Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process - Category 2, Proven Disposal Capacity

(City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings held on October 6, 2000, October 10 and 11, 2000, and October 12, 2000, adopted the following recommendations:

“It is recommended that:

(1) the confidential joint report dated October 2, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor, wherein it is recommended that the City of Toronto:

‘(1) execute a contract with Republic Services Inc., Republic Services of Canada Inc., Republic Services of Michigan I, LCC (doing business as Carleton farms), and Wilson Logistics Inc., substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Appendix “1” to this report and the negotiated contract document, which will be forwarded under separate confidential cover; and

(2) execute a contract with Rail Cycle North Ltd., Canadian Waste Services Inc., and Waste Management Inc., substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Appendix “2” to this report and the negotiated contract document, which will be forwarded under separate confidential cover.’

and the confidential report dated October 5, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

‘City Council authorize the execution of an amending agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., BFI Waste Systems of North America Inc., Browning-Ferris Industries Ltd., Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Superior Arbor Hills Landfill, Inc., and Canadian Waste Services Inc. in relation to the current Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement for waste disposal at the Arbor Hills landfill site in Michigan, substantially in accordance with the draft agreement attached as an Appendix to this report.’,

be adopted, subject to:

(a) amending the draft agreement attached as an Appendix to the confidential report dated October 5, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, by changing the effective date as set out in highlight (d) of the report to a date which is 180 days from the date of execution of the amending agreement; and (b) further subject to the following amendments to the terms and conditions of the contracts:

(i) the Rail Cycle North (RCN) contract for the transport and disposal of Toronto’s waste be terminated in the event the federal Minister of the Environment orders an Environmental Assessment of the Adams Mine landfill on or before February 15, 2001, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to redirect to Republic Services of Canada Inc. and/or BFI Canada and Superior Arbor Hills Ltd. (the Arbor Hills landfill) the municipal waste that would otherwise be delivered to RCN based on the best price and tonnage combination and, further, that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to further amend the current Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement with BFI Canada and Superior Arbor Hills Limited (Onyx), as amended by the confidential report dated October 5, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, for a further term of five (5) years at the same or lower price and otherwise on the same terms and conditions;

(ii) deleting from Section 6.22, headed ‘Keele Valley Closure and Equipment’, of the RCN contract, the words ‘as agreed to between RCN and the City. In the event that RCN and the City are not able to agree, the price shall be the lower of book value or’, so that such Section shall now read as follows: ‘6.22 Keele Valley Closure and Equipment

At the City’s option, RCN shall purchase from the City any and all surplus landfill equipment, as listed in Schedule 6.22, resulting from the permanent closure of Keele Valley. The price of the surplus equipment shall be fair market value as determined by a mutually agreed upon third party, holding sufficient knowledge of the industry to make a fair and reasonable appraisal.’;

(iii) adding to Section 7.2 of the RCN contract, the following words:

‘The unavoidable cost provisions shall not be used in any way to require the City of Toronto to provide a minimum tonnage.’;

(iv) deleting Section 10.6 of the RCN Contract concerning unavoidable cost increases;

(v) the execution of the contract with Rail Cycle North shall be conditional on the removal of Section 10.6, concerning unavoidable cost increases, and failing acceptance by Rail Cycle North of the removal of such Section within four (4) days of Council’s decision on this matter, the contract not proceed and, in the event of failure by RCN to agree to this condition, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to redirect the waste that would otherwise be sent to Rail Cycle North to:

(1) Republic Services of Canada Inc. under the contract before Council; and/or

(2) BFI Canada and Superior Arbor Hills Limited under the City’s current waste transport and disposal agreement at the Arbor Hills landfill,

based on the best price and tonnage combination;

(vi) the contract with RCN contain language which makes RCN responsible for any costs associated with ‘collapse’;

(vii) the contract with RCN contain language which makes RCN responsible for any costs associated with earthquakes, as well as ‘pop ups’ (leaks) of the mine floor resulting from factors other than earthquakes, and any damages caused to ground and surface water resources as a result of failure, for any reason, of any of the engineered components of the landfill or the failure of the existing tailings containment structures;

(viii) the contract with RCN be amended to permit the City of Toronto to consider all methods of diversion, including incineration, in the future, without penalty; the wording of the contract to reflect this change to be satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor;

(ix) a Clause be included in all three contracts (with Republic, Rail Cycle North and Browning-Ferris) that the parties agree to the public release of the contracts; and

(x) the City Auditor or an independent third party audit the tonnage to be directed to Adams Mine;

(2) any revenues that will flow from the contracts with the proponents to the City of Toronto be dedicated to recycling programs; and

(3) a group of engineers from the City of Edmonton be invited to visit the City of Toronto and provide, for the information of City of Toronto Councillors, a slide presentation on the waste disposal process used by the City of Edmonton, such visit to take place prior to December 5, 2000.” The balance of the confidential joint report dated October 2, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor, and the confidential report dated October 5, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to remain confidential, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, having regard that they contain information related to the security of property interests of the municipality and are otherwise subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.)

The Works Committee reports having:

(1) authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council for its meeting on October 3, 2000, with recommendations on the execution of the final negotiated contracts with Rail Cycle North Ltd. and Republic Services of Canada Inc.;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to make available the contract documents, or if they are not permitted to be released, a summary report of the public aspects of those documents, prior to the Council meeting; and

(3) further requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to provide to Members of Council the details of the consultant’s analysis for achieving 75 percent diversion, referred to in the following report (September 12, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Works Committee with an update on the progress of contract negotiations with Rail Cycle North Ltd. ("RCN") and Republic Services of Canada Inc. ("Republic") for solid waste disposal capacity, including an update regarding the contracting process between RCN and the Greater Toronto Area ("GTA") Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham. This report also provides responses to several requests for related information.

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:

At its meeting of August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000, City Council adopted the following recommendations (as amended) contained in Clause No. 1 of Joint Report No. 2 of The Policy and Finance Committee and The Works Committee:

“The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to conduct final contract negotiations as follows, subject to satisfactory resolution of additional contractual matters and exceptions as identified by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in his confidential report dated August 1, 2000, and the approval of the final contracts with the named respondents to the satisfaction of Council:

(a) with Republic Services of Canada Inc., for a ‘no-put-or-pay’ contract for tonnages above 100,000 tonnes per year for a flexible combined term of up to 20 years, to manage the private sector waste received by the City of Toronto for disposal; and

(b) with Rail Cycle North Ltd., for a ‘no-put-or-pay’ contract for a term of 20 years to encompass only the residual municipal solid waste disposal needs of the City of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, under the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding between the four participating municipalities.”

A series of additional recommendations were adopted related to solid waste management issues. Responses to recommendations that carried a request for a response in September are presented below.

Comments:

Contract Negotiations:

We are currently proceeding through the contract negotiation process with Republic and RCN. Our goal is to have completed negotiated contracts submitted to the Clerk on Monday, September 25, 2000, with a notice of availability provided to all members of City Council and notice of a subsequent briefing session. We will also be submitting at that time a staff report containing recommendations on execution of the contracts to City Council, at the scheduled City Council meeting of October 3, 4, and 5, 2000.

GTA Contracting Process:

The GTA Regions of Peel, York, and Durham are currently considering contracting with RCN, to address their residual municipal solid waste needs, as contemplated by RCN’s RFP proposal to the City and as envisioned by the Memorandum of Understanding between the GTA Regions and Toronto. York Region:

On September 6, 2000, York’s Solid Waste Strategy Committee adopted a recommendation to proceed to contract with RCN to address the Region’s residual disposal needs. The Committee’s recommendation will proceed to the Regional Council meeting, scheduled for September 14, 2000. York had earlier issued their own Request for Proposals for disposal capacity. However, after reviewing the RFP submissions from Republic and American Ref-Fuel (located in Niagara Falls, New York), they have decided at the Committee level to proceed to a contract with RCN.

Durham Region:

A special meeting of Durham’s Works and Finance Committees is scheduled for September 13, 2000, to consider proceeding to contract with RCN for that Region’s residual solid waste disposal needs. Durham Regional Council will address the matter on September 20, 2000.

Peel Region:

On September 7, 2000, Peel Region’s General Committee heard deputations regarding a proposed contract between the Region and RCN. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee sought confirmation regarding environmental safety measures associated with the Adams Mine Landfill and assurance that the Certificate of Approval for the Adams Mine Landfill will be complied with. Peel Regional Council is scheduled to consider proceeding to a contract with RCN on October 19, 2000.

Our report to the scheduled City Council meeting of October 3, 4, and 5, 2000, will include an update on the contracting process between the GTA Regional municipalities and RCN.

