regulation includes a schedule showing the date in which each municipality would transition its program to producers. All municipalities will transition during the period 2023-2025. The transition date shown for Essex-Windsor is August 28, 2024. This date coincides with the August 27, 2024 termination date of the recycling collection contract in the City of Windsor. The contract terms for blue box collection in the County municipalities and for processing of recyclables delivered to the two recycling centres are set up so that they can accommodate the 2024 transition year with no financial impact to the Authority.
Potential Transition Scenarios with Producers
At some time prior to the scheduled transition date, the Authority and the City of Windsor will engage in discussions with a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for blue box services.
Municipalities will not have the first right of refusal concerning service provision. Therefore, it will be up to the PROs to seek out services from the Authority, should they wish to. Examples of blue box services would include services for the collection and processing of the recyclables and customer service. An example of this may entail that the Authority (or one of the municipalities) continues to provide Blue Box collection to its residents (as they do now) and have the Producers pay the Authority at a negotiated amount which may or may not be the full cost incurred by the Authority. Another example may be that the Authority (or one of the municipalities) provide contract management services for a contractor collector or processor. Again, a negotiated payment from the Producers would be required, which may or may not equate to the full amount being paid to the contractor.
At the May 5, 2020 meeting the Authority Board was asked to endorse a non- binding resolution related to Essex-Windsor’s blue box program to be sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). That resolution included a preferred transition date, details regarding contract end dates, and whether or not
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Blue Box Final Regulation July 6 2021.docx
Page 32 of 52 Blue Box Regulation Page 4 of 7 June 21, 2021
the Authority may be interested in continuing to provide blue box collection in Essex-Windsor.
The Board resolved to the following:
THAT Essex-Windsor may be interested in providing collection services to Producers should we be able to arrive at mutually agreeable commercial terms.
While there has been some intimating by some Producers and/or their representatives that Producers may be interested in municipalities continuing to provide Blue Box Collection services, it has not been the case so far with the processing side of recycling operations. Producers have not, to date, expressed the same interest in collaborating. The preliminary information is that Producers may be looking at consolidating recycling centres across the province (along with the marketing of the recyclables) and may or may not engage in discussions with municipalities about having a municipality provide processing services.
From Administration’s perspective there is no financial or operational advantage to continue to provide collection, processing or customer services after the August 28, 2024 transition date. There may be a desire of the Board, City of Windsor and/or County of Essex to provide collection and customer service because of the service delivery gaps outlined below, or because residents may continue to believe that recycling is a municipal service and will continue to call the Authority, their municipality, or their councillor if they are unsatisfied with the service.
All of the above being said, a municipality would not be compelled to provide any service and could simply turn over all operations for Producers to wholly manage.
Potential Service Delivery Gaps
Administrative staff have read the final document and have identified service delivery gaps within Windsor and Essex County.
The policy is clear that only residential properties and a limited number of facilities are the responsibilities of the PROs. Many other customers are currently services by the Authority. This will create a service delivery gap in the following areas:
• industrial and commercial buildings (including BIA areas) • private long-term care and retirement homes • municipal buildings including arenas, marinas and recreation centres • places of worship • special event recycling
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Blue Box Final Regulation July 6 2021.docx
Page 33 of 52 Blue Box Regulation Page 5 of 7 June 21, 2021
There may also be a service delivery gap for public spaces between the transition date and 2026 as the PROs are not required to service these areas until that time.
At a future date, the Authority Board and/or Municipal Councils may be asked if they would like to continue providing the above services in their community, likely at a cost.
Additionally, the Authority currently allows residents to include material that is not promoted in the blue box program. Examples of these types of materials are books, wine, beer and spirit containers. It is unclear at this time what will happen if residents continue to dispose of these types of materials since these materials are not included in the regulation as designated materials.
Next Steps
391/21 Required Registration and Data Collection
All eligible communities with a Blue Box program are required to register with the Resource Productivity & Recovery Authority (RPRA) and provide information on collection and servicing by September 30, 2021.
