's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management (TIRM) Process - Identification of Top-Qualified Proposals for Proven Disposal Capacity

(City Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report dated February 22, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2) that as part of the due diligence process, the Chair of the Works Committee be requested to write to each of the municipalities named in the documents for principal or contingency sites, informing them that the City is investigating the use of their sites and will be contacting them in due course to solicit their comments.

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1) report directly to Council for its meeting on February 29, 2000, on:

(i) as much information as can be made public at this time with respect to the evaluation criteria used to calculate the ranking of the proposals;

(ii) all the locations of the contingency sites; and

(iii) how the willingness of the host community has been, would be or could be incorporated into the due diligence process as it proceeds; and

(2) submit brief bi-monthly reports to the Committee on the progress of the City’s diversion and recycling projects in achieving the 50 percent diversion target.

The Works Committee submits the following report (February 22, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek City Council adoption of the recommended list of top-qualified proposals in connection with Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Proven Disposal Capacity, and to request authority to proceed to Stage 4 (due diligence and contract negotiations) of the TIRM Process. Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The financial implications of the TIRM Process will be dependent on the integrated waste management strategy selected for the City including diversion, disposal and emerging technologies. The cost analysis will form part of the June 2000 report to the Works Committee and the Policy and Finance Committee.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the proposals from the following five qualified Respondents to the TIRM Request for Proposals for Proven Disposal Capacity be identified as the final group of top-qualified proposals and, as such, be advanced to Stage 4 (due diligence and contract negotiations) of the TIRM Process:

- BFI Waste Systems of North America Inc.; - Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority; - Green Lane ; - Rail Cycle North; and - Republic Services of Canada Inc.; and, subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), it is further recommended that:

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to proceed to conduct the necessary due diligence reviews of the disposal sites identified in the proposals of the top-qualified Respondents and to conduct contract negotiations with the top-qualified Respondents, as contained in Recommendation No. (1), and to report on the outcome of the negotiations and provide recommendations in the form of a proposed award of contract(s) with one or more of the top-qualified proposals;

(3) the recommendations contained in this report proceed to the City Council meeting scheduled for February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

At its meeting of September 28, 29, and 30, 1999, City Council approved the issuance of an RFP for Proven Disposal Services. The RFP was subsequently issued on October 5, 1999, to the seven qualified that had successfully met the requirements of the TIRM Request for Expressions of Interest. The RFP for Disposal Services closed on December 15, 1999. Prior to the closure date one of the qualified Respondents, AGRA Resource Management Consortium, elected to withdraw from the RFP Process and did not submit an RFP. A second Respondent, Ref-Fuel Canada Ltd., did submit an RFP proposal but did not provide one of the mandatory commercial requirements. City Council subsequently directed the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conclude the processing of their submission.

The TIRM Process was initiated on October 2, 1998, when City Council provided the following direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

“…immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City’s long-term requirements through a Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals process based on the work undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the submission of an environmental assessment.” (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee).

In addition, City Council provided direction on a comprehensive range of policy and operational matters, which are summarized below:

- the establishment of a 50 percent diversion rate by the year 2006 or sooner; - inclusion of potential export to the United States; - inclusion of Energy from Waste (“EFW”) technology as a marketplace option; - engagement of Regional governments in the as potential partners with Toronto for future disposal capacity contracts; - active consideration of potential partnership proposals with Toronto that may contain a range of options including transfer of ownership or leasing arrangements; and - preparation of a planning process to engage the marketplace that includes public and industry consultation and development of multi-faceted evaluation criteria.

Comments:

RFP submissions from the following five qualified Respondents underwent an evaluation based on the criteria established in the RFP document:

Respondent Proposed Disposal Facility Location

BFI Waste Systems of North America Inc. Arbor Hills Landfill, Salem (“BFI”) Township, Michigan, USA

Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill (“Essex-Windsor”) Site, Town of Essex,

Green Lane Landfill (“Green Lane”) Green Lane Landfill Site, Elgin County, Ontario

Rail Cycle North (“RCN”) Landfill, Kirkland Lake, Ontario

Republic Services of Canada Inc. (“Republic”) , Wayne County, Michigan, USA Attachment A to this report provides a description of each Respondent, the haul mode, the location of the disposal site, and a description of the proposed contingency sites.