Information Requests:

Listed below are responses to information requests from the Joint Committee (Policy and Finance and Works Committees) meeting of June 22, 2000, and the City Council meeting of August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000, to be provided in September 2000. The staff report to the scheduled City Council meeting of October 3, 4, and 5, 2000, will carry responses to additional information requests:

(1) “Report to the Policy and Finance Committee and the Works Committee by September 2000 on the feasibility of achieving a higher diversion rate through the use of new technology, and revising the diversion rate set by City Council from 50 percent by 2006 to 75 percent by the year 2010.” [Joint Committee meeting of June 22, 2000]

Response:

The City of Toronto’s residential diversion rate currently stands at 25 percent, representing the diversion of approximately 250,000 tonnes per year. The diversion rate for single-family households (i.e., without the inclusion of multi-family dwellings) stands at approximately 32 percent. As noted in the request, the City’s current policy calls for a 50 percent diversion rate by 2006.

Also listed on the Committee agenda of September 13, 2000, is a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services titled “A 3Rs Implementation Plan for the City of Toronto”, which carries numerous recommendations to increase the City’s diversion rate. Implementation of the measures carried in that report will place the City in the position to achieve a 50 percent diversion rate by 2006.

The net annual cost premium to achieve 50 percent is estimated at $8.4 to $28.5 million, based on an analysis by the TIRM Diversion consultants. The consultants’ analysis also shows that the annual cost premium for achieving 75 percent diversion would be $19.7 to $53.7 million.

The advancement of our diversion rate should be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure sufficient program and facility implementation is planned for and corresponding capital and operating budgets.

(2) “The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer review opportunities for setting price increases for the disposal of the private sector portion of ICI materials and report back on the results of this review in September 2000, to the Works Committee and the Policy and Finance Committee.” [City Council meeting of August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000]

Response:

At its meeting of August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000, City Council adopted the following recommendation:

“Effective January 1, 2001, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to adjust from time to time the solid waste management disposal fee at Toronto’s transfer stations by up to 15 percent upwards or downwards by giving two weeks public notice.”

This authorization will allow the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to adjust the disposal fee for the private sector waste the City receives. Further information related to the potential adjustment of fees in 2001 will be carried forward as part of the 2001 operating budget process.

(3) “The Commissioner of Corporate Services, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit reports to the appropriate Standing Committees, in time for the October 3, 2000, meeting of City Council, on arrangements for more assertive recycling and/or diversion programs for City property, City parks and City Environment Days, respectively.” [City Council meeting of August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000] Response: With respect to the 2001 Environment Days, Solid Waste Management Services has agreed to collect pre-owned bicycles for reuse by the Community Bicycle Network. Staff will also be investigating opportunities to accept plastic bags and plastic food tubs, provided adequate markets can be secured. Properly signed Blue Boxes will also be provided at all Environment Days to accept used beverage containers for recycling.

(4) “The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to make available to the public, the information provided to Members of Council under confidential cover with respect to prices, subject to the consent of the two recommended proponents for the management of the City’s waste.” [City Council meeting of August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000]

Response:

RCN and Republic have provided written responses advising that information related to their prices can be released. Accordingly, we are making public the RCN and Republic final inclusive price per tonne offered by each of these Respondent’s as of January 1, 2001, and the estimated price at the conclusion of a 20-year contract for comparison purposes, based on the negotiated percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (Toronto Index).

2001 2022* Cost Escalation Factor Rail Cycle North $51.02 $73.88 65% of the change in CPI for landfill and rail components. 100% for truck haulage. Republic $50.82 $75.99 75% of the change in CPI for landfill and truck haulage components.

*Assumes CPI at 2.5 percent per annum.

Prices are inclusive of the exceptions and conditions adopted by City Council on August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000, as contained in an In Camera report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, dated August 1, 2000.

The financial advantage of the RCN proposal over the course of a 20-year contract and based on the same tonnage received to facilitate a comparison, is approximately $15 million to $23 million (cumulative cash flow) under low and high diversion scenarios. The key factor behind the more favourable RCN price is the lower price level adjustment associated with changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Conclusions:

We are proceeding with the development of contracts with Rail Cycle North and Republic. We anticipate having copies available for the review of Councillors on September 25, 2000, and we will facilitate a briefing session during that week. An accompanying staff report will carry recommendations on execution of the contracts to City Council, at its meeting of October 3, 4, and 5, 2000. The GTA Regional municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham are proceeding through their own contracting processes with RCN. 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]

______

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

(i) (July 21, 2000) from Mr. Wilfrid Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario, reiterating support for using rail for the entire movement of City waste to the disposal destination;

(ii) (July 21, 2000) from Mr. Todd Morgan, President, Kirkland Lake and District, Chamber of Commerce, advising that the Kirkland Lake and District Chamber of Commerce has supported the Adams Mine/Rail Cycle North project from day one, as long as it was proven safe and passed all regulatory approvals;

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

- (July 29, 2000) from Mr. Mike Guimond, Mike Guimond Realty Ltd., Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (August 30, 2000) from Dr. J.R. Brookfield, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (September 4, 2000) from Dr. E.M. Gardiner, Renfrew, Ontario; - (undated) from Mr. Al Manseau, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; and - (September 6, 2000) from Des and Doreen Sasseville, Kirkland Lake, Ontario;

(iv) (August 17, 2000) from Chief Carol McBride, Timiskaming First Nation, advising of concerns with respect to health and safety related to the Rail Cycle North proposal for the Adams Mine site, and indicating their legal interest in the site; and requesting that Councillors rescind their support for the proposal in favour of other available options;

(v) (August 23, 2000) from The Honourable Dan Newman, Minister of the Environment, Province of Ontario, advising that he was pleased to learn that the City has made a decision with respect to the long-term disposal of waste; and expressing continued support for the City’s ongoing waste diversion initiatives;

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

- (July 18, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (July 24, 2000) from Ms. Emma May Lowrey, Englehart, Ontario; - (July 25, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (July 27, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (July 28, 2000) from Mrs. Helen Hansen and Mr. Robert Hansen, Toronto, Ontario; - (July 28, 2000) from Mrs. Anne Hansen, Toronto, Ontario; - (July 29, 2000) from Helena Ho; - (July 30, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Engelhart, Ontario; - (July 31, 2000) from Ms. Christine Beevis, Toronto, Ontario; - (July 31, 2000) from Mr. Frank Corbiere, United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin Forestry Manager; - (August 2, 2000) from Dennis and Kathy Hakola, Cobalt, Ontario; - (August 4, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (August 5, 2000) from Jean D. Smith and John P. Valleau, Toronto, Ontario; - (August 8, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (August 9, 2000) from Mr. H. Bruce Crofts, Toronto, Ontario; - (August 14, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (August 18, 2000) from M. McSherry, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (August 18, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (August 20, 2000) from Mr. Jim McCann, Classic Corners, Ontario; - (August 20, 2000) from Ms. Myrna Albert, Englehart, Ontario; - (August 21, 2000) from Ms. Lois Veitch, King Kirkland, Ontario; - (undated) from L. Lang, Powassan, Ontario; - (undated) from C. Crabtree, Brampton, Ontario; - (undated) from Erin McLaren, Notre Dame du Nord, Quebec; - (undated) from Mr. Elmer Field, Englehart, Ontario; - (undated) from Ms. Eva Field, Englehart, Ontario; - (undated) from Mr. William Dennis, Englehart, Ontario; and - (September 13, 2000) from Ms. Karen Buck, Board Member, Citizens for a Safe Environment;

(vii) communications received by electronic mail from the following in opposition to the Adams Mine landfill proposal:

- (July 31, 2000) from Mr. Gregory Baker; - (August 1, 2000) from Ms. Sue Gamble, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (August 1, 2000) from Dr. J. Gold, Haileybury, Ontario; - (August 1, 2000) from Carman Kidd, Dymond Township, Ontario; - (August 1, 2000) from Mari-Lee Runnals, New Liskeard, Ontario; - (August 1, 2000) from Mr. Pierre Bizier, Thorne, Ontario; - (August 2, 2000) from Mr. Tooker Gomberg; - (August 2, 2000) from Ms. Andrea Schaap, Englehart, Ontario; - (August 2, 2000) from Mr. John Schaap, Englehart, Ontario; - (August 7, 2000) from Mr. Erwin Hirschbeck, Thornloe, Ontario; - (August 11, 2000) from Ms. Shirley Harwood, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (August 12, 2000) from B., L. and D. Tanguay, Earlton, Ontario; - (August 13, 2000) from Ms. Dorothy Coffman; - (August 14, 2000) from Mr. Hugo Rivet, Haileybury, Ontario; - (August 15, 2000) from Landys Hillman, Haileybury, Ontario; - (August 16, 2000) from Mr. Bob O’Brien, Secretary, Kirkland and District Labour Council; - (August 18, 2000) from Mr. Jack Wilkinson, President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture; - (August 19, 2000) from Ms. Carla Jensen, Toronto, Ontario; - (August 20, 2000) from Ms. Barbara Bukowski, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (August 21, 2000) from Mr. Thomas K. Knox, Marter Township; - (August 22, 2000) from Chris Anderson; - (August 24, 2000) from Ms. Wanda Hunton MacFarlane; - (August 25, 2000) from Ms. Linda Males; - (August 26, 2000) from Mr. James Smith, North Bay, Ontario; - (August 27, 2000) from Andreas Hirschbeck; - (August 28, 2000) from Reverend David W. Opheim, Six Mile Lake, Ontario; - (August 29, 2000) from Mr. Ambrose Raftis forwarding a communication from Dr. Larry Lensen; - (September 1, 2000) from Mr. Derek Schmidt; - (September 4, 2000) from Ms. Mary Munnoch; - (September 4, 2000) from Mr. Peter Scott Cameron, Valatie, New York; - (September 10, 2000) from Mr. Dan Louie, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (September 11, 2000) from B. Brookfield, Lake Timiskaming, Ontario; - (September 11, 2000) from Mr. Stu Gordon; - (September 11, 2000) from Ms. Lorraine Irvine, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (September 11, 2000) from Mr. Stephen Chandler; and - (September 11, 2000) from Ms. Brenda Kotras, Kirkland Lake, Ontario;