Some of the information that will be required are: the number of residents and residences, the number of residences and facilities that receive blue box collection, municipal waste management collection programming (e.g., garbage, blue box), and the number of blue box receptacles in public spaces that receive collection. While the Authority will be responsible to submit all data to the RPRA, a portion of the information required will need to be provided by the municipalities. As soon as the RPRA finalizes how this data is to be submitted by municipalities, the Authority will be contacting each of the local municipalities to request their support in gathering this data and offer aid as needed.
The Authority will also be required to provide a signed document from the City of Windsor and each of the seven County municipalities stating that the Authority will be responding and providing information on behalf of the municipality.
Transition Working Groups
AMO’s Municipal Resource Recovery and Research Collaborative (M3RC) and the Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF) have partnered to develop and launch a Transition Working Group. This group will work to develop a range of tools, templates and training packages that will help prepare all Ontario municipalities
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Blue Box Final Regulation July 6 2021.docx
Page 34 of 52 Blue Box Regulation Page 6 of 7 June 21, 2021 and First Nations communities to transition their Blue Box programs to the Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) framework.
The Transition Working Group is comprised of five sub-committees coordinated by a Transition Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will help set direction and ensure the comprehensive learnings of all sub-committees are shared out to all municipalities and First Nations communities.
The Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority is being represented by various Authority and City of Windsor staff on each of the 5 sub-committees as depicted below:
The sub-committees will focus on:
• Contracts – Identify procurement & contract management principles, key issues, & proposed resolutions • Communications & Change Management – Identify critical collection and administrative changes resulting from transition, plans to address them, and communication of change impacts • Fair Compensation – Cost analysis & risk assessment of various collection/processing scenarios • Data Reporting and Monitoring – Identifying key blue box program performance metrics, data collection infrastructure needs & cost, pre & post transition; Establish regulatory reporting to RPRA Registry support • Post Collections – Identify critical post collection changes resulting from transition and plans to address them
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Blue Box Final Regulation July 6 2021.docx
Page 35 of 52 Blue Box Regulation Page 7 of 7 June 21, 2021
Additionally, Authority administration will be closely monitoring other municipalities that transition sometime in 2023 such as Toronto, Ottawa, Sarnia and London in order to gain information and knowledge that will allow for a better and streamlined transition for Essex-Windsor in August 2024.
Recommendation
For the Board’s information.
Submitted By
Michelle Bishop, General Manager
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Blue Box Final Regulation July 6 2021.docx
Page 36 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Administrative Report
June 30, 2021
To: The Chair and Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority From: Michelle Bishop, General Manager Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 06, 2021
Subject: Organics Waste Management & Processing Peer Review RFP Update
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to update the Board on the status of the Organics Waste Management and Processing Peer Review.
Background
At the June 1, 2021 meeting the Authority Board resolved the following:
That the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority undertake to identify a proponent to conduct an independent review of the proposals brought forward by the Food, Organics, Waste and Biosolids Management Project Oversight Committee and the consultants and analyze those findings through a financial, technical and science perspective and report back to the Board in a maximum of 90 days.
On Monday, June 14, 2021 the Authority General Manager, in consultation with County of Essex and City of Windsor staff, issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Peer Review of the Organic and Biosolids Waste Management & Processing Consultant Report and Analysis of the Impact of Organic Diversion from the Regional Landfill.
An invitation to participate along with the RFP document was emailed directly to four (4) consulting firms that have the ability to perform this type of work. The invitation to participate requested an acknowledgement of participation be sent by
Page 1 of 3 H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Peer Review Update July 6 2021.docx
Page 37 of 52 Peer Review RFP Update Page 2 of 3 June 30, 2021
the proponents. Two (2) of the consulting firms advised that they would be submitting a bid.
Discussion
The RFP closed on June 29, 2021 and two (2) submissions were received.
The RFP Evaluation was comprised of two (2) stages. Stage 1 was a Technical Evaluation where Proposals were reviewed and evaluated based on the following:
• Approach and understanding • Corporate and project team experience • Key personnel experience
As defined by the RFP, Technical Proposals were given a score out of 70 points which was the maximum points that a Proposal could receive.
Stage 2 was the Financial Evaluation. In this stage, the Proponent with the lowest Total Price of Contract received the highest possible score of 30 points towards its Financial Score. Then, the Total Price of Contract of each of the other Proponents was compared to the lowest Total Price of Contract to determine each score out of 30 points using the following formula:
Proponent’s Financial Score = (Lowest of all prices submitted/This proposal’s price) x 30
Therefore, a Proposal submitting a price twice as much as the lowest would receive 15 points.
