July 14, 2004 Report – Part 2

6. STAFF PRESENTATIONS

Mayor DiIanni : "Members of Council, you have before you Item 6.1 - a presentation respecting the Award of Contract # C11-105-03 - Design, Construction and Operation of the Materials Recycling Facility and Central Composting Facility. I'd like to call on Beth Goodger . . . while Beth is getting herself set up, there is some additional information coming forward and then we'll deal with the report."

6.1 Award of Contract No. C11-105-03 - Design, Construction and Operation of Materials Recycling Facility and Central Composting Facility - (PW04076/FCS04097) - (City Wide)
See Staff Report on City's website:
(http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
committee-of-the-whole/2004/Jun30s/PW04076-FCS04097.pdf)

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "First of all, I'd like to thank Members of Council for their diligence in gathering more information about this very detailed report that you have before you, as Item 6.1 on the agenda. We understand that it's been a very difficult process to try and get as much information about very important decisions in implementing the City's Solid Waste Management Master Plan. What I'd like to cover today is the review of the process to date where we've been in the last couple of weeks since the report was Tabled on June 30th [2004]; cover some of the comments and input that we've received; remind you about the key dates - that we have been moving forward and reaching 65% diversion and implementation for January 1, 2006; and also a recap of the report and what our conclusions are based on the . . ." (didn't hear the word used) "Just wanted to remind that this is all part of an integrated waste management system and we're making decisions with this report on the processing ability and this will be key in us reaching our target of 65% diversion by 2008. As far as the process to date, we've completed the evaluation process and we went over that . . . on the 30 th . We've looked at alternative options. We presented our findings in a report on June 30 th , which was Tabled at that time. We undertook some consultations with the Waste Reduction Task Force on July 7 th and this was the Committee's first meeting to review the report, so they were unable to come up with at resolution or a recommendation coming out of their discussion, given the short timeframe and given the fact that they didn't have the report beforehand to review. We undertook further consultation with the Steering Committee on July 8 th and further to the direction on June 30 th , we undertook notices of the public consultation process and ads were placed in the Hamilton Spectator on Wednesday, July 7 th and Friday, July 9 th . We undertook Councillor information sessions on July 12 th and also heard special delegations at the Special Committee of the Whole meeting on the 12 th . In terms of the input that we received, you heard from delegations and the Chair of the Waste Reduction Task Force speak and from that public input, it was clear that there's was a preference to see both facilities built and certainly maintain the focus on 65% diversion that's set out in the Master Plan. From the Report, it is also clear that building both facilities is unaffordable at this time and with Recommendation (b) in the Report, options can be explored that will achieve 65% diversion. We did discuss some option that could reduce, could reach 60% diversion, but it would be possible to limit the options we look at to 65% diversion. Although we feel that it isn't necessary to amend the Recommendation (b) at this time because of the intent and direction set out in the Solid Waste Management Master Plan. We heard on Monday a delegation from Waste Management of Canada requesting that we defer a decision until Ward project (a) for the MRF" (Materials Recycling Facility) "and look at alternative funding options with Waste Management. We found that the RFP" (Request for Proposal) "did allow the proponents the opportunity to make alternative submissions, at the time that they were making the proposals and Waste Management didn't submit anything at that time. Therefore, on that basis, the report recommendation not to proceed with project (a) continues to remain unchanged. We also heard from Halton Recycling Limited and the delegation before the recommendation (b) looking at alternative options and asked that private sector alternatives also be explored under this option, as the company has also submitted an unsolicited proposal. Certainly, within the wording of Recommendation (b), it would leave enough flexibility to consider these alternative options because they include but not limited to and we are able to entertain that option, subject to approval of that recommendation. Just wanted to point out, that with this approach that the City wouldn't have ownership of the facility if this option was eventually selected. And, there is provisions and direction under the Master Plan Policy of recommendation # 15 that identifies that we should be entering into partnerships with caution and we have to maintain control of this facility so that the service is still being provided, regardless of what happens with our private-sector partner if the become unwilling or unable to fulfil their obligations. Regarding the unsolicited proposal, we would review our ability to consider that under our purchasing policy and report back. You also heard some delegations from integrated and municipal services and several of their partners and you've received a further letter from Herhof Canada regarding the IMS proposal" (Integrated Municipal Services) "and requesting that we float our comments around as the odor management systems and the Herhof letter request that we defer a decision. Want to point out that Herhof is a sub-contractor and IMS is the proponent in this case and we are very comfortable with the wording that's set out in the Report that indicates the IMS proposal rather than pointing out specific sub-contractors. We will be, we are able to provide additional details on the evaluation process or on the actual proposals In Camera if there's a desire to see that. It's not appropriate to divulge specific details about the proposals to protect the companies' confidentiality in these submissions. But, we will be prepared today, to talk in general terms about our evaluation process to show you that we have utmost confidence in the process that we've used to recommend Maple Reinders. The proposal from IMS was certainly evaluated in accordance with the criteria that we set out in the RFP document and we are confident that the proposal from Maple Reinders best met the requirements set out in the RFP. Based on the questioning of IMS of our process, we thought it would be informative for Committee to hear how our evaluation occurred and the process that we followed. And, the evaluation process was set out in the RFP documents and was very explicit so all the proponents understood what they were bidding on for both the recycling facility and the composting facility. The Solid Waste Management Master Plan set out the requirements of what we were looking for in the RFP document - and looking for proven design and technology; a reputable contractor that would do the construction; a reliable operator; environmental considerations were absolutely critical; and public education and outreach and having a showcase facility were encapsulated in the RFP specifications. Our methodology involved . . . an 8-member team . . . and the evaluation team took a consensus-based decision-making process. We all reviewed the proposals independently and then met as a team to review the proposals and discuss them and rate them according to the rating system that we will go through in a second. And, it is a multidisciplinary team, so we had a wide range of perspectives which included both technical and financial. We also had external help and expertise in the process. As I mentioned, the evaluation criteria were set out in the RFP document and this is also listed in appendix 'C' of the staff report. And, basically, proponents could earn up to 110 points through the evaluation process. Their technical proposal submission could earn up to 60 points. We introduce risk evaluation where proponents could lose up to 20 points based on the element of risk that they may have introduced into their proposal in terms of cost or environmental considerations. We also evaluated the proposals, the proponents in an interview process. Once we've evaluated them and at that time, they were able to demonstrate how the proposal that they submitted, and we undertook an extensive financial evaluation, which we'll go over in general terms this morning, as well. In terms of the technical evaluation, 60 points was further broken down in the RFP document to outline how you could earn the 60 points. Firstly, we evaluated on the processing technology capability and then ability for this technology to meet Hamilton's requirements over the next 15 years. The proponents had to outline an operating plan to indicate how they were going to operate the facility. They had to tell us about their schedule and design process and how they were going to meet the January 1 st , 2006 start-up date. They had to tell us about their management capabilities, and how the team was going to be brought together to deliver the objectives of the RFP. And, we also rated on proposal quality. I'm going to turn things over to David Trevisani who was responsible for leading the Financial Evaluation to tell you about how that process works."