(viii) (August 31, 2000) from Mr. Todd Morgan, President, Kirkland Lake and District, Chambers of Commerce, forwarding speaking notes for a press conference by the Kirkland Lake and District Chamber of Commerce to introduce their Environmental Solutions Awareness Campaign; and advising that the Chamber of Commerce believes that the environmental solutions industry and the Rail Cycle North/Adams Mine project in particular are vital to their future;

(ix) (undated) from Mr. Victor Larocque, Kirkland Lake, Ontario, advising that he welcomes the opportunities the Adams Mine landfill proposal brings, and submitting names of friends also in support of the proposal.

(x) (September 10, 2000) from Ms. Anne Hansen, Toronto Ontario, providing comments on the 3Rs of “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle”, waste diversion initiatives and the waste disposal contract;

(xi) (September 12, 2000) from Mrs. Helen Hansen and Mr. Robert Hansen, expressing concern about the environmental and social aspects of shipping the City’s waste 600 kilometres north to the Adams Mine; and (xii) (September 13, 2000) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, Toronto Civic Employees’ Union, CUPE and Local 416, expressing serious concerns about the City’s decision to conduct final contract negotiations with Rail Cycle North Ltd.

The following persons appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter: - Chief Carol McBride, Timiskaming First Nation, submitted a copy of her presentation;

- Ms. Lillian Howard, Advisor on Environment to the Assembly of First Nations National Chief;

- Mr. Tooker Gomberg;

- Ms. Brennain Lloyd, Northwatch;

- Mr. Pierre Belanger, Earlton resident and spokesperson for the Anti Adams Mine Campaign;

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

- Ms. Marjorie Nicholl, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Kate Chung, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Dennis Hakola, Cobalt, Ontario, and member of the Anti Adams Mine Campaign.

(City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings held on October 6, 2000, October 10 and 11, 2000, and October 12, 2000, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (October 2, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, given that it concerns matters of the security of a property interest of the municipality, and is otherwise subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, save and except the following recommendations embodied therein:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City of Toronto:

(1) execute a contract with Republic Services Inc., Republic Services of Canada Inc., Republic Services of Michigan I, LCC (doing business as Carleton farms), and Wilson Logistics Inc., substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Appendix “1” to this report and the negotiated contract document, which will be forwarded under separate confidential cover; and (2) execute a contract with Rail Cycle North Ltd., Canadian Waste Services Inc., and Waste Management Inc., substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Appendix “2” to this report and the negotiated contract document, which will be forwarded under separate confidential cover.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a second confidential report (October 2, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, given that it concerns matters of the security of a property interest of the municipality, and is otherwise subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, save and except the following recommendation embodied therein:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (October 5, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, given that it concerns matters of the security of a property interest of the municipality, and is otherwise subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, save and except the following recommendations embodied therein:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council authorize the execution of an amending agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., Browning-Ferris Industries Ltd., Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Superior Arbor Hills Landfill, Inc., and Canadian Waste Services Inc. in relation to the current Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement for waste disposal at the Arbor Hills Landfill site in Michigan, substantially in accordance with the draft agreement attached as an Appendix to this report.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 3, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide responses to information requests regarding the contract proposals from Republic Services Canada Inc. ("Republic") and Rail Cycle North Ltd. ("RCN"), and to provide responses to some questions raised by deputants who have appeared before Works Committee.

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:

An In Camera report, dated October 2, 2000, containing recommendations for the execution of contracts with Republic and RCN has been submitted to Toronto City Council by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. Several requests for information on related topics have been received from Toronto City Council (August 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2000) and the Works Committee (September 13, 2000). Listed below in the “comments” section of this report are our responses to the information requests.

Comments:

(1) “The Works Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to make available the contract documents, or if they are not permitted to be released, a summary report of the public aspects of those documents, prior to the Council meeting.”

Summaries of the negotiated contracts with Republic and RCN are listed as Appendix A and Appendix B to this report, respectively. We have been delayed in the provision of the summary reports due to the extent of the contract negotiation period.

(2) City Council (Clause No. 1, Joint Report No. 2 of the Policy and Finance Committee and the Works Committee, Recommendation No. 3) requested a response to the following:

“To provide that the exceptions, contract provisions and conditions recommended for adoption by Council for inclusion in any final contract with the respondents, as contained in the confidential report dated August 1, 2000, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, exclude any acceptance of provisions in respect of greenhouse gas credits and instead the Commissioner continue to negotiate with Rail Cycle North and Republic Services of Canada Inc. on the value of such credits, drawing on the advice of experts in the field, and report back on the issue in the report on any finalization of contracts.”

Response:

As stated in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report, the negotiated positions in connection with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Credits are as follows:

Republic

If and when and to the extent any Greenhouse Gas credits become available at any of the disposal sites, Republic Canada will allocate to Toronto on a prorated basis, any such Greenhouse Gas credit and/or landfill gas energy revenue which may become available during the term of the agreement at the sites, calculated as a ratio of Toronto’s waste transported and disposed of at the site to the total waste in place at the site from all sources.

RCN

If the Contractors receive any compensation related directly or indirectly to the reduction of Greenhouse Gas emissions related to waste or material that is received at the Adams Mine landfill or contingency disposal site, RCN pays Toronto an amount equal to fifty percent of such compensation, less $2.00 per tonne of the specific credit generating material upon which the compensation is based. In effect, Toronto and RCN share in the first $2.00 per tonne given that a price reduction of one dollar ($1) is already reflected in the service fee with respect to Greenhouse Gas Emission credits.

This position represents an improvement in the contract proposal to the City from RCN. It provides for a 50 percent share in any value over $2.00 per tonne, in addition to a $1 price reduction associated with Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction credits.

A report titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Trading” dated August 30, 2000, was presented to the Works Committee at its meeting of September 13, 2000. That report contains recommendations regarding the adoption of the existing methodologies of the Pilot Emissions Reduction Trading (PERT) project as a guide to documenting and registering greenhouse gas emissions reduction credits, and proceeding with a demonstration trade.

The report advises that at present “the former Ontario Hydro, now Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has been the largest purchaser of credits from PERT members and has been paying approximately $1 per tonne for CO2 credits.”

At this time uncertainty exists regarding the future applicability of greenhouse gas emissions reduction credits associated with landfill gas recovery and utilization in the U.S. and Canada. This is because landfill gas collection systems are becoming a regulated engineered landfill system, as opposed to an optional activity.

While examples of higher credits can be identified, an initial value of $1 per tonne was considered a favourable value by a member of the Clean Air Action Corporation of Washington, D.C., when compared to values that have been identified in the U.S. to date associated with landfill gas recovery and utilization.

In summary, we maintain our recommendation that the City accept the $1 per tonne price reduction from RCN, with the improved offer if the value rises above $2 per tonne. The value of the $1 per tonne price reduction represents a saving to the City over the course of the contract of approximately $17 million.

(3) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services was requested to provide an update on the decision-making process of the GTA Regions of Peel, York, and Durham in regards to contracting with RCN for residual disposal capacity. Response:

The most current Council resolutions of the GTA Regions are provided through Appendix C.

(4) Waste Management Inc.

Several Councillors have requested feedback regarding media reports of charges brought against the U.S. parent company of Canadian Waste Services (a member of the RCN consortium), Waste Management Inc. (“WMI”).

Response:

We are confident that Canadian Waste Services can carry out the development and operations of the Adams Mine Landfill and deliver the services as negotiated by staff. The senior staff of Canadian Waste Services are well known to Toronto staff as they have previously been employed by solid waste management companies that have provided services to Toronto.