After Financial Scores were calculated for each Proponent’s Proposal, the Combined Score for each Proposal was evaluated. The Combined Score is the sum of the Technical Score and the Financial Score which could at a maximum reach 100 points. The Proponent with the highest Combined Score was selected as the “Preferred Proponent”.
The highest Combined Score was attained by Tetra Tech Canada Inc. (Tetra Tech), therefore, they are the “Preferred Proponent” per the terms of the RFP.
Tetra Tech has over 20 years experience working with Ontario municipalities on solid waste management and are located in Guelph, Ontario. Staff have completed numerous projects in organics and biosolids waste management and processing, including collection reviews, data collection and analysis through waste characterization studies, options and technology analyses, feasibility and proforma studies, public consultation, and siting and design of compost facilities.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Peer Review Update July 6 2021.docx
Page 38 of 52 Peer Review RFP Update Page 3 of 3 June 30, 2021
Tetra Tech’s submission demonstrated an excellent understanding of the scope of the project and has assigned key personnel that have significant experience working with Municipalities in Ontario.
The submission included the following proposed schedule: • Kickoff Meeting - Early July 2021 • Preliminary Presentation/Meeting (50% to 60% completion) - Week of August 6, 2021 • Draft Report, Issued for Review Report (90% completion) - August 20, 2021 • Presentation to EWSWA Administration - Week of August 23, 2021 • Final Report, Issued for Use Report (100% completion) - September 1, 2021 • Presentation to EWSWA Board - September 15, 2021
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The recommended proponent, Tetra Tech Canada Inc., submitted an overall price of $14,999.50 exclusive of HST.
Recommendation
For the Board’s information.
Submitted By
Michelle Bishop, General Manager
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Peer Review Update July 6 2021.docx
Page 39 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Administrative Report
June 24, 2021
To: The Chair and Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority From: Tom Marentette, Manager of Waste Disposal Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 06, 2021
Subject: Contract for the Provision of Refuse Hauling and Public Drop Off Area Bin Hauling at the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Facilities – January 1, 2022-December 31, 2028
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Board approve a seven (7) year contract with 1869096 Ontario Limited (operating as Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot) for the Provision of Refuse Hauling to the Regional Landfill (RL) from the Windsor and Kingsville Transfer Stations and a seven (7) year contract with GFL Environmental Inc. for the Public Drop Off Area Bin Hauling at Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Facilities. The contracts would be for the period January 1, 2022- December 31, 2028. The contract also includes a provision for options to extend the contracts at the absolute unfettered discretion of the Authority for five (5) additional one-year periods or portions of a year thereof and such extensions must be under the same terms and conditions as contained within the tender document and executed Contract.
Background
The Authority contracts out the hauling of refuse to the Regional Landfill (RL) from the Windsor Transfer Station (TS1) and Transfer Station 2 (TS2) in Kingsville as well as bin hauling at the Windsor, Kingsville and Regional Landfill public drop-off depots.
Page 1 of 5 H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Contract for Hauling Refuse PDO Bin Hauling - Canadian Transfer & GFL.docx
Page 40 of 52 2021 Refuse Hauling Contract Page 2 of 5 June 24, 2021
Waste Connections has held the refuse and bin hauling combined contract for the past nine (9) years (since January 2, 2013), which is comprised of a seven (7) year contract, plus (2) – one (1) year extensions.
The current contract with Waste Connections expires on December 31, 2021.
Discussion
On May 7, 2021 the EWSWA issued a tender for a seven (7) year contract and four (4) bids were received. The tender was emailed to 25 companies and was posted on Biddingo.com, MERX.com, Bidsandtenders.com, EWSWA.org and the Windsor Star.
A mandatory site meeting was held on May 19, 2021 at the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Fibre Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Office located at 3560 North Service Road East in Windsor. The four (4) bidders were in attendance as well as four (4) other companies that did not submit a bid.