Respondents have provided contingency sites in response to Section 3.0 of the RFP document (P. B-6), which requires them to provide a “Proposed Service Plan” that describes how waste is to be managed from time of delivery/acceptance at the respective transfer station(s) to the time of ultimate disposal. One of the components of the Proposed Service Plan is “contingencies that will be in place to ensure uninterrupted service to Toronto”.

Contingency sites will only be utilized in the event that service to the site under contract is temporarily disrupted, for example, by an event such as a storm which could impact service delivery. Contingency sites will not be considered as locations to receive Toronto’s residual solid waste on a regular ongoing basis.

Summary of the Evaluation Methodology:

The RFP document required Respondents to provide data in a series of input forms. The data characterized the proposals in terms of their environmental, GTA/Ontario benefits and financial cost performances. The data allowed the performances to be considered under the following terms: 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. The priority weighting points (established in the RFP Document) and assigned to the performances of the proposals allowed the proposals to be comparatively evaluated. Consideration of the outcome of the comparative evaluation resulted in the identification of the group of top-qualified proposals.

The weighted performance scores for each of the proposals indicates that no proposal is significantly disadvantageous in relation to the average performance of the group of proposals. Each proposal submission has been determined to be fully responsive to the RFP and contained the information necessary to conduct the Stage 3 comparative evaluation.

Identification of Individual Proposals’ Performance Per Tonne of Waste Managed:

The data (e.g., total energy resource consumed per tonne of waste managed) submitted by Respondents (or, default data, used in the circumstances where the City did not accept the performance data claims by Respondents) was transferred to a series of performance per tonne tables; one for each of the 15 performance factors.

Where required, performance per tonne data was transformed, using specific algorithms (as were established in the RFP document) to determine the total value for the performance factor in question. For example, for the “greenhouse gases” performance factor, total performance is the sum of the greenhouse gases emitted in waste transportation and greenhouse gases emitted at the disposal facility, net of any greenhouse gas emission “off-set” credits accrued from energy recovery (e.g., capture). Calculation of Weighted Scores:

The “z-score” statistical method was used to assign the priority weighting points for each of the performance factors to each of the proposals’ performance per tonne. The z-score method is a refinement of the use of a “bell-curve”, which captures the significance of a proposal’s performance in relation to the performances of all of the other proposals.

At the conclusion of this step, the proposals were ranked in the following order:

Respondent Ranking Based on Total Score Spreads

RCN First BFI Second Republic (high-volume truck-based Third transport)* Republic (low-volume truck-based transport) Fourth Essex-Windsor Fifth Green Lane Sixth Republic (high-volume train-based transport) Seventh Republic (low-volume train-based transport) Eighth

* Republic’s proposal was evaluated under four distinct options as noted in this table.

Consideration of Weighted Scores:

As was established in the RFP document, the weighted scores of the proposals were considered to identify the group of top-qualified proposals. The top scoring proposals were progressively selected until they constituted, as a group, a total waste disposal capacity sufficiently in excess of Toronto’s forecast waste disposal needs (both in terms of waste tonnage and in terms of potential contract time terms: short term; long term; and combined short and long terms) so as to foster a competitive context for negotiating a contract or contracts.

The following proposals are necessary to constitute the systems noted above: BFI, Essex-Windsor, Green Lane, RCN, and Republic (with truck and train-based haulage options).

TIRM Stage 4 - Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations:

Stage 4 of the TIRM Process will encompass the due diligence and contract negotiations component of the RFP process. Another report listed on the agenda of the February 24, 2000 special meeting of the Works Committee discusses the due diligence process.

Through contact negotiations, the major points on which we will be engaging with Respondents are as follows:

- firm identification of contingency sites and terms and conditions for potential use in the event of service disruption; - base bid cost per tonne for transport and disposal; - the proposed exceptions and partnership offers; - the length and terms of the contract; - the proposed volumes; - capability to accommodate reduced volumes to facilitate diversion objectives; - the potential inclusion of tonnage volumes from Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham; and - treatment and management of tonnages received from the private sector.