David Trevisani (RFP-Financial Evaluation - Recycle/Compost Facilities contract) : "As Beth has pointed out . . . 40 points were allocated for the financial aspect. And, as identified in the RFP, it was going to be based on the Net present value and it was clearly identified as to how that would be done, in the RFP. We stared out with asking the proponents, obviously, what the capital cost would be for the facilities that were being built. So, they were provided and as well, we asked them for the operating costs - as this is a 15-year contract - we also asked them for operating costs based on diversion tonnages that we as well provided within the RFP document. That information was then used in the calculation of their capital and operating costs over the 15 years. And a discount rate was applied in order to calculate the Net Present Value." (NPV) "As well, within the RFP, it's clearly indicated that the operating cost per unit of tons will be adjusted annually by inflation. So, that was also layered on as a cost in calculating the Net Present Value. Thirdly, as we went through the RFP submissions, there were additional costs that the various proponents identified that would be the responsibility of the City, so they as well being identified were included in the total calculation. So, that give you a broad overview. What I'd like to do now, is walk you through the actual templates we used, but I've used some sample information in order to maintain the confidentiality requirements of the proponents. So, this first template is, identifies how we captured the costs for the actual capital asset. We've identified Site-Works, the Building, the Equipment, and the Rolling Stock and each proponent were required to identify that information to us. We . . . were also looking at the possibility of building either a One-lane [Weigh] Scale or Two-lane Weigh Scale and a Bag Breaker because we hadn't decided at that time what, we were going to go with. So, that was asked for, as well. So, that identified the building costs, and as you know, this building is expected to be built in the next year - so it has to be done by December 31 st [2005?] which will be relevant in the next slide. . . . This is an example of the template used in capturing the Unit Cost per Ton that we asked the proponents to provide. We provided to them our annual tonnage diversion factors would be. We also asked them to give us a rate based on those ranges as to what they would charge us. Again, these are sample rates to manage the confidentiality issues. Both proponents submitted an Aerobic type systems, so that's why you see the Anaerobic column being blank. And this information was then . . . used to calculate the total cost, which is the next slide. This just gives you a very brief 5-year, 7-year example of what our template would have looked like. Obviously, we would have gone to the end of the term of the contract. You can see the first 2 years are just reflective of the capital costs, because that's when we expect when the cash flow would result in. And then, the remaining 5 years are, that you see here, are in relationship to the unit costs based on the tonnage diversions that we expect to process because the contract is based on the tonnages that they will process each year and these tonnages were our estimated tonnages that we were going to achieve in those years to meet our 65% diversion rate. As you can see, under the 4 th column under Aerobic Rate their, the rates that they provided us were adjusted for inflation, as I indicated the contract allows for inflationary adjustments based on specific indecies over the term of the contract. In this case, we used an inflation factor of 2.5% which was applied consistently to all of the proponents. That information was then used to calculate our cash flows, and as I indicated earlier, there were additional costs that each proponent had identified that would be required to maintain the facility, as an example; maintain the rolling stock is another example; maintain the site, the landscaping and what-have-you. So, those, based on the proponent's submissions were identified - again, these are just samples, example for Committee's purpose. From that we calculated the total cash flow. As you can see, under Total Cost, before adjustments for additional cost, that the City would be incurred, in this case it's $1.89 million and after we adjust it for the additional costs identified by the proponents, it was $1.9 million and just below those, you'll see that the Net Present Value factor was calculated, the Net Present Value simply allows us to use the discount rate, which is essentially the cost of capital for the City in order that we can compare cash flows on a consistent apple-to-apply type basis. And, simply using inflationary factors based on our discount rate. And, again I've only used a sample of rating here of 5%. So, that gives you an idea as to how we calculated the Net Present Value and based on the results of those calculations, we were able to rank our proponents . . . the next slide will show you information that Committee has seen before. This is only showing the CCF evaluation, as a consequence of the calculations as I've walked you through them, these are the end results and Maple Reinders ended up at $50.74 million, Net Present Value and Integrated Management Municipal Services Inc. was $56.1 [million] and that's how we identified their financial standing."