At the current time Toronto has six contracts with Canadian Waste Services, including rental of recycling vehicles, collection and haulage of waste and recyclable material, and processing of Blue Box material. Through its current contracts with Toronto, Canadian Waste Services represents a significant component of the overall delivery of solid waste management services in Toronto.

The parent firm of Canadian Waste Services, Waste Management Inc., has introduced a new executive team at the end of 1999, including a new Chief Executive Officer. This new team has effectively managed charges associated with the company’s financial state and is addressing charges associated with license violations.

Conclusions:

This report has provided responses to several information requests from City Council and Works Committee, in connection with the negotiated contracts with Republic and RCN.

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]

______Appendix A

Summary of Negotiated Contract with Republic

(1) Parties and Obligations

There are four parties to the agreement with Toronto:

- the proponent, Republic Services of Canada Inc. (“Republic Canada”)

- the parent company, Republic Services Inc. (“RSI”)

- the owner of the Carleton Farms landfill (“Carleton Farms”), and

- the waste hauler, Wilson Logistics, Inc. (“Wilson”)

Disposal and transportation services are dealt with by separate obligations of Republic Canada and Wilson although the obligations of Wilson are backstopped by Republic Canada.

The obligations of Republic Canada under the agreement would be guaranteed by RSI and RSI, together with Republic Canada and Carleton Farms, also provides an indemnity to Toronto in respect of any United States Superfund liability.

Conversely, Toronto indemnifies the other parties in respect of any claims, actions, losses and costs resulting from breach of any warranty or covenant in the agreement or from the City’s operations of its transfer stations.

(2) Term

The term of the agreement is 5 years from January 1, 2001. There are five renewal periods that can be exercised at the option of the City on the same terms and conditions, as follows- 3, 2, 5, 3 and 2 year periods.

(3) Disposal Sites

The primary disposal site is explicitly the Carleton Farms Landfill in Wayne County, Michigan in accordance with the Republic Canada proposal. Republic Canada requested and staff are agreeable to the provision of an alternate disposal site, namely the Brent Run landfill located in Genesee County, Michigan. Brent Run was identified as a contingency site in Republic Canada’s proposal.

The intent is to allow some flexibility to meet Toronto’s fluctuating waste volume demands should the Adams Mine Landfill not proceed or be delayed. Republic Canada would have to provide reasonable grounds for directing waste to the alternate site and seek Toronto’s consent; however, Toronto’s consent could not be unreasonably withheld. The service fee would not, in any event, change for any re-directed waste. Given that Brent Run was subjected to a due diligence by Toronto in this RFP process, the concept of an alternate site is acceptable to staff.

If, for any reason, service cannot be provided at the primary or alternate site for reasons beyond Republic Canada’s control, Republic Canada may elect to provide a contingency disposal site. Toronto would be required to conduct a due diligence (reimbursed by Republic Canada up to $25,000) and, in its reasonable discretion, could disapprove of the site.

(4) Environmental Management System and Record Keeping

Both Carleton Farms and Wilson must develop, document and implement an environmental management system satisfactory to Toronto, acting reasonably. Such environmental management system would basically include, without limitation:

(a) a formal environmental policy statement; (b) a clear specification of staff responsibilities and accountabilities; (c) a formal training program for staff; (d) appropriate written procedures; (e) objectives and targets to improve environmental performance; (f) monitoring programs to document and measure performance; (g) an emergency preparedness plan that identifies and addresses potential incidents; (h) an annual audit of the facility performance; and (i) ongoing senior management review of conformance to regulatory requirements and associated response to the issues and commitment to continuous improvement.

Republic Canada, Carleton Farms and Wilson must make available to Toronto stated documents, reports and information monthly, semi-annually and annually based on the nature of the documentation and information. For example, Republic Canada must make available on a monthly basis the information and/or reports for the preceding month summarizing routine and extraordinary disposal activities during the prior period and plans and schedules for all new or revised future disposal activities, including:

(a) a summary of the total tonnage and total number of trailers picked-up at each Transfer Station compared to the total tonnage and total number of trailers received pursuant to the agreement at the disposal site; (b) any complaints submitted to Republic Canada by third parties and the summary response, if any, with respect to the disposal services provided under the agreement including, without limitation, any written notice from any regulatory authority regarding the disposal site; (c) any extraordinary occurrence affecting Republic Canada’s performance including but not limited to occurrences affecting the disposal site; (d) copies of the disposal transaction tickets, invoices and/or receipts for the month; (e) documentation regarding unacceptable waste, if any, gathered and/or returned; (f) a detailed list of any and all material safety violations at the disposal site; and (g) copies of all reports required to be filed required by any regulatory authority with respect to the disposal site including, without limitation, reports on leachate quality, air emissions and ground water monitoring.

On a semi-annual basis, Republic Canada would provide information, including:

(a) leachate quantity data; (b) leachate quality data, discussion of any anomalies observed and a summary of any compliance exceedances; (c) a description of leachate recirculation and leachate collection system maintenance activities; and (d) for other instances where Republic Canada is measuring data, including, without limitation, surface water, ground water and landfill gas, quality and quantity data as available, including graphical depiction of trends, a discussion of any anomalies observed and a discussion of any exceedances.

(5) Confidentiality

Given the above reporting requirements, Republic Canada, Carleton Farms and Wilson may reasonably designate documents as confidential business records, subject to MFIPPA or other law. If the relevant party is unwilling to provide such documents to Toronto, they may be inspected by a independent accountant or other agreed upon third party to determine relevance of the record. If determined to be relevant, Toronto may inspect the documents.

(6) Tonnage

In accordance with the Council authorization, Republic Canada and Carleton Farms agree for the term of 5 years to accept the following waste delivered to the transfer stations:

- at a minimum of 285,000 tonnes for 2001 and 2002, and - all ICI waste at a minimum of 100,000 tonnes after 2002

Republic Canada takes title to the waste upon delivery at the transfer stations.

The price to be charged to the City (in 2001 dollars) is $50.82 per tonne (haulage and disposal), with an annual increase equal to a 75 percent change in the Consumer Price Index.

The service fee is broken out into two components; a disposal price for disposal services and a transportation price for transportation services. The prices are adjusted each year for 75% of CPI after January 1, 2001. For transportation services, there are, in addition to the transportation price, the following financial obligations:

- additional standby charges for reduction of waste once notice is given to ramp up quantities

- compaction guarantees that would result if average compaction rates are not met, and - residual payments at the end of the term for transfer trailers (unamortized portion of any capital costs specifically acquired to carry out the services minus any realizable salvage value of the trailers)

The disposal price charged will not be lower for any GTA municipality providing the waste volume from that municipality is equal to or less than the volume delivered by Toronto.

(7) Greenhouse Gas Credits

(8) Alternative Operations and Emergency Operations Plans

Republic Canada, Carleton Farms and Wilson must provide Toronto with plans for the correction and repair of any facility that becomes inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the agreement and to mitigate and correct hazards that may arise due to accident or disruption of the transportation and disposal services.

(9) Default Wilson is entitled to carry on transportation services in the event of a default resulting in the termination of disposal services and Republic Canada is entitled to carry on disposal services in the event of a default in the provision in transportation services although, in the latter case, Republic Canada would have to take on the obligations of Wilson.

There are provisions that would allow termination:

- by Toronto in the event of default on the part of the contractors (for example, failure to substantially perform the basic disposal or transportation services for a period of 15 days; or a material change in the operation of the disposal or transportation services that constitutes a breach of law and is not remedied or a regulatory action that is not resolved within 90 days or such longer time as is permitted by a regulatory authority)

- by the contractors in the event of default of the City,

- by the contractors or Toronto on the occurrence of a circumstance uncontrollable by the parties lasting longer than 90 days.

(10) Securities

The parties will provide a letter of credit and a performance bond in respect of their respective disposal and transportation service obligations. (11) Insurance

Republic Canada and Wilson provide insurance coverage in accordance with the requirements of the RFP.

(12) Dispute Resolution

There are provisions that would require arbitration as a means of resolving any disputes or claims under any agreement (after a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute in a meeting of the parties).

Appendix B.

Summary of Negotiated Contract with Rail Cycle North

(1) Parties and Obligations

There are three parties to the agreement with Toronto:

- the proponent, Rail Cycle North Ltd. (“RCN”)

- Canadian Waste Services Inc. (“Canadian Waste”), and

- the parent of Canadian Waste, Waste Management Inc. (“WMI”)

RCN is the prime service provider for the disposal and transportation services under the agreement although the obligations of all of the above parties are basically joint and several (i.e., Canadian Waste is responsible jointly with RCN for the provision, operation and maintenance of the Adams Mine landfill and all of the above are liable for the non-performance of the obligations for the provision of service and any claims made against Toronto). All of the above parties indemnify Toronto for US Superfund liability.