Attachment B to this report provides a description of the major work tasks during the course of 2000 for the TIRM RFP Process for proven disposal capacity. As noted in item number 8 of Attachment B, the integration of the disposal and diversion components is scheduled to be presented in June 2000.

Conclusions:

Each of the five qualified Respondents whose proposals underwent the TIRM Stage 3 (comparative evaluation) process have been determined to be fully responsive to the RFP. The weighted performance scores for each of the proposals indicated that no proposal is significantly disadvantageous in relation to the average performance of the group of proposals.

Based on these results of TIRM Stage 3, and the need to foster a competitive context for TIRM Stage 4 (due diligence and contract and contract negotiations), we are recommending that the five proposals under consideration (BFI, Essex-Windsor, Green Lane, Rail Cycle North, and Republic) be identified as the final group of top-qualified proposals and advanced to Stage 4.

Contact:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S. Manager, Strategic Planning Solid Waste Management Services Works and Emergency Services, Metro Hall, 19th Floor Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-4754 E-mail: [email protected]

List of Attachments:

Attachment A. Description of Proposals Attachment B. Project Schedule

Attachment A

Summary of Five Recommended Top-Qualified Proposals:

This attachment contains a summary of the five recommended top-qualified proposals. Each summary contains a description of the Respondent, the quantity of waste they propose to manage, the haul mode, the location of the disposal site, and a description of the contingencies and backup sites proposed.

BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc.:

Participants:

BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation has submitted a proposal to provide landfill disposal services to the City of Toronto for a five-year term with an option to extend for additional five-year terms for up to twenty years. Verspeeten Cartage, Ltd. (VCL) of Ingersoll, Ontario, will be responsible for waste haul.

Haul Mode:

VCL will transport waste from the City’s transfer stations to BFI’s Arbor Hills, Salem Township, Michigan, USA.

Facility/Sites and Location:

BFI’s existing landfill, Arbor Hills West Expanded Sanitary Landfill, is located approximately 418 km from Toronto, in Salem Township, Michigan, USA.

The landfill has a double composite liner system which provides for a primary leachate collection system above a primary layer of composite liner, followed by a secondary leachate collection/leak detection system sandwiched between the primary composite liner system and second composite liner. Leachate is collected from each cell of the landfill, pumped to storage tanks, aerated and discharged into the sanitary sewer servicing the site. A landfill gas collection system is in place at the landfill. Gas is collected and piped to an on site co-generation facility and used in the production of electricity through a closed loop system of turbine and steam engines.

Contingencies and Backup Sites Proposed:

In the event that a backup disposal location is required, BFI proposes the use of American Ref-Fuel Company of Niagara Falls, New York; Vienna Junction Landfill; Carbon Limestone Landfill; Ottawa County Landfill; Ridge Landfill; Niagara Landfill; Sauk Trail Hills Development, Inc.; and Citizens Disposal, Inc.

Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority:

Participants:

Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority located in Essex, Ontario, has submitted a proposal that proposes to provide landfill disposal services to the City of Toronto for a twenty-year period. The Authority is a public body comprised of representatives of the City of Windsor and County of Essex. Haul Mode:

Essex-Windsor proposes to provide truck haul, through the use of a yet to be named sub-contractor, from a Toronto transfer station to its landfill in the County of Essex, Ontario. Essex-Windsor will obtain performance guarantees from the hauling sub-contractor.

Facility/Sites and Location:

The sole facility proposed is the existing Essex-Windsor Region Landfill site in the Town of Essex, formerly the Township of Colchester North, in the County of Essex, Ontario. Essex-Windsor proposes to install a landfill gas collection and energy recovery system at the facility. The collected landfill gas will either be used for the direct generation of electricity or as a replacement fuel for boilers. The landfill site’s existing leachate management system is based on a hydraulic trap (inward ground water gradient) in a deep clay setting. Collected leachate is treated on site using physical chemical and an innovative natural biological greenhouse based system.