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Moving along in terms of the Capital Budget, there were some questions raised about why there were some other increases in the Waste Management Division Capital Budget and those largely centre around the Review of the Millenium Fund projects that were identified earlier this year: the Community Recycling Centre" (CRC) "for decommissioning and the closed landfill sites. And, there's also information on the other Capital Projects and Waste Management in Item 7.2 on today's agenda regarding the Capital Budget Variance Report. So, you can have a look at that information and if we continue to review our cost estimates as the projects are developed and evolved, and we've had some discussions with the Solid Waste Management Master Plan Steering Committee about looking at alternative options for the CRCs to reduce costs there and certainly we will be reporting back on the SWARU Decommissioning as that project proceeds to see if there are any opportunities for cost savings that could be helpful to the overall budget process. I also wanted to mention the Niagara-Hamilton WastePlan, this was mentioned in the June 30 th Report and referred to Energy from Waste" (EFW) "and we'll be updating our budget information to make sure it refers to WastePlan. Energy From Waste will be one of the alternatives that we're exploring as part of the Environmental Assessment process that we're under-taking with Niagara and just as an update on that, the EA" (Environment Assessment) "Terms of reference will be brought forward to both Councils for approval this August. Just a recap on Table 8 on page 17of the Report, which outlines the options. Our conclusions from the analysis was that there's insufficient funds in the Capital to do both at this time and we therefore explored the alternatives to address the Capital Budget pressures. The seven options were analyzed to provide a range of costs between now and 2020 and were meant for illustrative purposes and we would go away and explore these in more detail subject to approval of Recommendation (b). In these options, we also explored a range of diversions numbers so that you could see the impacts of landfill life over time. Options to export Organics were not considered to be a part of this process due to the lack of processing capacity in Ontario right now. And, this confirmed the need for moving ahead with the construction of the Composting facility. In terms of MRF alternatives, we did talk about this over the past 2 weeks and just wanted to reinforce that this list is not meant to be exhaustive. We can look at any ideas that have come up, such as the private sector MRFs, and also review the option of in-house operation in the short-time, once the Canada Fibers contract expires or for a future MRF. So, these are all the things we can look at under Recommendation (b). Sharing of Waste Facilities was also brought up and just wanted to point out the 2 specific recommendations in the Master Plan that deal with this. And, I'll let you read those. It is consistent with the Master Plan and could be applied to either facility. And, certainly, this is being looked upon favourably from the Provincial Government's perspective under the Blue Box plan and encouraging sharing of MRF facilities. In terms of the CCF" (Centralized Composting Facility) "contract, staff would negotiate an agreement, based on the proposal submissions and the Upset Limit would be the amount shown in the Recommendations in the Report, which is $29.3 million for Capital, excluding taxes and the Operating Budget would be based on the pricing set out in the proposal. The recommendation currently states, gives us authorization to move forward with the negotiation and execution and as part of the negotiation process, we'd be looking at opportunities to reduce costs as part of the value engineering process during the negotiations. The recommendations could be revised to require Council approval. The key contract terms and conditions and have us report back. Just would want to reinforce the importance of timing so that we don't experience delays in the construction and getting approval of that, if that's Council's direction. Working back, the Key Dates: January 1 [2006] is when we want to get going, with roll out of the Green Cart program across the City and working back all of the existing contracts, with the exception of the transfer station, in terms of collection and processing, expire at the end of December, 2005. And, this makes it a good transition period, as well. We want to be commissioning the composting facility by next fall; construction would occur over the winter and summer and getting into the design phase in the fall and contract negotiations as soon as Council approval is received. In terms of the Report Recap, it is our continued recommendation based on the fact of the financial pressures and the alternatives available for recycling and the need to move forward with organics to reach 65% diversion that we continue with the Recommendation that's set out in the Report that was submitted on June 30 th and then in today's agenda. That concludes the presentation. We'd be happy to entertain questions."

