STAGE ONE (DRAFT) Planning Document
Stakeholder Meeting on additional issues

Works & Emergency Services

"SWM-MEP" Stakeholder Meeting
Metro Hall, Room 308
February 25, 1999

Draft Meeting Notes/Issues List

Attendance:

Meeting Format

Presentations were given outlining the some additional issues that the City project team was seeking feedback on before proceeding with the project. These issues included the introduction of third party haulers for disposal contracts, as well as muncicipal participation on the hauling component. There were also presentations regarding tonnage quantities and contract timeframes, the city as a preferred customer and/or revenue sharing opportunities, and contracting for IC&I waste only.

After the presentations, a question and answer session took place where a number of concerns were raised by stakeholders. It should be noted that the group largely represented disposal interests.

Questions/Concerns/Issues Raised

The issues raised have been categorized in order to facilitate responses.

Quantity and Time Frames

• Proponents have to secure specific approvals regarding tonnages/year and must adhere to Certificates of Approval. It is very difficult to do so if Toronto retains the right to specify the tonnages. This doesnt allow planning at the micro level.
• Will the bidders know how the decisions are made and how they scored in the process?
• The 20-year tonnage curve graph for waste diversion in the City is not realistic. The surrounding municipalities have straight line graphs. Even the slow population growth in Toronto does not justify these diversion rates because it is based on a projections rather than experience and statistics. How have the tonnage curves changed from past presentations?
• The process as described in the past, involved tonnage and price together. In the current discussion, a companys competitive position regarding tonnages available will be known.

Haulage

• The City is duplicating the effort of proponents who expect to go through their own RFP process to secure competitively price hauling, directly related to their disposal proposal. This will hold up the process. This change is also seen as a fundamental change in the process.
• The transfer station locations and garbage centroids should be specified in the document.
• The haulage proposal is a very positive one for the haulage industry. The City should be flexible in the haulage terms and make options available to haulers.
• A rail based proposal will involve special containers. This will necessitate that a transport component be an integral part of the bid. In this case, a separate haul component is not acceptable.
• The rail based proposal will keep cost down. It is not possible to involve multiple haulers going through the CN rail yard.
• The condition of using current levels of city labour in the haulage component is generally acceptable.
• Is the City willing to upgrade existing transfer station facilities to accommodate newer trucks?
• What will happen if the assets of one hauler arent compatible with the disposal technology?
• By de-linking the haulage and disposal component, disposal companies do not have the ability to form a partnership with a hauler. The bidders should have control of the whole process. If not, how will the macro environmental effects be evaluated?
• Will a company be disqualified from the bidding process if it does not have a separate disposal only bid?

Preferred Customer

• The City as a "preferred customer" condition is too prescriptive. It limits industry creativity. Some industry may not bid if this condition is included.
• The requirement is financially unfeasible.
• This clause discriminates against greenfield sites.
• The City should state their objectives, and allow the disposal companies to be more creative in deciding how the job will be done. There should be an opportunity for proponents to present profit sharing ideas.
• This condition would create difficulties for smaller municipalities in terms of getting a low rate from disposal companies.
• On what basis will the "best price" be determined? If there are volume differentials between the City and other customers where other customers bring larger volumes, it is unfair to expect the lowest price for the City.
• This clause will cause chaos with respect to existing contractual arrangements.
• Bidders cannot finance a plan with this condition. It is not reasonable and not fair to have future readjustment of price downward after contract already signed.
• The preferred customer clause is unnecessary. The City should satisfy itself that it is receiving a competitive price.
• Margins are going to be shaved in order to submit the most competitive price. How can the city deny a proponent the opportunity to make revenues elsewhere?

Contracting for ICI Waste only

• It would be difficult for the City to segregate IC&I from household waste at the transfer stations.
• The City does not control IC&I volume, so how can it be contracted for?
• The City should not compete with disposal companies for IC&I waste.
• A caution was raised, as contractors will demand put or pay provisions.

Anti-lobbying Ban

• Iindustry should reserve the right to correct any misinformation in the media and/or with Councillors. The anti-lobby ban should be introduced at the RFP stage when the firms are short-listed, not the EOI stage.
• Will the anti-lobbying ban apply in the partner GTA regions?
• It is unfair that proponents can not lobby, but special interest groups can.

General Comments

• The public and industry would like to see the draft report before it goes to Works and Utilities Committee on Mar 24, 1999.
• This process is becoming more like a tender process than a request for expressions of interest. The process is not as open ended as it was when the draft planning document was released.
• The growing complexity of the process makes it very uninviting.
• Before proponents submit proposals, there needs to be a clear understanding of how proposals will be evaluated.
• The project timelines are very tight.
• Will all waste be going through City transfer stations or is there flexibility to use private transfer stations?