The Ministry of the Environment issued a Provisional Certificate of Approval for the Essex-Windsor Regional Landfill Site in 1995. The site has been in operation for approximately two years.

The Authority has a Host community agreement impact compensation program with the local community involving the payment of royalties in the amount of $5.00 per tonne.

Contingencies and Backup Sites Proposed:

Essex-Windsor has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with a third party, Republic’s Michigan landfill site (this information known from Republic’s proposal), to provide contingency disposal capacity if circumstances prevent the disposal of waste at the Essex site.

Green Lane Landfill:

Participants:

Green Lane, a division of St. Thomas Sanitary Collection Services Limited has submitted a proposal that proposes to provide landfill services to the City of Toronto for a five-year term with an option to extend for additional five-year terms up to twenty years. Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd. will be subcontracted for waste haul.

Haul Mode:

Green Lane Environmental Group will transport waste by truck from the City’s transfer stations to its landfill located in Southwold Township in the County of Elgin, Ontario. Green Lane Environmental Group, as the haulage subcontractor, possesses the necessary Certificates of Approval to operate waste transportation systems throughout Ontario.

Facility/Sites and Location:

The existing facility is located in Southwold Township in the County of Elgin, Ontario. Green Lane proposes to install an on site leachate treatment facility and a landfill gas collection/flaring system.

Green Lane formed a Liaison Committee in 1994, which operates to inform the surrounding community of issues including operational compliance.

All land use, development and environmental approvals are in place for the long-term operation of the landfill. In August 1998, a landfill expansion was approved to proceed under the Environmental Assessment Act without hearing by Order-in-Council. Green Lane Landfill and Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd. have long-term service agreements with host municipalities Southwold Township and St. Thomas.

Contingencies and Backup Sites Proposed:

Should site closure occur, Green Lane Landfill would secure replacement capacity in consultation with Toronto.

Rail Cycle North:

Participants:

- Canadian Waste Services Inc. (CWS), wholly owned by Waste Management Inc., USA - construction and operation of landfill; - Notre Development (Notre) – owner of the Adams Mine site; - Miller Waste Systems (Miller) – truck transport of waste from transfer station service to railhead; - Canadian National Railway Company (CN) – rail transport and intermodal facility; - Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ON ) rail transport; and - Gas Recovery Systems (GRS) – Landfill gas management.

RCN has submitted a proposal to provide landfill disposal services to the City of Toronto for a twenty-year period.

Haul Mode:

Waste will be transported in fully enclosed intermodal containers via truck from Toronto’s transfer stations to CN’s MacMillan Yard located in Vaughan. The containers will be loaded onto flat-bed train cars; approximately 80 cars will comprise a train. One train per day will travel from Vaughan to North Bay. Jurisdiction for the train will transfer to Ontario Northland at North Bay and the train will proceed to the Adams Mine site located south of the Town of Kirkland Lake (Vaughan to Adams Mine Landfill: 600 kilometres).

Facility/Sites and Location:

Rail Cycle North proposes to build a landfill facility in the “South Pit”, an open pit approximately 800 feet deep.

The facility has been designed and approved as a hydraulic containment landfill to take advantage of the ground water conditions surrounding this former open pit mine. The landfill has also been designed to take advantage of the depth of the pit and the higher groundwater levels surrounding the site to maintain inward groundwater flow to the waste, thereby preventing leachate from entering groundwater. Leachate will be collected from the bottom of the site by pumps, pumped to the surface and treated in a dedicated on-site leachate treatment plant. A landfill gas collection and energy recovery system will be installed.

The Ministry of the Environment issued a Provisional Certificate of Approval for the Adams Mine Landfill in 1999.

Rail Cycle North proposes to establish partnership agreements with the surrounding municipalities pertaining to community liaison, monitoring, impact mitigation and benefits sharing.

Contingencies and Backup Sites Proposed:

Use of alternative tracks including CPR. Use of Canadian Waste/WMI existing landfill site capacity in and north-east USA.

Republic Services of Canada (Truck and Rail Haul Options):

Participants:

Republic Services Canada, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. USA, (Republic), has submitted a proposal to provide landfill disposal services to the City of Toronto with options to contract within a range of five to twenty years (including five-year increments). Wilson Logistics, Inc. (Etobicoke) will be subcontracted for waste haul.