The tender closed on Thursday, June 17, 2021 and bid packages were received from Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot, GFL Environmental Inc., HGC Management Inc. and Waste Connections of Canada Inc. The Authority Board Chair, Mayor Aldo DiCarlo, attended the tender opening via Zoom along with the Authority’s Executive Secretary and Manager of Waste Disposal. All bid packages received were reviewed for compliance and no issues were found.
The tender provided options for bidding on individual portions of the contract as well as bids for the entire contract. The Authority recognized that a savings may be realized if Options “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” were all awarded to a single contractor (Option E). Bidders were advised that based on the tender prices received, the Authority may decide to award only Option “A”, “B”, “C”, or Option “D” regardless of whether the bidder has specified Option “E”. Details of the bidding options are as follows;
Option “A” – Price to haul refuse from the Kingsville Transfer Station (TS2) to the RL,
Option “B” – Price to haul refuse from the Windsor Transfer Station (TS1) to the RL,
Option “C” – Pricing to perform roll-off hauling including the supply of equipment, tipping of containers and labour at the Public Drop-Off (PDO) located in Windsor. This option also included a separate provisional Item for pricing to purchase one (1) 40yd3 steel bin with double doors that may be used for the collection of used tires at the Public Drop Off. It was noted that the Authority does not guarantee that this provisional item will be awarded during the term of the contract.
Option “D” – Pricing to perform roll-off hauling including the supply of all equipment, tipping of containers and labour at the Regional Landfill (RL) located in Essex and Transfer Station 2 (TS2) located in Kingsville.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Contract for Hauling Refuse PDO Bin Hauling - Canadian Transfer & GFL.docx
Page 41 of 52 2021 Refuse Hauling Contract Page 3 of 5 June 24, 2021
Option “E” – Pricing for all of the Above - Tenderers were advised that based on the tender prices received, the Authority may decide to award a given Tenderer only Option “A”, “B”, “C” or “D” regardless of whether the Tenderer has specified Option “E”.
Canadian Transfer was the low bidder for the hauling portion of the tender from the Kingsville Transfer Station (TS2) (Option “A”) and Windsor Transfer Station (TS1) (Option “B”) to the Regional Landfill (RL). They did not submit a bid for the hauling of Public Drop Off bins. As a result, they also did not submit pricing for the combined option “E”.
GFL submitted bids for all options in the tender, including the combined option “E” which was the lowest bid. However, their bid for the hauling of refuse from TS2 and TS1 to the RL was higher than Canadian Transfer. As a result, the sum of the Canadian Transfer bid for hauling of refuse from TS2 and TS1 plus GFL’s bid for the hauling of bins from the Public Drop Off areas is lower in total than the lowest total option “E” bid submitted by GFL. Therefore, the tender award is split between GFL and Canadian Transfer.
Financial Implications
Bid prices received for this work will not impact the 2021 budget as the contracts would commence on January 1, 2022. However, the new pricing below will be reflected in the 2022 budget. The chart below is a price comparison summary of the current refuse haul pricing vs. administration’s recommended tender award rates.
Option “A” Option “B” Company Refuse Haul from Refuse Haul from Kingsville Windsor Current Contract $13.18 $8.14 (2021 Price) per tonne per tonne Canadian Transfer $15.48 $16.53 Essex Waste Depot per tonne per tonne Effective January 1, 2022
As shown above, rates for refuse hauling have increased substantially since the last tender, nine (9) years ago, where the winning bid was considered low at that time.
The Authority has been fortunate for the past 9 years, the tender awarded in 2013 included very favourable pricing and resulted in a cost savings to the Authority at that time. Other tender submissions received were substantially higher than the awarded tender. Tender prices received for 2022 are more in line with current
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Contract for Hauling Refuse PDO Bin Hauling - Canadian Transfer & GFL.docx
Page 42 of 52 2021 Refuse Hauling Contract Page 4 of 5 June 24, 2021
market conditions. Additionally, the current pandemic and global shutdowns have most assuredly also been factors in this new pricing.
The total tender results are based on estimated seven (7) year waste tonnages and bin tips. The bin hauling portion of the budget for 2022 (shown below as Option C & D) will also increase by approximately 125%. The recommended total bids for 7 years are as follows:
Total Tender Prices (Excl. Taxes) Company Option A Option B Option C Option D Total Canadian Transfer Essex $1,939,644 $9,453,507 ------$11,393,151 Waste Depot GFL Environmental ------$4,398,270 $43,026 $4,441,296 Inc.