Conversely, Toronto indemnifies the other parties in respect of any claims, actions, losses and costs resulting from breach of any warranty or covenant in the agreement.

Miller Waste Systems, Canadian National Railway and Ontario Northland Transportation Commission are approved subcontractors for the transportation component of the services.

(2) Corresponding Agreements with York and Durham

The agreement is conditional on RCN entering into waste disposal contracts with the Regions of York and Durham, in a form substantially similar to Toronto’s agreement and satisfactory to RCN acting reasonably. This must be done on or before December 31, 2000. The condition is inserted for the sole benefit of RCN and can be waived by it in its sole discretion. (3) Federal Environmental Assessment

The parties may, in their sole discretion, terminate the agreement on or before February 15, 2001 unless, before that date, the Federal Minister of the Environment states that he will not issue an order for a federal environmental assessment of the Adams Mine landfill.

(4) Term

The term of the agreement commences on January 1, 2001 and ends 20 years from the commencement date of services (which is January 1, 2003 or a later date up to March 30, 2003, as the City may advise, or an earlier agreed upon date). If the Adams Mine is ready for service on or after September 1, 2002, the City may decide to send waste earlier, i.e., a maximum of 350,000 tonnes of municipal waste prior to formal commencement at an approximate rate of 50,000 tonnes per month.

In the event of an uncontrollable circumstance suspending the obligations of the parties, the period of suspension may be added to the end of the term up to a maximum period of six months.

(5) Disposal Sites

If, for any reason, service cannot be provided at the Adams Mine landfill for a period longer than 30 days following commencement of operations, the contractors must provide a contingency disposal site at the contractors’ cost. Toronto have approved the two sites named as contingency disposal sites, namely, the Pine Tree Acres Landfill Site and the Woodland Meadows-Van Buren Landfill Site, both located in Michigan (and in respect of which Toronto undertook its due diligence). RCN may propose other contingency sites but the consent of Toronto would be required. In the event the border is closed, there would be an uncontrollable circumstance which could lead to termination of the agreement.

(6) Timetable

The Contractors must adhere to a timetable listed in the agreement with respect to the construction of the Adams Mine landfill. The Contractors must immediately notify Toronto in writing upon becoming aware that any of the individual listed tasks will not be successfully completed by the deadline for that task, including any testing or monitoring to confirm the hydraulic integrity of the Adams Mine landfill. RCN will provide, in such event, a proposed revised deadline in which the task(s) in question will be completed and also indicate the impact, if any, and necessary revisions, which will be made in respect of any other tasks subsequently affected by the revision to the deadline of the task(s) in question.

In the event that the timetable is to be deviated from, the Contractors must advise the City. Minor deviations in completion of the various milestones will be negotiated for mutual approval between Toronto and RCN, acting reasonably and in good faith. In the event that the parties agree, acting reasonably and in good faith, that the Adams Mine site will not be ready by the commencement date in the agreement for any reason, whether resulting from an uncontrollable circumstance or otherwise, Toronto may delay the commencement date or the commissioning date by one year, or such period of delay as is mutually agreed, during which period of delay Toronto will be under no obligation to deliver waste to RCN. Toronto could arrange for the delivery of municipal waste to any other site it chooses and RCN will reimburse Toronto for all costs incurred by Toronto in excess of the service fee during any period of delay.

In the event that the Adams Mine landfill remains not ready and able to accept waste on January 1, 2004, the City or RCN may, in its sole discretion terminate the agreement.

(7) Environmental Management System and Record Keeping

RCN and its subcontractors must develop, document and implement an environmental management system satisfactory to Toronto, acting reasonably. Such environmental management system would basically include, without limitation:

(j) a formal environmental policy statement; (k) a clear specification of staff responsibilities and accountabilities; (l) a formal training program for staff; (m) appropriate written procedures; (n) objectives and targets to improve environmental performance; (o) monitoring programs to document and measure performance; (p) an emergency preparedness plan that identifies and addresses potential incidents; (q) an annual audit of the facility performance; and (r) ongoing senior management review of conformance to regulatory requirements and associated response to the issues and commitment to continuous improvement.

RCN must make available to Toronto stated documents, reports and information monthly, semi-annually and annually based on the nature of the documentation and information. For example, RCN must submit a report for the preceding month summarizing routine and extraordinary activities during the prior period and plans and schedules for all new or revised future activities. The monthly report must include, but not be limited to:

(i) a comparison of the total tonnage and total number of loads picked-up at the Transfer Stations with the total tonnage and total number of loads received pursuant to the agreement at the disposal site; (ii) the total tonnage of all waste received at the disposal site, including a description and identification of the source of all waste received other than pursuant to the agreement; (iii) the condition of the facilities; (iv) any records of complaints required to be kept by RCN under any permit and any written notice from any regulatory authority regarding the Adams Mine landfill or transportation subcontractors; (v) any extraordinary occurrence affecting RCN’s performance including but not limited to occurrences affecting the facilities; (vi) copies of the transaction tickets, invoices and/or receipts for the month; (vii) changes in the status and readiness of alternate facilities and emergency facilities; (viii) documentation regarding unacceptable waste, if any, gathered, produced and/or returned; (ix) a detailed list of any and all material safety violations; and (x) copies of all reports required to be filed with the Ministry of Environment and any other reports required by any regulatory authority with respect to the facilities, including, without limitation, reports on leachate quality, air emissions and ground water monitoring.

(8) Confidentiality

Given the above reporting requirements, RCN may reasonably designate documents as confidential business records, subject to MFIPPA or other law. If RCN is unwilling to provide such documents to Toronto, they may be inspected by a independent accountant or other agreed upon third party to determine relevance of the record. If determined to be relevant, Toronto may inspect the documents.

(9) Alternative Operations and Emergency Operations Plans

RCN must provide Toronto with plans for the correction and repair of any facility that becomes inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the agreement and to mitigate and correct hazards that may arise due to accident or disruption of the transportation and disposal services.

(10) Tonnage Toronto is to deliver to RCN all of its municipal waste except for that portion that is to be treated, processed or disposed of by diversion or new and emerging technologies. Toronto may also substitute ICI waste in equivalent volumes. There is no minimum tonnage requirement in the agreement.

RCN takes title to the waste upon delivery to it at the transfer stations.

The price to be charged to the City (in 2001 dollars) is $51.02 per tonne (haulage and disposal), with an annual increase equal to a 65 percent change in the Consumer Price Index for landfill and rail components and 100 percent for truck haulage. The disposal price charged will not be lower for other customers, with specified exceptions.

Toronto will be liable to pay any of the unavoidable increased costs incurred as a result of any change in law affecting the project. RCN would pay the first $1.00 per tonne of any such increased costs.

(11) Keele Valley Closure and Equipment

At the City’s option, RCN must purchase from Toronto its surplus landfill equipment resulting from the permanent closure of Keele Valley. The price of the surplus equipment will be as agreed to between RCN and Toronto. In the event that RCN and Toronto are not able to agree, the price will be the lower of book value or fair market value as determined by a mutually agreed upon third party.

(12) Backhaul

In the event that RCN engages in backhaul of any material, RCN pays to Toronto a royalty equal to one half the profits earned by RCN through backhaul.

(13) Greenhouse Gas Credits

(14) Release of Toronto Mortgage on Adams Mine Landfill

On or before the date of the first delivery of waste to the Adams Mine landfill, Toronto is to execute and deliver to RCN, in a form satisfactory to RCN acting reasonably, a full and final release and discharge in registrable form of the mortgage, and any other encumbrances, registered by the former Metropolitan Toronto securing its rights to the reimbursable cost of the consultant studies provided to Notre Development Corporation under prior option agreements.

(15) Right of First Refusal

RCN provides a right of first refusal to Toronto regarding any sale or other transfer of ownership of the Adams Mine landfill which right is registered against its title to the Adams Mine landfill on or before the commissioning of the site.

(16) Retendering of Truck Haul

The City has the one-time option, without obligation, to discontinue the use of the services of RCN for the provision of truck transportation from the transfer stations to the Railhead commencing ten years from the commencement of services. Should Toronto exercise this option, RCN must obtain bids for the provision of the truck transportation by public tender, which tender would be in accordance with the terms set out in the agreement and such further commercially reasonable terms as are consistent with the initial subcontract between RCN and Miller Waste Systems. RCN will be required to advise Toronto of all submitted prices, and to accept the lowest bid from a qualified bidder in accordance with the tender terms and conditions.

(17) Default

There are provisions that would allow termination: - by Toronto in the event of default on the part of the contractors (for example, failure to substantially perform the basic disposal or transportation services for a period of 10 days, other than for an uncontrollable circumstance; or a material change in the operation of the disposal or transportation services that constitutes a breach of law and is not remedied, or a regulatory action that is not resolved, within 90 days or such longer time as is permitted by the regulatory authority)

- by the contractors in the event of default of the City,

- by the contractors or Toronto on the occurrence of a circumstance uncontrollable by the parties lasting longer than 6 months.