Haul Mode:

Truck:

Wilson Logistics will transport waste from the City’s transfer stations in closed top truck trailers to Republic’s Carleton Farms Landfill in Sumpter Township, Wayne County, Michigan. Train:

Wilson Logistics will transport waste from the City’s transfer stations in intermodal containers to the CPR railhead (either to Milton for smaller tonnages or to a reactivated Junction Triangle yard for larger tonnages). CP would transport to their Detroit intermodal yard. The containers would then be truck hauled 50 kilometers to the landfill site. Total distance approximately 450 kilometers.

Facility/Sites and Location:

Republic’s existing landfill facility is located approximately 50 kilometers southwest of the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan. The facility was opened as a “greenfield” site in 1993 on a 640-acre site.

The facility has a leachate collection and removal system with on-site leachate holding tanks. Leachate is hauled off site to a licensed municipal sewage treatment plant. The landfill has a landfill gas collection and energy recovered system.

The site is permitted and licensed by the State of Michigan and is permitted to accept waste from Ontario.

Republic has a Community Agreement with the host municipality pertaining to the operation of the facility.

Contingencies and Backup Sites Proposed:

In the event of the need for a backup disposal site, Republic proposes to use its Brent Run Landfill located north of Flint, in Genesee County, Michigan. In the event of the closure of the Canada-USA border, Republic has an agreement to utilize the Essex-Windsor Landfill site.

Attachment B

Project Schedule:

The following project schedule identifies the major work tasks scheduled for completion in 2000 and identifies the target date for completion.

Work Task Scheduled Completion Date

1. Works Committee/City Council approves Works Committee: February 24, 2000 Stage 3 (comparative analysis) outcome and authorises initiation of Stage 4 (due City Council: February 29, March 1/2, diligence and contract negotiations). 2000

2. Request tonnage re-commitments from March/April 2000 Regions of Peel, York and Durham Regions. Work Task Scheduled Completion Date

3. Report out on top-qualified Respondents in April 2000 TIRM RFP for Proven Diversion Services.

4. Stage 4 Due Diligence and contract March/April/May/June 2000 negotiations.

5. Tour of proposed disposal facility sites. April 2000

6. Report to Works Committee and Policy and June 2000 Finance Committee on integrated waste management strategy and potential award of contract(s) with and without GTA partnerships.

7. Council approval-in-principle of potential July 2000 award of contract(s) with and without GTA participation.

8. Regional Councils of Peel, York and July/August 2000 Durham advised of potential award of contract(s) and presented with opportunity for collaborative approach with Toronto.

9. Report to Works Committee and Policy and September 2000 Finance Committee on participation of GTA Regions and recommended award of contract(s).

10. City Council decision on award of October 3, 2000 contract(s).

______

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following:

(a) confidential Attachments C and D to the foregoing report dated February 22, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled “Description of Quantity Options” and “Summary of Envelope 3 Exceptions and Partnership Proposals” respectively; (b) confidential submission by Earth Tech (Canada) Limited on the TIRM Waste Disposal Stage 3: Evaluation of Proposals;

(c) communications from the following in opposition to the Adams Mine landfill proposal:

(i) (January 29, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; (ii) (February 2, 2000) from Jaimie Board, Chief Financial Officer, North Bay Green Party Constituency Association; (iii) (February 3, 2000) from Murray and Bernice Doner, Charlton, Ontario; (iv) (February 4, 2000) from Victor and Nancy Charlton, Englehart, Ontario; (v) (February 5, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; (vi) (February 5, 2000) from Ms. Coleen Martin, Englehart, Ontario; (vii) (February 7, 2000) from Ms. Sandra Willard, Thornloe, Ontario; (viii) (February 11, 2000) from Ms. Louise Williams, Clerk-Treasurer, Township of Dack, District of Temiskaming, Englehart, Ontario; (ix) (February 13, 2000) from Mr. Koert Dragt, Englehart, Ontario; (x) (February 14, 2000) from Rick F. Fortier and Wendy Fortier, Englehart, Ontario; (xi) (undated) from Ms. Vida Digulla, Englehart, Ontario; (xii) (February 16, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; (xiii) (February 16, 2000) from Mr. Tom Goddard, Belle Vallee, Ontario; (xiv) (February 16, 2000) from Ms. Jean Reed, Larder Lake, Ontario; (xv) (February 17, 2000) from Bruno and Wanda Gareau, Larder Lake, Ontario; (xvi) (undated) from Mr. William Dennis, Englehart, Ontario; (xvii) (February 17, 2000) from Mr. Milton R. MacPherson, E & M Farms, Engelhart, Ontario; (xviii) (February 17, 2000) from Don and Jo-Anne Anderson, West Wind Farm, Englehart, Ontario; (xix) (February 18, 2000) from Mr. Andre Brazeau, Thornloe, Ontario; (xx) (February 18, 2000) from Mr. Larry Duke, Thornloe, Ontario; (xxi) (February 18, 2000) from M. McNaueal, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; (xxii) (February 19, 2000) from Marilyn and Terry Draper, Englehart, Ontario; (xxiii) (February 21, 2000) from Mr. Jim Semple, New Liskeard, Ontario; (xxiv) (February 22, 2000) from Mr. Louis Ethier, Thornloe, Ontario; and (xxv) (February 22, 2000) from Mr. Carman Kidd, Kidd Crest Farms, New Liskeard, Ontario;

(d) communications from the following in support of the Adams Mine landfill proposal:

(i) (February 16, 2000) from Mr. James D. Stevens, Larder Lake, Ontario; and (ii) (February 16, 2000) from Ms. Charlene Stevens, Larder Lake, Ontario;

(e) form letters from approximately 169 persons in opposition to the Adams Mine landfill proposal, and urging the City to choose an alternative solution;

(f) communication (February 10, 2000) from Mr. Marcel Beaubien, MPP, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, expressing concern with respect to locating landfill sites in rural or ; and advising that the residents of the riding of Lambton-Kent- Middlesex are opposed to expanding the Canadian Waste Services Lambton site;

(g) communication (February 15, 2000) from Mayor Mac Parker, Township of Warwick, Ontario, advising that the Township of Warwick is opposed to the receipt of Toronto waste at the Canadian Waste Services landfill in the township; and that the use of the site as a back-up site to the Adams Mine landfill proposal does not meet with their approval;

(h) communication (February 24, 2000) from Ms. Greta Thompson, Blenheim, Ontario, expressing concerns with respect to the use of the Ridge Landfill Site as a contingency site by BFI; and

(i) material submitted by Ms. Rhonda Hustler, representing the Warwick Watford Landfill Committee and the Richmond Public Liaison Committee, with respect to the Warwick Landfill Site including copies of correspondence from Canadian Waste Services Inc., from the Township of Warwick, and from 200 persons addressed to the Minister of the Environment in opposition to the proposed expansion of the site; and including a copy of comments to the Works Committee dated January 25, 2000.

The following persons appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Brennain Lloyd, Northwatch; - Ms. Rhonda Hustler, representing the Warwick Watford Landfill Committee and the Richmond Public Liaison Committee, and submitted material with respect thereto; - Mr. Bryan Herdman, representing Nipissing Environmental Watch; - Ms. Karen Pilch, Chamberlain Township; - Mr. Bill Guthrie, Vice President, Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, CUPE Local 416; and - Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance.

(A copy of the aforementioned confidential material has been forwarded to all Members of Council, and a copy thereof and of each of the aforementioned communications is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 28, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the request of the Works Committee to provide additional information in connection with the recommended advancement into Stage 4 of the TIRM Process (due dilgence and contract negotiations) of the final group of top-qualified Category 2 (Proven Disposal Capacity) proposals. Works Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to City Council for its meeting on February 29, 2000.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

On February 24, 2000, a Special Meeting of the Works Committee was held to consider three reports (all dated February 22, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. Two reports were in connection with the TIRM Process. One of these two reports carried recommendations regarding the advancement to Stage 4 of the TIRM Process (due diligence and contract negotiations) of the final group of top-qualified proposals for Proven Disposal Capacity.