Total (7 years) $15,834,447
It is important to note that GFL’s “Option E” price was $19,004,943 which is substantially ($3,170,496) higher than the combined price of Canadian Transfer and GFL for this same work.
About the Recommended Proponents
Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot, is located in Essex and has been in business since 2003 operating as part of the Canadian Group of Companies. Since 2015, they have held the heavy equipment operators contract with the Authority, providing good service at the Regional Landfill and the Kingsville Transfer Station.
GFL Environmental Inc. has been in operation for over 30 years and is a global waste management company with satellite offices in the Windsor area. It is important to note that they have also provided waste management collection services in this region for many waste streams over recent years.
Recommendation
1. That the Board approve a seven (7) year contract from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2028 for the Hauling of Refuse from the Windsor Transfer Station (TS1) and the Kingsville Transfer Station (TS2) to the Regional Landfill (RL) to 1869096 Ontario Limited (operating as Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot). The contract will include a provision to allow for five (5) additional one-year extensions at the sole discretion of the Authority.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Contract for Hauling Refuse PDO Bin Hauling - Canadian Transfer & GFL.docx
Page 43 of 52 2021 Refuse Hauling Contract Page 5 of 5 June 24, 2021
2. That the Board approve a seven (7) year Contract from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2028 for the Public Drop Off Bin Hauling at the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Facilities to GFL Environmental Inc. The contract will include a provision to allow for five (5) additional one-year extensions at the sole discretion of the Authority.
3. That the Board approve the option, should the Authority choose to exercise the option, of the provisional item pertaining to the purchase of one (1) 40yd3 steel bin with double doors at the Public Drop Off in Windsor for the collection of used tires.
Submitted By
Tom Marentette, P. Eng. Manager of Waste Disposal
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Contract for Hauling Refuse PDO Bin Hauling - Canadian Transfer & GFL.docx
Page 44 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Administrative Report
June 29, 2021
To: The Chair and Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority From: Tom Marentette, Manager of Waste Disposal Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 06, 2021
Subject: Regional Landfill Heavy Equipment – Landfill Compactor and Service Contract
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Board approve the acquisition of a landfill compactor model Caterpillar 836K from Toromont CAT for the pre-tax price of $1,351,022 with a standard manufacturer’s warranty and a 5 year or 12,500 hour (whichever comes first) full-service repair and maintenance contract effective the in-service date of the unit which is expected to be in December 2021 or January 2022. The pre-tax service rate is $27.00 per machine hour.
Background
The compactor is the main piece of heavy equipment used at the Regional Landfill to place and compact refuse so that the refuse takes up the least amount of air space as possible. The compactor’s 55 tonne weight combined with metal teeth and wheels break up the refuse into smaller pieces resulting in significantly higher compaction rates when compared to other landfill equipment such as a bulldozer. The higher the waste compaction rate the longer the operating life is for the Regional Landfill.
The current unit is also a Caterpillar 836K and was acquired in December 2016 for a pre-tax cost of $1,199,500. This new compactor will replace this existing 5 year old Caterpillar 836K compactor which has reached the end of its useful life.
Discussion
On May 19, 2021, the Authority issued a tender for the supply of one (1) Landfill
Page 1 of 4 H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Heavy Equipment Regional Landfill - Landfill Compactor Purchase.docx
Page 45 of 52 Landfill Compactor and Service Contract Page 2 of 4 June 29, 2021
Compactor (55,925 KG) including a full-service repair and maintenance contract.
The tender was emailed directly to 3 equipment suppliers, was posted on Biddingo.com, MERX.com, Bidsandtenders.com, EWSWA.org and was advertised in the Windsor Star newspaper. The tender closed on June 25, 2021 and bid packages were received from Toromont CAT and C&C Manufacturing (Aljon Compactor). Due to Covid-19, there was no public opening and bidders were required to email their tenders to the Authority by 12:00 pm on the day of closing. All bid packages received were reviewed for compliance.