Mayor DiIanni : "And there are some, thank you. Councillor Ferguson, you're not first, but I'll just list you - anybody else? Bruckler, Whitehead, McHattie and Mitchell. And, Councillor Jackson was first."

Jackson : "Thanks Mr. Mayor. I appreciate staff's presentation. Beth, thank you for quarter-backing this proposal. Mr. Mayor, today, I'm at a point where I'm not sure if I want to proceed with just the composting arm of this Waste Management Plan. I think probably all of us, ideally, would love to proceed with both the new MRF, as well as the Composting Centre and I understand that the dollars are the, and probably the main and only concern in terms of trying to proceed. Can I ask some questions, if I could, please, through you, to either Dave or Beth? The City is going, and the Province are going to spend $5.5 million to construct three Community Recycling Centres for residential use. Could that money, instead, be put towards this new MRF and would that be more beneficial, Mr. Mayor, in terms of helping us meet the costs of the new MRF? Through you, Mr. Mayor?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Through you, Mr. Mayor, this idea was discussed at the Steering Committee and certainly, the construction of the Community Recycling Centres is set out in the Master Plan, as well. And, this helps you reach the 65% diversion. So, these facilities, together with Community Recycling Centres and Policy developments, all help as part of the picture. So, they are important in reaching 65% diversion, but yes, we could look at requesting the Province to consider transferring the funds to those projects. All these things are doable. It's a question of priorities of the day and how we achieve the 65% diversion."