The second of the two TIRM-related reports carried a recommendation regarding an amendment to the consulting agreement with Earth Tech (Canada) Ltd. (formerly Proctor & Redfern), to provide for required funds to conduct due diligence activities and contract negotiations support. The third report was in connection with the proposed CUPE Waste Management Plan.

The Works Committee adopted all three of the above-cited reports, which are listed on Council’s Agenda for February 29, and March 1 and 2, 2000.

This report is in response to requests for additional information in connection with the report recommending advancement to TIRM Stage 4 of the final group of top-qualified proposals for proven disposal capacity.

Comments:

The Works Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council for its meeting on February 29, 2000, on the following three information requests.

Information Request No. (i)

“As much information as can be made public at this time with respect to the evaluation criteria used to calculate the ranking of the proposals.” Response:

At its meeting of September 28, 29, and 30, 1999, City Council approved for issuance a request for proposals (“RFP”) for solid waste disposal services (Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of the Works Committee, as amended). Section 5.0 of Part A of the RFP contains an explanation of the evaluation criteria and evaluation method Toronto intended to use to evaluate Responses to its RFP and identify the top-qualified proposals. The pages which comprise Section 5.0 (pages A-24 to A-32) have been attached to this report and are listed as Attachment A. Also attached (Attachment B) is page 13 of Appendix B of the RFP, which provides an explanation of the statistical method for evaluating raw performance scores to yield final scores (the “z score method”).

The design and application of the evaluation criteria and methodology is to provide for an objective, fair and equitable treatment of all considered proposals. While a ranking was provided in the report of February 22, 2000, the ranking is in fact academic, as the recommendation is to carry all eight of the top-qualified proposals into the next stage of the TIRM Process, where competitive negotiations with all Respondents will take place.

It would not be productive to the negotiations to provide at this time any of the actual scoring results making up the rankings.

Information Request No. (ii)

“All the locations of the contingency sites.”

Response:

The City’s RFP for solid waste disposal services directs Respondents to provide a “Proposed Service Plan that describes how waste is to be managed from time of delivery/acceptance at the respective transfer station(s) to the time of ultimate disposal.” (page B-6, Section 3.0) Among a number of components of the proposed service plan is the requirement to provide contingencies that will be in place to ensure uninterrupted service to Toronto.

The provision of contingency sites has been factored into the base bid price offered by Respondents. If the City of Toronto did not require this provision, an alternative process would have to be developed and implemented to secure contingency disposal capacity in the event of a service disruption. The proposed contingency sites and the terms and conditions for their use will be subject to contract negotiations.

Contingency sites will only be utilized in the event that services to the site under contract are temporarily disrupted, for example, by an event such as a storm that could impact service delivery. Contingency sites will not be considered as locations to receive Toronto’s residual solid waste on a regular ongoing basis.

The February 22, 2000 report to Works Committee contains the identification of the proposed contingency sites as provided by the top-qualified Respondents. The pertinent information from Attachment A of the Commissioner’s report is reproduced in this report for reference, and is listed as Attachment C. Included in Attachment C is the most recent information provided by Rail Cycle North.

Information Request No. (iii)

“How the willingness of the host community has been, would be, or could be incorporated into the due diligence process as it proceeds.”

Response:

At its meeting of September 28, 29 and 30, 1999, City Council did not adopt a proposed recommendation that a willing host criterion be incorporated as a mandatory criterion for any disposal contract which Toronto would consider. Therefore, a willing host criterion is not part of the TIRM RFP Process.

The RFP for Solid Waste Disposal Services reserves the right of Toronto to:

“consider any mechanisms which the Respondent may be employing to consult with the community in which the Respondent’s facility is located. Toronto reserves the right to consult with appropriate municipal representatives of the host community.” (page A-35)

This would be pertinent for U.S. sites, where host municipality agreements may be relevant as part of the due diligence in assessing the existence and status of such agreements in connection with potential State flow control.

