STAGE ONE (DRAFT) Planning Document
Industry Meeting #2

Works & Emergency Services

"SWM-MEP "
Industry Meeting #2
Metro Hall, Room 308
January 7, 1999

Draft Meeting Record/Issues List

Attendance:

Meeting Format

Presentations were given outlining the project background, key contents of the draft planning document, and the consultation and communications program. After the presentations, two question and answer sessions took place where a number of concerns were raised by industry members. One group represented disposal interests, the other focussed on diversion and new and emerging technologies.

Process-Related Comments

• Explain the renegotiation of contracts every five years.
• On January 22, 1999, the Greater Toronto Services Board may take over this process. How is this potential being addressed?
• City must commit to certain tonnages if it wants a long-term disposal solution.
• The definition of waste is missing in the document.
• A company should be awarded the entire waste management contract. This would ensure a partnership between disposal and diversion. Responsibility over the whole waste stream would force disposal companies to meet the recycling targets. The City has an obligation to divert 50% of the entire waste stream, including IC&I waste.
• Will the REOI and the RFQ be in the same proposal call, to be delivered at the same time?
• Everyone should be applying for 20 year bids, otherwise council may only look at 5 year term options. This would be another short term solutions.
• 5-year contracts are not a very good way to run a city of this size. What happened to long range planning?
• Why are other GTA municipalities waste not included in the secure part of the graph? It is given the same insecure status as failed diversion.

REOI/RFP Criteria Comments

• Toronto has taken great pains to ensure a level playing field. The proposal presented by D. Merriman will necessitate comparing apples and oranges. How is Toronto going to evaluate dissimilar proposals? This proposal means the first stage will be a fishing expedition. Will the rules for the RFP be more explicit?
• When considering GTA municipal participation in this process, how many RFPs will there be? Will York have a different RFP process?
• Will financial requirements apply to all bidders, public and private? It should be the same for all bidders.
• Municipal government insurers are questioning the financial securities being requested.
• In the two envelope system the lowest price always wins. Minimum environmental requirements need to be clearly defined.
• Meaningful environmental criteria are needed.
• There has been a great deal of focus on environmental impacts, yet the benefits of one site over many sites are being overlooked. Multiple sites will have greater transportation impacts, and more impacted communities. Why are environmental and social impacts being overlooked?
• In the Citys biosolids project bids, environmental components were not accounted for in the evaluation criteria. Environmentally conscious operations cost more money and will ensure that the lowest price wins if this is not a part of the evaluation criteria.
• Where are the environmental criterion? Environmental components should weigh as much as price. Toronto must show leadership, and take the guess work out and specify what environmental aspects must be accounted for. Define environmental criteria.
• The proposal presented at this meeting to combine the REOI with an information seeking process is not a good business practice. It was suggested that the REOI be delayed by two months to collect this information, without delaying the RFP. In this two months, more consultation with industry should take place, Council direction should be sought and a clear direction should be determined.
• There is some discomfort in revealing site locations at the REOI stage.

Diversion-Related Issues

• Low cost of disposal will encourage not meeting diversion targets.

Other Comments

• Toronto seems to be rewarding disposal, but not recycling.
• R. Gilbert requested a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding that has been developed between the potential GTA participants. It is to be added to the website.
• How is the City dealing with the increasing amount of hazardous waste in the garbage?
• Waste is a valuable resource which the City needs to deal with in a responsible manner.

Questions/ Concerns Raised - Diversion Group

There were four participants in this group. The following concerns/issues were raised.

• Concern was expressed that the City will not receive any bids for diversion because it is impossible for diversion companies to compete with large sized disposal companies. This process assumes that there are two trading arenas, one for disposal and one for diversion. Should allow for disposal and diversion companies to form partnerships and offer proposals to meet both disposal and diversion requirements
• Industrial waste is not included in the diversion category.
• Must provide disposal companies an incentive to divert. This should be done by building flexibility into the pricing.
• Policy Principle #1 does not appear to be adhered to.
• Diversion targets must apply to both residential and ICI wastes.
• Provide an opportunity for new and emerging technologies to make use of city owned property .
• Depending on successfulness, allow for an increase in the tonnages for new and emerging technologies over a time period.
• Provide for shorter time frame in evaluation of new and emerging technologies.
• Household hazardous waste (HHW) has not been included despite capabilities within the private sector to handle its diversion.
• There is no incentive for the diversion of materials other than disposal cost avoidance (i.e. material bans).
• Must provide a waste characterization by sector.
• Page 52, definition of waste diversion - should include "not thermal or high temperature". This will not allow for incineration to be included as diversion.
• Page 52, definition of waste diversion - should read "mixed and/or source separated".
• It appears that many of the companies in the diversion industry are not participating or are unaware of this process.