(18) Securities RCN will provide a letter of credit and a performance bond in respect of the service obligations in accordance with the requirements of the RFP.

(19) Insurance The contractors will provide insurance coverage in accordance with the requirements of the RFP.

(20) Dispute Resolution

Appendix C.

GTA Regional Council Positions

Listed below are the current official positions of the GTA Regions of York, Durham, and Peel.

Region of York

Council Resolution of September 14, 2000.

(1) “Regional Council accept in principle the proposal from Rail Cycle North for the hauling and disposal of solid waste residual from the Solid Waste Processing and Transfer Facility, subject to satisfactory negotiations and legal due diligence;

(2) “Regional staff be authorized to negotiate with the City of Toronto, and the Regions of Peel and Durham, with respect to the allocation of waste tonnage and liabilities related to the Rail Cycle North proposal and financial reimbursement for the Adams Mine Site Landfill environmental approvals; (3) “Staff report back to the Solid Waste Strategy Committee at the conclusion of the negotiations.”

The foregoing recommendation was amended by adding an additional recommendation as follows:

“Staff be directed to investigate alternative diversion methods and report back in one year. In addition, the Region not enter into any disposal contracts that would preclude the use of any alternative diversion methods in the future.”

Region of Durham

Council Resolution of September 20, 2000

(a) “That the Region of Durham accept, in principle, a proposal from Rail Cycle North for a ‘no put or pay’ contract for the hauling and disposal of solid non hazardous residual municipal waste from Durham, subject to further negotiations to include the Region’s ability to pursue current diversion strategies such as energy from waste and as outlined in Joint Report #2000-J-13 of the Commissioners of Works and Finance;

(b) “That the Region of Durham undertake negotiations with Miller Waste Systems Inc. for the receiving and processing of residual municipal waste at their waste transfer stations located in Durham;

(c) “That the Region of Durham negotiate with the City of Toronto and the Regions of York and Peel for the allocation of waste tonnage and liabilities related to the Rail Cycle North proposal;

(d) “That the Region of Durham accept the offer from the City of Toronto to continue to use the Keele Valley Landfill Site for the disposal of residual municipal waste, until the landfill site is closed, at the current disposal rate of $45 per tonne;

(e) “That the Region of Durham continue to actively promote the benefits of waste diversion, as outlined in the Region’s ‘Long Term Waste Management Strategy Plan: 2000 to 2020’, through the annual ‘Solid Waste Management Servicing and Financing Studies’ by considering:

(1) the addition of more materials to the Blue Box recycling program, (2) the introduction of organic household food and yard waste composting programs, (3) the support of additional re-use programs, and (4) the expansion of waste diversion programs at Regional Waste Disposal Sites; and

(f) “That a copy of Joint Report #2000-J-13 of the Commissioners of Works and Finance, be forwarded to the City of Toronto and the Regions of York and Peel for their information.” Region of Peel.

Council Resolution of September 14, 2000.

“That Regional Council not endorse the Canadian Waste Services (CWS) Adams Mine Proposal until, among other things, that Regional Council is satisfied that the Adams Mine site will be engineered so that it is environmentally safe and will comply with all conditions required by the Certificate of Approval (C of A) issued under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990.”)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of the presentations submitted by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, headed “Parties and Obligations”, which are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (August 30, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report back on the feasibility of trading greenhouse gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) that are attributable to actions taken by the City of Toronto to reduce its corporate GHG emissions.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no new financial requirements for the implementation of this report provided that it is carried out using existing staff resources.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) In the absence of federal and/or provincial regulations on GHG emissions trading, the City of Toronto adopt the existing methodologies of the Pilot Emissions Reduction Trading (PERT) project as a guide to documenting and registering ERCs;

(2) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services (WES) in consultation with other effected departments, register and bank ERCs on an ongoing basis in a manner that will strategically position the City’s ERCs in the future;

(3) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with other effected departments be authorized to execute a demonstration trade not to exceed 5,000 tonnes of CO2 ERCs for its learning value and not to compromise the City’s goal of improving the environment, and that staff be authorized to proceed with such a trade; (4) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with other effected departments develop a Corporate Emissions Management and Trading Policy and report back to Works Committee; and

(5) The appropriate City officials are granted the authority to give effect thereto.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of April 16, 1998, adopted Clause No. 10 of Report No. 3 of the Works and Utilities Committee, and in so doing authorized the engagement of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to undertake the design of a Pilot Project for Carbon Emissions Trading.

City Council at its meeting of July 8, 1998, received for information, Clause No. 10 embodied in Report No. 6 of the Works and Utilities Committee, entitled “Strategic Action Plan to Reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions in the New City of Toronto”.

City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted Clause No. 15 embodied in Report No. 26 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled “Sustainable Energy, Greenspace/Nature and Water Actions”, and in so doing formally committed the new City of Toronto to a CO2 emission reduction goal of 20 percent relative to 1990 levels by the year 2005.

City Council at its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted with amendment Report No. 4 entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Trading from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated March 11, 1999. The adoption of this report authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to begin negotiations with interested buyers of ERCs to determine if a receptive market currently exists.

Comments:

(1) Introduction

The United Nations Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, at its third meeting held in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, gave final approval to the Kyoto Protocol. This Protocol is significant for the City because it establishes the basis for an international greenhouse gas trading system and a flexible means for nations to meet their CO2 reduction targets.

The Ontario Medical Association in its Illness Costs of Air Pollution Report (June 2000) estimated that premature deaths attributable to air pollution would be 1,900 this year. The report goes further to state that these deaths represent over $1 billion in direct costs to Ontario’s health-care system. NOx and SO2 are pollutants that have a direct impact on local air quality and have been targeted by the Province in its Strategic Attack on Air Pollution released in January 2000. A component of this strategy is a trading system for NOx and SO2 to be in place for 2001. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) is using the experience of PERT as it develops its trading rules. PERT has been a pilot project for developing protocols and trading rules for ERC trading in the absence of regulations.

(2) Conditions regarding Council Authority

As stated in the Background section, City Council at its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted with amendment Report No. 4 entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Trading from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated March 11, 1999. The amendment reads, “the principles proposed by ICLEI in its report to the City and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) dated November 24, 1998, be met in order for an emissions trade/sale to be entered into by the City”.

The eight principles for emissions trading in the ICLEI report entitled Design of a Carbon Emissions Pilot Trade for Toronto (July 1998) are:

(i) Honour Voluntary Caps (ii) Rigorously document additionality (iii) Promote Transparency (iv) Definition of appropriate measures (v) Maximize environmental co-benefits (vi) Ensure municipal compliance (vii) Community aggregation (viii) Historical credits are supplemental

(3) ICLEI Report

The ICLEI report described in 2 (above) has provided the framework for the City’s involvement in ERCs to date. This report rated three City projects highly for ERC registration because they meet the criteria of being real, verifiable and ownership was not in dispute. The three projects are:

(a) City-owned buildings (b) Street and Lane Lighting Retrofit (c) Landfill Gas

The report also stated that any ERCs should be scrutinized by an organization such as PERT since any potential buyers would be interested in third party verification. To this end, the City joined PERT in 1999 to learn about Emissions trading based on this pilot project. The City is also a member of Canada’s Voluntary Challenge Registry (VCR). The VCR maintains a registry of environmental initiatives and ERCs that support the concept of a transparent process. (4) Status Report on Three Candidate Projects

City staff have investigated the ERC potential of these projects based on the ICLEI report. After closer examination, the total number and value of these ERCs should be discounted to reflect ownership and eligibility issues. A description has been provided below:

(a) City-owned buildings

As a first step, the retrofit of Toronto City Hall (1998) was documented using the PERT guidelines and submitted for review in August 2000. The ERCs from this project are believed to have a higher value because they are based on actual metered electricity savings. After a technical review by a team comprised of members, the ERCs in the amount of 6,310 tonnes (two operating years) will be posted to the PERT registry. Prospective buyers would contact the City and negotiate a price as well as any other terms and conditions. At present, the former Ontario Hydro, now Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has been the largest purchaser of ERCs from PERT members and has been paying approximately $1/tonne for CO2 credits.

There are many other City-owned buildings that have been renovated and have reduced emissions that could be eligible for ERC registration.

(b) Street and Lane Lighting Retrofit

The former City of Toronto completed an extensive retrofit of its street and lane lighting in 1994. Nearly 30,000 lamps and luminaries were replaced with project funding provided by a Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) loan and Ontario Hydro grant. Verification of the energy savings used to calculate ERCs has been more difficult to obtain for this project than the City Hall project because street and lane lighting is not metered. WES staff are working on the calculation of reasonable estimates of the energy savings. The value of these calculated ERCs might be lower relative to credits based on metering data to reflect the risks and uncertainties of this method.