Conclusions:

This report has provided responses to information requests regarding: (i) evaluation criteria and the evaluation methodology for solid waste disposal proposals under the TIRM process; (ii) the locations of the contingency sites; and (iii) how the willingness of the host community has been, would be, or could be incorporated into the due diligence process as it proceeds. We recommend that the information contained in this report be received for information.

Contact:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S. Manager, Strategic Planning Solid Waste Management Services Phone: (416) 392-9744 Fax: (416) 392-4754 E-mail: [email protected]

Angelos Bacopoulos General Manager Solid Waste Management Services List of Attachments:

Attachment A - Proposal Evaluation Attachment B - Detailed Explanation of Statistical Method for Evaluating Raw Performance Scores to Yield Final Scores Attachment C - Summary of Contingency Sites Proposed by Top-Qualified Respondents

Attachment C.

Summary of Contingency Sites Proposed by Top-Qualified Respondents

BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc.

In the event that a backup disposal location is required, BFI proposes the use of American Ref-Fuel Company of Niagara Falls, New York; Vienna Junction Landfill, Carbon Limestone Landfill; Ottawa County Landfill; Ridge Landfill; Niagara Landfill; Sauk Trail Hills Development, Inc.; and Citizens Disposal, Inc.

Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority

Essex-Windsor has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with a third party – Republic’s Michigan landfill site (this information known from Republic’s proposal) to provide contingency disposal capacity if circumstances prevent the disposal of waste at the Essex site.

Green Lane Landfill

Should site closure occur, Green Lane Landfill would secure replacement capacity in consultation with Toronto.

Rail Cycle North

In its Expression of Interest (“EOI”) submission Rail Cycle North provided an inventory of the landfill capacity available to Canadian Waste Services (a member of the Rail Cycle North consortium) in Ontario, and landfill capacity in Michigan (permitted to receive waste from Ontario) held by its U.S.-based parent company Waste Management Incorporated (“WMI”).

In their RFP submission, Rail Cycle North advised that capacity available at the Adams Mine Landfill would be backstopped by contingent capacity at alternative Ontario and out-of-province sites owned and operated by Canadian Waste Services and its parent, WMI.

We have now received additional information from Rail Cycle North regarding their proposed contingency sites. They have advised us that their proposed primary contingency sites are the Richmond and Warwick located in Ontario. Their proposed secondary contingency sites are Pine Tree and Woodland Meadows located in Michigan. Richmond and Warwick are halfway through the approval process for expansion of capacity and daily tonnage. Rail Cycle North expects their Environmental Assessment planning processes to be complete before service to the City commences, if a contract was awarded to Rail Cycle North. In the event that these projects were delayed, Rail Cycle North proposes to use Pine Tree and Woodland Meadows, both of which are permitted and currently receive waste from Ontario, as secondary contingency sites.

Rail Cycle North has advised that the “role of Richmond and Warwick as contingency sites only for Toronto MSW [municipal solid waste] has been a matter of public record in both communities for more than a year and has been discussed with representatives of those communities.” They also advise that this has been explicitly stated in the Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference documents approved by the Minister of the Environment.

Republic Services of Canada (Truck and Rail Haul Options)

In the event of the need for a backup site, Republic proposes to use its Brent Run Landfill located north of Flint, in Genesee County, Michigan. In the event of the closure of the Canada-USA border, Republic has an agreement to utilize the Essex-Windsor Landfill site. )

(Copies of Attachments A and B, referred to in the foregoing report, are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (Undated) form letters from 160 residents of the district of Temiskaming in opposition to the Adams Mine landfill proposal, and urging the City to choose an alternative solution;

(ii) (February 24, 2000) from Mr. Charles Warner, President, Aidie Creek Gardens Inc., expressing support for the Adams Mine landfill proposal;

(iii) (February 29, 2000) from Mr. Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch, expressing concerns about the Adams Mine landfill proposal; and

(iv) (February 25, 2000) from Mr. Alf O’Reilly, in support of the Adams Mine landfill proposal)

(City Council on February 29, March 1 and 2, 2000 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (February 25, 2000) from the City Clerk, forwarding confidential Attachments C and D and a confidential submission referred to in the Clause, such Attachments C and D and submission to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, given that they concern security of a property interest of the Municipality.)