Jackson : "So Beth, and I need to hear your professional opinion on this, is the Recycling, Community Recycling Centres, then - I know they're all important, every component of the Waste Management Plan to meet the diversion target is important for our community - is this more important, the Community Recycling Centres over the new MRF? Through you, Mr. Mayor."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Through you, Mr. Mayor. The Community Recycling Centres are a key component in our system. I thing you all recall the bulk on the street in June and these Community Recycling Centres can be a way for us to encourage a reduction and reuse of these materials and encourage recycling of things other than what can be collected curbside. The Community Recycling Centres would also alleviate congestion at the transfer stations and improve safety at the transfer stations by removing the public from the old style transfer station. So - I didn't answer your questions," (laughter from Councillors) "I'm just giving you a perspective."

Jackson : "It was a very accurate and sincere answer, Beth, I appreciate that. But, specifically to my question, because obviously, Council as you're discussing it with staff, obviously Council, Mr. Mayor, we're all in a position of we ideally want to move forward on every aspect of the Waste Management Plan and the MRF component sounds like to me it's just the dollars that are holding us back. And, the bids came in much higher than we expected and I think we also have the collaboration matter that we're dealing with Niagara. I need to know how far along that is on various aspects of waste diversion - for the diversion target and the Waste Management Plan. We've just had a Federal Election, Mr. Mayor, and I think it's incumbent - most, if not all the Hamilton Centred MPs with this new parliament. I think we should send a letter to all the 5 area Hamilton centred MPs: Valerie, Christopherson, Phinney, Powers and Allison - because his riding takes in Glanbrook / Upper Stoney Creek. If infrastructure and new urban city dollars are that critical, our community wouldn't even be in this situation, today. We'd be moving forward immediately, on all fronts, if we had the dollars from higher levels of Government. So, I'm going to be making that motion at the end of this debate, Mr. Mayor. But, back, through you to Beth. Beth again to my question which is of the greater importance at this time, as Council's trying to deliberate?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Well, certainly, construction of these facilities would address a larger portion of the waste stream than what would be handled at the Community Recycling Centres. I do want to point out, Dave advised me that we have $11 million set aside for the Community Recycling Centres, so that's not quite enough - "

Jackson : "I understand."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : " - to help. But, it does get it there."

Jackson : "And, there's some confusion on this side of Council table, Mr. Mayor. What is the total cost needed for the MRF, because I say $29 million to move ahead on the composting, if Council approves today, Mr. Mayor. But, what was the dollars estimated for the MRF, because there's some discrepancy on this side of the table and in discussion with my colleagues as to what the dollars are needed. In other words, when you just said $11 million, Beth, would that be $11 million towards what is the ultimate cost to move on the MRF, Mr. Mayor? Through you, to Beth."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "The cost of the recommended proposal is $21.6 million for capital."

Jackson : "So, the amount you had budgeted that staff had budgeted was approximately around - give or take, Mr. Mayor - about $30 million of which you're saying we couldn't move on both because $29 plus $21 million, in my simplistic arithmetic would give about $50 million and we only have roughly $30 [million] to move on - hence the recommendation to move on just the composting. Well, if $11 million, Mr. Mayor, gets us half way to the $21 million. And, there's still opportunities possibly with the new Federal Government and with the collaboration with Niagara, I don't know if possibility another month or two holding off on this might be beneficial. And, I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Mr. Mayor."

Mayor DiIanni : "And I think, just to help direct the discussion, I think the staff recommendation has as approved one which we can fund and look for alternatives for the others. That might by part of the discussion that they would consider. Councillor Collins."

Collins : "Mr. Mayor, I think the, obviously, the biggest part of the issue here is the financing of the second facility. Can I get an understanding, along the lines of Councillor Jackson's questions. From a funding standpoint, at what point in time did our finance people determine that it was unaffordable. So, what is the, the line where we crossed - understanding we had a budget going into this, just explain to us what those numbers were, we would have, I'm assuming, over the course of several weeks, looked at the proposals, looked at our next 10 years of the Capital Budget that we have already scheduled and then made some kind of a determination that, in fact, it was unaffordable. What is that line? Is it the money that we budgeted for; is it the $40 million mark - is it $45 [million]? Can I get some understanding as to what process Finance was through?