In accordance with the Authority’s Purchasing Policy, Board Member & City of Windsor Councillor, Gary Kaschak, attended the tender opening via Zoom along with the Authority’s Executive Secretary and Manager of Waste Disposal. All bid packages received were reviewed for compliance and no issues were found. The submission results are as follows:
Price Service Rate 5 Supplier Name Make/Model Trade-In Excludes Tax Yrs/12,500 hrs
Toromont CAT Caterpillar $1,351,022.00 $27.00 $236,000 Maidstone, Ontario 836K
C&C Manufacturing Aljon $27.80 qualified LLC Advantage $1,370,607.00 to maximum $150,000 Ottumwa, Iowa 600 10,000 hrs
Administration is recommending the acquisition of the Caterpillar 836K Landfill Compactor as supplied by Toromont CAT, at a cost of $1,351,022 plus applicable taxes. This unit satisfies all specifications as detailed in the tender document. Toromont CAT has also committed to a guaranteed delivery date of January 28, 2022. The old unit will be either sold through a competitive sales process such as Gov Deals with a $236,000 minimum bid or the unit will be taken on trade by Toromont CAT, for $236,000 as specified in the tender.
Financial Implications
Although the Landfill Compactor is not included as part of the 2021 budget, it will be included in the 2022 Regional Landfill capital budget. The new unit will be financed from the Authority’s Equipment Replacement Reserve. Due to the specialized nature of this equipment and long lead times for production, we are requesting Board’s approval to pre-purchase this compactor.
The receipt of only 2 tenders is not unusual for this type of specialized equipment as there are a limited number of manufacturers of landfill compactors in the world.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Heavy Equipment Regional Landfill - Landfill Compactor Purchase.docx
Page 46 of 52 Landfill Compactor and Service Contract Page 3 of 4 June 29, 2021
Only two submissions were received in 2016, those being Caterpillar and a BOMAG. Bomag was supported at that time by the local John Deere dealer, but this supplier has since been purchased by Brandt Tractor which no longer supports Bomag Equipment or equipment of this type.
C&C Manufacturing builds and markets Aljon Advantage compactors in Ottumwa, Iowa. Wajax Equipment was listed in their tender as the local parts and servicing dealer.
The Caterpillar unit is the most widely used compactor in North America and the Authority has been using CAT compactors and other equipment for over 30 years and is satisfied with both the equipment and reliability of these units and the field service provided by Toromont CAT.
Recommendation
That the Board approve the acquisition of a Caterpillar 836K landfill compactor from Toromont CAT at a pre-tax price of $1,351,022 plus a service contract for a 5 year or 12,500 hour standard manufacturer’s warranty and full-service repair and maintenance contract effective the in-service date at a pre-tax rate of $27.00 per machine hour from Toromont CAT.
Submitted By
Tom Marentette, Manager of Waste Disposal
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Heavy Equipment Regional Landfill - Landfill Compactor Purchase.docx
Page 47 of 52 Landfill Compactor and Service Contract Page 4 of 4 June 29, 2021
Photograph of Compactors
Toromont CAT - Caterpillar 836K
C&C Manufacturing - Aljon Advantage 600
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - Reports\2021 Reports to the Board, LLC, TRC\Reports to EWSWA Board\REPORT - Heavy Equipment Regional Landfill - Landfill Compactor Purchase.docx
Page 48 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority
By-Law Number 12-2021
Being a By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority and 1869096 Ontario Limited (operating as Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot) for the Provision of Hauling of Refuse from the Windsor Transfer Station (TS1) and the Kingsville Transfer Station (TS2) to the Regional Landfill
Whereas the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority has approved entering into an Agreement with 1869096 Ontario Limited (operating as Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot) for the Provision of Hauling Refuse from the Windsor Transfer Station (TS1) and the Kingsville Transfer Station (TS2) to the Regional Landfill.
Now Therefore the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority enacts as follows:
1. THAT EWSWA hereby approves a contract with 1869096 Ontario Limited (operating as Canadian Transfer Essex Waste Depot) upon and subject to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in the Agreement.
THIS By-Law shall take effect upon the final passing thereof.