The ownership of these ERCs has been clarified somewhat in that staff from OPG’s Emissions Trading Unit have agreed with WES staff to a claim 1/8 of any revenues based on the grant for the project by Ontario Hydro.

The methane recovery operations at Toronto’s Keele Valley, Brock West and Beare landfills represent the largest single source for ERCs according to the ICLEI report. After closer examination, issues related to eligibility and ownership of the CO2 ERCs have complicated registration.

PERT recognizes eligible ERCs if they meet the definition of “surplus”. An "emission reduction is surplus if it is not otherwise required of a source by current regulations or other obligations eg. a voluntary commitment" (PERT). Under this definition, Brock West is ineligible for credit creation since a LFG collection system was required as part of the conditions of the Certificate of Approval. Keele Valley was also required to install a LFG collection system under its Certificate of Approval and therefore not eligible to claim ERCs. Of the three landfill site gas recovery operations, Beare Road is the only one eligible for credit creation. At this location, the former Metro installed a LFG system without any legal requirement to do so.

PERT recognizes capital investment for a project, ownership of the asset as well as any contractual agreements to assist members in determining ownership of ERCs. As of this date, the ownership issue of potential ERCs at Beare Road has not been resolved.

(5) Environmental Concerns of Emissions Trading

Various stakeholders in their review and analysis of emissions trading with respect to GHG and air pollutants such as to NOx and SO2 have identified questions or concerns about the ability of emissions trading to reduce air emissions and improve air quality. These concerns point to the fact that emissions trading cannot necessarily guarantee overall emissions reductions and that emissions could increase if adequate conditions or rules are not applied and enforced. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) in its report entitled Pollution Loopholes (February 2000) has recommended specific caps and rigorous conditions with respect to emissions trading. The Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation have reviewed emissions trading for GHG as a market-driven solution under the appropriate conditions. Toronto Public Health in a report to the Board of Health dated March 23, 2000 reviewed a provincial proposal for emissions trading for NOx and SO2. The report indicated that emissions trading can be a useful tool for reducing air emissions if the trading system is properly designed, and if it is connected to health protective air emission caps that will force reductions in total air emissions.

(6) Current Market Conditions for Emissions Trading

There are two emerging markets for ERCs that are of importance to the City of Toronto. The first is being led by the Provincial Government for NOx and SO2 and is based to some extent on the PERT pilot project. The release of the final draft regulation is imminent and will be circulated to a broad range of stakeholders for comment. The second emerging market is for CO2 that is being developed at the international and federal levels. PERT acts as a clearing house for its members on all of these pollutants.

Trades are occurring for each of these pollutants even in the absence of regulations. Buyers and sellers are negotiating and completing transactions on speculation that these ERCs will be worth more when regulations are developed. Equally important to speculators is the anticipation that these ERCs will be eligible for use in meeting their pollution reduction targets.

It is reasonable to expect that ERCs from the City of Toronto could be sold in today’s speculative market. City staff have been in preliminary discussions with prospective buyers of ERCs attributable to the City of Toronto and have undertaken ongoing research in this area. (7) Emissions Trading Eligibility

The following section reviews the City’s eligibility to trade any or all of the 6,310 tonnes of ERCS resulting from the City Hall Retrofit project.

The City has not yet achieved its voluntary target of a 20% reduction in CO2 and therefore does not meet the first principle outlined in the ICLEI report. Under this principle it is unlikely that the City will be able to register any of the ERCs developed from the three candidate projects described in section 4 in the near future. This limits the City’s ability to demonstrate measurable results from its candidate projects and influence other emissions trading stakeholders through its participation in PERT and other relevant provincial and federal processes. Staff are therefore recommending that the City proceed with the registration of ERCs at PERT as an interim measure in the absence of current regulation.

ERCs resulting from the City Hall retrofit have been rigorously documented using PERT methods and conventions. Any and all information related to these ERCs will be made available for public scrutiny. The City recognizes that NOx and SO2 are also being reduced as a result of this project but did not claim any of these ERCs in this creation report since Council Authority was specific to CO2. The Facilities and Real Estate Department through a performance contract with Tescor Energy continues to monitor and verify the energy savings on a monthly basis. The actions described above meet principles two through six which are: rigorously document additionality, promote transparency, definition of appropriate measures, maximize environmental co-benefits and ensure municipal compliance.

The last two principles refer to the use of any potential revenues derived from the sale of ERCs and do not apply at this time. A strategic re-investment plan to support the City's sustainability goals should be part of a Corporate Emissions Management and Trading Policy.

In addition to the eight principles described above, City Council went one step further to state that, "The trading of greenhouse gas emissions should not compromise the City’s goals of improving the local environment, particularly air quality. The potential purchaser of Toronto's greenhouse gas credit shall be required to ensure that this transaction in no way facilitates the increase of emissions, or ambient concentrations, of other air pollutants in the Toronto airshed. In the absence of a regulatory cap, the City of Toronto will only trade with parties that have a voluntary cap on greenhouse gas emissions”.

These are very rigorous conditions for a potential trade and are not the current practice of PERT members in their contract language for trading. However, these conditions reflect important environmental principles and should be considered in the development of a Corporate Emissions Management and Trading Policy. Emissions trading rules are being developed for Ontario that will be available for public consultation in the near future. The final version of these rules adopted by the Province will be legally binding and substantially influenced by the provincial experience at PERT. Beginning to develop a Corporate Emissions Management and Trading Policy should enable the City to more effectively address the anticipated Provincial legislation and reflect the environmental principles that have been approved by Council. This policy should consider relevant emissions contributing to climate change and urban smog, reflect the experience of a potential trade and include the implications of proposed provincial emissions trading legislation and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

In order to obtain experience with the trading process, it is recommended that authorization be given for a small demonstration trade not to exceed 5,000 tonnes for the learning value of this procedure.

Conclusions:

(1) Provincial legislation for emissions trading in NOx and SO2 is likely to be enacted in 2001. An international trading mechanism for CO2 is being developed under the Kyoto Protocol;

(2) A receptive market for emissions trading exists with limited ground rules due to the lack of local and international legislation. Emissions trading is being driven by industry and is occurring even in the absence of a regulated market;

(3) The ICLEI report was a valuable resource for City staff. The report is now more than two years old and some of the original findings with respect to credit eligibility no longer apply;

(4) The City's participation in PERT has been informative. In the absence of regulations or legislation, the protocols and methodologies developed by this organization can be a useful guide when documenting and registering ERCs;

(5) The City has not yet achieved its voluntary target of a 20% reduction in CO2. However, the adoption of this target should not limit the opportunities for the Corporation with respect to an emerging marketplace for emissions trading;

(6) The City should register, bank and then execute a small demonstration trade not to exceed 5,000 tonnes resulting from the retrofit of Toronto City Hall.

(7) A Corporate Emissions Management and Trading Policy developed through an interdepartmental process will be a valuable resource for the Corporation when provincial and federal regulations come into effect.

Contact:

John Warren Director, Environmental Services Tel: 397-4625 Fax: 392-6279 Email: [email protected] Drew Shintani Policy and Research Analyst Tel: 392-5277 Fax: 392-9317 Email: [email protected])

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (October 10, 2000) from Councillor Norman Gardner, North York Centre:

I have been supportive of the Adams Mine proposal, not because I want to see Toronto’s waste go to Kirkland Lake, but because after 14 years of dealing with this subject and the “willing host accept, it is time to make a decision”.

Several hydro-geologists have endorsed the proposal as being environmentally sound and the site has been described as the “Ultimate Landfill Site”.

Although we have had to deal with a great deal of misinformation from the Adams Mine opponents, the economic aspect of this proposal seems to have been dismissed.

The costs of rail haul to Kirkland Lake has been estimated to be in the area of $1 billion while rail haul to Michigan is 20% more and would require 250 trailer transports daily.

Do we really want to see the $1 billion spent in Canada or $1,200,000,000 spent in the U.S.? What are the implications on jobs and taxes or any potential negative effect on the Canadian dollar?