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : "Actually, I looked at two processes when I was looking at the total Capital Program. I looked at the Additional Cost that we were having for the additional, like Community Recycling Centres and all that. And that, if you recall, the Closed Landfill Site was adding another $15 [million] - help me out, Dave, if I've got the wrong - around $15 million in addition to what we had in last year's Capital Budget. In addition to that we had another $18 million of additional capital for the two facilities. So, what was clear to me, is if we go ahead and issue that much, that we were going to get ourselves in some problems later. It's not an absolute threshold. I think if, through you, Mr. Mayor, it's a matter of, to me the quantum is just such a large amount of additional Capital requirements over and above that, and I know that, as we come through the Capital Program for 2005, that I'm aware there's some other issues that we'll have to raise with Council. So, we were concerned about that aspect of it. If Council wanted to . . . " (didn't hear the word used) "as part of our resolution, we're looking at alternatives and if Council is prepared to look at some of those alternatives, we can analyze them and determine to you, 'Okay, if you want to proceed on that basis, here's the alternative; here's the impact,' so that you clearly have that impact. But, it's really not an absolute dollar where I set the threshold, as once we reach another 10 - you know, I think if we were within the 10% or 15% we would have recommended to proceed with both. But, unfortunately, we were considering . . ." (didn't' hear words) "not only the MRF and the facilities, but also on the other projects as well."

Mayor DiIanni : "Councillor Collins."

Collins : "And the funding source, Mr. Mayor, through you? The funding source?"

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : "The funding source for these projects is all property taxes. It's - sorry with the exception, there is some SuperBuild funding, I don't recall the exact, but Dave'll tell you. How much?" (Dave Trevisani tells Joe Rinaldo the figure) "$5 million is all we have. We're relying on other sources, other level of government fund. And, that's part of our problem. If we did have some additional funding sources from other levels of government, to help us, it would change the equation - the financial equation very significantly."

Collins : "Okay, Mr. Mayor, I have one other issue in regards to the recommendations that are before us today. And, part (f) is one that received considerable debate at both of our committee meetings: and it's that staff be directed to enter into discussions with other municipalities, including, but not limited to the Region of Halton, York, Peel and the City of Toronto regarding the sale of excess capacity in the Compost Facility. That, for me, is a problem; it's an issue. As someone who had the SWARU facility in my Ward for the last 10 years, that issue had come up several times - and Councillor Merulla, I'm sure, will have something to said about this later, and Councillor Morelli, as I understand it, the new facility's in Ward 3 - I just think that opens the door to a number of problems. Understanding there is a need for revenue source; understanding our ability to finance and to pay for, not only the construction, but the operation of these facilities, is limited. It's strained. My concern is that, we know what kinds of problems Toronto is facing right now in regards to dealing with their waste. We know that other large urban centres in Ontario are facing the same problems, as we are. And, I fear if we open the door to accepting waste from other communities - understanding there's revenues source - it will create a host of problems for this City - and as City that's trying to change it's image, I'm not sure that that's the message that I want to send to the rest of Province in that regard. So, I understand why it's here from our staff; I don't agree with it. And, I would like to be recorded as opposed to (f). And, I would hope that others would give same consideration."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you, and just on that, we'll deal with the whole report and people can do as they think they should. Councillor Ferguson, just on some questions related to the presentation."

Ferguson : "Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you to Beth. Beth, how many tons of product do we, do we produce annually now with our limited pilot on compostables, organics?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Currently, we're collecting about 17, 000 tons of leaf and yard waste from the curbside and the volume is reduced, the output is about 40% of that and so the math would be around 7, 000 tons that we're producing at the marketable compost. And, most of that is used hydro-seeding - sorry, seeding on the side of roadways, by Herman's Contracting, as a matter of fact."

Ferguson : "Okay, once the whole City gets into organics, what, how many tons do you project, and can we get rid of it? Is it saleable?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Our annual capacity at input is 60,000 tons per year. So, the math on that is zero, no" (comment in jest) "it's 24, 000 tons a year of compost. And, quality of compost will be absolutely critical in moving forward and market development of the, for the compost. Our proponent has identified potential strategies in developing markets for the compost. And, their partner has established markets in the Netherlands for their product. So, it will be something that we will be developing. In our calculations, we assumed that there would be no revenues; there would be no revenues from compost at the outset until markets are developed. This is something that in order to establish a market, you have to prove that, 'Okay, I have this compost and it's really good, and why don't you try it.' And, the markets develop from there."