ESSEX-WINDSOR SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
______Aldo DiCarlo EWSWA Board Chair
______Michelle Bishop General Manager
Read a First, Second and Third Time, Enacted and Passed this 6th Day of July, 2021.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - By-Laws and Agreements\BY-LAWS\2021 By-Laws\12-2021 By-Law to Authorize Agreement with Canadian Transfer for Hauling of Refuse from T1 and T2 to RL.docx
Page 49 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority
By-Law Number 13-2021
Being a By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority and GFL Environmental Inc. for the Provision of Public Drop Off Bin Hauling at the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Facilities
Whereas the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority has approved entering into an Agreement with GFL Environmental Inc. the Provision of Public Drop Off Bin Hauling at the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Facilities.
Now Therefore the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority enacts as follows:
1. THAT EWSWA hereby approves a contract with GFL Environmental Inc. upon and subject to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in the Agreement.
THIS By-Law shall take effect upon the final passing thereof.
ESSEX-WINDSOR SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
______Aldo DiCarlo EWSWA Board Chair
______Michelle Bishop General Manager
Read a First, Second and Third Time, Enacted and Passed this 6th Day of July, 2021.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - By-Laws and Agreements\BY-LAWS\2021 By-Laws\13-2021 By-Law to Authorize Agreement with GFL for PDO Bin Hauling at EWSWA Facilities.docx
Page 50 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority
By-Law Number 14-2021
Being a By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement Between the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority and Toromont CAT for the Supply and Service of One (1) Landfill Compactor with Five (5) Year or 12,500 Hour Standard Manufacturer’s Warranty and Full-Service Repair and Maintenance Contract
Whereas the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority has approved entering into an Agreement with Toromont CAT (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor), for the supply and service of one (1) landfill compactor with a five (5) year or 12,500-hour standard manufacturer’s warranty and full-service repair and maintenance contract.
Now Therefore the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority enacts as follows:
1. THAT EWSWA hereby approves the acquisition of a landfill compactor with a five (5) year or 12,500-hour standard manufacturer’s warranty and full-service repair and maintenance control and subject to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in the Agreement and Contract Documents.
2. THAT the term of this Agreement shall reflect the terms and conditions set out in the tender documents;
THIS By-Law shall take effect upon the final passing thereof.
ESSEX-WINDSOR SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
______Aldo DiCarlo EWSWA Board Chair
______Michelle Bishop General Manager
Read a First, Second and Third Time, Enacted and Passed this 6th Day of July, 2021.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - By-Laws and Agreements\BY-LAWS\2021 By-Laws\14 -2021 By-Law to Authorize an Agreement with Toromont CAT for Supply of Landfill Compactor.docx
Page 51 of 52 Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority
By-Law Number 15-2021 Being a By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Meeting of the Board of the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority.
WHEREAS by Agreement dated 18 May 1994, made between the Corporation of the County of Essex and the Corporation of the City of Windsor, the Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority (The Authority) was created as a joint board of management pursuant to Sections 207.5 and 209.19 of the Municipal Act, RSO 1990, Chapter M.45 and;
WHEREAS Subsection 5.(3) of the Municipal Act, RSO 2001, Chapter 25, provides that the powers of a municipality shall be exercised by By-Law and;
WHEREAS Section 1 of the Municipal Act RSO 1990, Chapter M 46 defines a municipality as including a board, commission or other local authority exercising any power with respect to municipal affairs or purposes and;
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Authority at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by By-Law
NOW THEREFORE the members of the Authority enact as follows:
1) The action of the members of the Authority in respect to each recommendation contained in the Report/Reports of the Committees and each motion and resolution passed and other action taken by the members of the Authority at this meeting is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly set out in this by-law.
2) The Chair and the proper officials of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the members of the Authority referred to in the preceding section hereof.
3) The Chair and the General Manager of the Authority are authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary in that behalf.
ESSEX-WINDSOR SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
Aldo DiCarlo EWSWA Board Chair
Michelle Bishop General Manager
Read a First, Second and Third Time, Enacted and Passed This 6th Day of July, 2021.
H:\EWSWA\everyone\1 - By-Laws and Agreements\BY-LAWS\2021 By-Laws\15-2021 Confirmatory By-Law July 6, 2021 EWSWA Board Meeting.docx
Page 52 of 52