If one can believe that the project is environmentally sound, then why would we want to expend all this money outside the country when by supporting staff recommendations, the local taxpayers (our constituents) and the Canadian economy will benefit.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications with respect to the Adams Mine Landfill proposal:

- (September 9, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (September 9, 2000) from Ms. Judi Sproat, Corbeil, Ontario; - (September 11, 2000) from Mr. George Allard, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (September 11, 2000) from Elsie and Tom O’Hare, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (September 12, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (September 14, 2000) from Mr. James Oak, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 15, 2000) from Councillor Saundercook submitting a speech by Dr. Joseph Gold; - (September 15, 2000) from the Clerk, The Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh; - (September 15, 2000) from the Regional Clerk, York Region; - (September 16, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (September 20, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham, Englehart, Ontario; - (September 20, 2000) from Mr. Dave Daunter, Marmora, Ontario; - (September 22, 2000) from Ms. Marion McKnight, Englehart, Ontario; - (September 26, 2000) from Ms. Helen Hanson and Mr. Robert Hansen, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 29, 2000) from Mr. Steven Poulos; - (September 29, 2000) from Mr. John Monaghan; - (October 2, 2000) from Ms. Helen Riley, Toronto, Ontario; - (October 2, 2000) from Mr. Jeffrey Stutz, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 17, 2000) from Ms. Geraldine Lothian, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (September 17, 2000) from Rev. Michael Shute, Englehart Ratepayers for Good Government; - (September 18, 2000) from Ms. Krysta Terry, London, Ontario; - (September 18, 2000) from Ms. Joanna Twitchin, Co-President, Thistletown Ratepayers Association; - (September 18, 2000) from Ms. Carroll Nichols, Vice-President, Ontario Coalition, 4R; - (September 19, 2000) from Mr. Don Johnston; - (September 19, 2000) from Ms. Lorraine Irvine; - (September 22, 2000) from Mr. Lloyd Males, Timiskaming, Ontario; - (September 22, 2000) from Brennain Lloyd; - (September 22, 2000) from Ms. Anne E. Monaco, Municipality of Halifax; - (September 24, 2000) from Ms. Patricia McRaild, Guelph, Ontario; - (September 25, 2000) from Mr. Tim Ferguson, Toronto, Ontario; - (undated) from Ms. Beverley Lokash, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 18, 2000) from Mr. Hugh Reynolds, Secretary, Temiskaming Environmental Action Committee; - (September 26, 2000) from Ms. Anne Hansen and Mr. Robert Hansen, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 26, 2000) from Terry Graves; - (September 26, 2000) from Ms. Vera Top, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 26, 2000) signed by 5 Members of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Kirkland Lake; - (September 27, 2000) from Lois James; - (September 27, 2000) from T.K. Knox, Marter Township, Ontario; - (September 27, 2000) from Mr. Pierre Belanger; - (September 27, 2000) from Ambrose Raftis; - (September 28, 2000) from Mr. John Pursel, Wasaga Beach, Ontario; - (September 28, 2000) from Ms. Julie McGregor; - (September 28, 2000) from Mr. Tevor Griffin; - (September 29, 2000) from Mr. Brennain Lloyd; - (September 29, 2000) from Mr. Jim Roche; - (undated) from Mr. Jack Siemon, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - two communications submitted by Councillor Saundercook in opposition to the Adams Mine Landfill proposal; - (September 27, 2000) from Ms. Helen Hansen; Toronto, Ontario - (September 29, 2000) from Ms. Mary Brennan, Director of Council Services/Clerk, Corporation of the County of Essex; - (September 30, 2000) from Mr. John Powell and Ms. Dianne Powell, Toronto; Ontario; - (October 1, 2000) from Ms. Lorraine Irvine, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (October 1, 2000) from Ms. Sue Wozny, Englehart, Ontario; - (October 2, 2000) from Aurelia Bertocchi; Maple, Ontario; - (October 2, 2000) from Mr. Thomas Knox, Marter Township, Ontario; - (October 2 2000) from Ms. Barbara Bukowski, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (October 2, 2000) from Mr. Andrew Tarc, President, CCLAR Enviro-Clad Systems; - (October 2, 2000) from Mr. Norman Kelly; - (October 2, 2000) from Ms. JoAnne Critchley Browne; - (October 4, 2000) from Mr. Ron McCracken; - (September 30, 2000) from Dr. Larry Jensen; - (October 2, 2000) from Helene and Don Bonnah; - (October 3, 2000) from Ms Kathryn Scharf; - (October 3, 2000) from Mr. Richard Underhill; - (October 3, 2000) from Mr. Matthew Hammond; - (October 3, 2000) from Ms. Rhonda Hustler; - (October 3, 2000) from Mike and Margaret McClelland; - (October 3, 2000) from Mr. Jeffrey W. Wood; - (October 1, 2000) from Dr. Richard Denton, Kirkland Lake, Ontario; - (September 29, 2000) from Ms. Kirsten Young, Clerk, The Corporation of The Township of Plummer Additional; - (September 22, 2000) from Ms. Monique Ouelett, CAO-Clerk, Corporation of the Township – Canton Dubreuilville, Ontario; - (September 14, 2000) from Ms. Laurie A. Witherspoon A.M.C.T, Clerk-Treasurer, Township of La Vallee, Devlin, Ontario; - (September 21, 2000) from Mrs. Linda Ringler A.M.C.T, Clerk-Treasurer, Corporation of the Township of Chisholm, Ontario; - (September 27, 2000) from Mr. Jarvis W. Osborne, Clerk-Treasurer, Village of Burk’s Falls, Ontario; - (September 29, 2000) from Mr. Frank R. Mazzuca, Chair, Regional Municipality of Sudbury, Ontario; - (October 4, 2000) from Mr. L.R.L. (Ric) Symmes, Executive Director, Federation of Ontario Naturalists; - (October 4, 2000) from Mr. Gregor Beck, Director, Conservation and Science, Federation of Ontario Naturalists; - (October 2, 2000) from Ms. Diane Dyer; - (October 3, 2000) from Mr. Bharat (Brad) Aggarwal P.Eng., President & CEO, Global Engineering Services Ltd., Toronto Ontario; - (October 6, 2000) from A. Besson, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 22, 2000) from Mr. Paul Dewaele, M.Sc., P.Eng., Principal, Dixon Hydrogeology Limited, submitted by Councillor King; - (October 6, 2000) from H. Ledger, Toronto, Ontario; - (September 28, 2000) from Mr. John Higham, Senior Environmental Advisor, Environment and Natural Resources DIAND Ontario Region,, submitted by Councillor Chow; - (October 9, 2000) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick and Ms. Janice Etter; - (October 9, 2000) from Ms. Constance Gray; - (October 9, 2000) from Ms. Yvette Navoiz; - (October 4, 2000) from Ms. Shel Goldstein; - (October 9, 2000) from Zenobia Homavazir, Student, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University; - (October 10, 2000) from Mr. Tim Thompson; - (October 10, 2000) from Mr. Richard H. Boehnke; - (October 10, 2000) from Mr. Michael Lucid, Rexdale President; - (October 9, 2000) from Mr. Bing Kwan, a concerned citizen; - (October 9, 2000) from H. Lindgren; - (October 9, 2000) from Mr. Mike Delarmee; - (October 9, 2000) from Ms. Mary Ann Thompson; - (October 9, 2000) from Mr. John Pursel; - (October 6, 2000) from Ms. Shel Goldstein; - (September 27, 2000) from Mr. Gordon J. Ham; - (October 3, 2000) from Ms. Ruth Grant, Chair, Environment Committee, TO-2008 and the former Vice-Chair, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, circulated at the request of Councillor Adams; - (September 17, 2000) from Dr. Juri Pill, Enwave District Energy, circulated at the request of Councillor Layton; - (undated) from Ms. Heidi Kreiner-Ley, Vaughan Care; - (September 28, 2000) from Mr. John Higham, Senior Environmental Advisor, Environment & Natural Resources, DIAND Ontario Region; - petition containing 12,595 signatures with respect to the Adams Mine Landfill, filed by Councillors Chow, Rae and Layton; - petition containing 57 signatures with respect to the Adams Mine Landfill, filed by the Toronto Seniors Council; - (October 4, 2000) from G.A. Wilkki, P. Eng., Acting Commissioner of Council Services and City Clerk, the City of Windsor; - (October 4, 2000) from Chikako Nagayama and Andrew Roy, Toronto submitting a petition signed by 26 concerned citizens; - (October 5, 2000) from Howard Phillips, B.A., DD.S., F.R.C.D.(C), C.I.C.D.; - (October 5, 2000) from Margaret Musceo, Front Desk Manager, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons; - (October 3, 2000) from Dan Wunsch; - (October 3, 2000) from Anne Hansen; - (October 4, 2000) from Norman Taylor; - (October 4, 2000) from Grant Tunnicliffe; - (October 4, 2000) from Lorraine Montague; - (October 4, 2000) from Judi Sproat; - (October 4, 2000) from Peter Jellard; - (Undated) from Caryn Colman; - (October 4, 2000) from Mary Ann Thompson; - (October 4, 2000) from Sharon Ho; and - (October 4, 2000) from Shel Goldstein. - (September 13, 2000) from V.A. Silgailis, P. Eng., Commissioner of Works and R.J. Clapp, C.A., Commissioner of Finance, Regional Municipality of Durham; and - (October 5, 2000) from Heidi Kreiner-Ley, Vaughan Cares.)