Ferguson : "Any projections down the road, what kind of revenue source that could be?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "We haven't costed that out. We think it would be in the range of, you know say $10.00 per cubic yard. There are ranges in that class for landscaping materials and it would depend on what kind of blending you would do. So, that market development would have to be done."

Ferguson : "It's not like black gold, or something? Okay. Do you have any reservations, whatsoever, of the two technologies of the two proponents of the composting, as it concerns odor? Are you 100% solid on the recommended firm for odor treatment?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Yes, we're very confident that the proponent that we're recommending, Maple Reinders, has a process that will effectively control odors. It is a fully enclosed process and our due diligence review, we found that their plants in the Netherlands were located in industrial parks and next to housing developments and would be similar locations to where ours would be located."

Ferguson : "You've touched out these plants and you've seen this technology and it's working?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Yes, that was part of our evaluation team's tour, due diligence tour, of facilities in the Netherlands. And, in Belgium this particular proponent and we were quite satisfied that there were no odor concerns from the plants and that they were operating quite well, and for sometime."

Ferguson : "What's the time-line when the rest of the City is on for organic pick-up?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "With the facility start date of January 1, 2006, our objective would be to complete the roll-out no later than the end of June, 2006. And, certainly, as soon as possible, if a logistics exercise to work out, to see how fast we can do it."

Ferguson : "That'll include multi-res. and schools, as well as residential?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "No, it wouldn't include multi-residential and schools for the initial roll-out. Our first priority will be for a single-family, which represented about 70% of our waste that we'll be dealing with."

Ferguson : "Last question is: if we decide to go with the composting facility and forgo the MRF, that doesn't mean to say the existing MRF will be shut down. We'll still have that, correct?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "That's correct. The existing MRF the contract goes to the end of 2005 with Canada Fibres and we have provision for three one-year renewals. So, that gives us some flexibility even with the existing operator. It is true that the facility is old and reaching the end of its useful life and we will be assessing how long we can keep that facility upgrading, running, without serious upgrades and kept reviewing that as part of the option (b) to see how we can still get 65% diversion and minimize costs."

Ferguson : "Okay, so the upgrades, the Capital upgrades to the existing MRF are they throw-away or they, could they be put in a new MRF?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "We'll be reviewing the extent of the upgrades based on the feed-back that we've heard and there've been other alternatives put forward even on how to look at something really short term, you know say, another 2 to 3 years and so, we'll really be assessing what kind of upgrades we would recommend to put into the MRF. How long are we going to keep that facility up and running and to what extent the equipment could be reused. For example, if we were to purchase a new bailer, that would enable us to, say, collect larger size cardboard, then if that's, that is something that could be transferred into a new MRF if we were to build one in a few years."

Ferguson : "So, the bottom line is, our existing ability to deal with organics is negligible; our existing ability to deal with recyclables isn't great, but it isn't bad. So, that's basically why were considering going ahead with the organics."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "That's a correct assessment. With our current recycling program, there is only one material that we don't collect compared to other provincial programs, which is styro-foam and with a new MRF, we could certainly handle that and we could also go to single-stream collection. So, there's a few disadvantages of not moving forward. But, also, our community isn't demonstrating that it can fully use our existing system, either. We need to be reaching 42% diversion, next year and that can be achieved within our existing infrastructure."

Ferguson : "Can or cannot?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "It can."

Ferguson : "With the new organics facility, what will that take our diversion to?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "We're estimating by not moving ahead with the new MRF and using our existing recycling system that the diversion rate would be in the order of 60% and this is based on our assumptions that the single-stream recycling would make recycling easier. So, you would get that extra 5% and adding the styro-foam would bring other materials along with it to get you up to 65%."

Ferguson : "So, you're saying that if we retain the existing MRF and put in the composting, we're going to get 60%"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Depending on the upgrades that we can do within our system and how long we can keep that facility running."

Ferguson : "Okay, okay, I've asked enough. Thanks."

Mayor DiIanni : "Good. Councillor Bruckler."

Bruckler : "Thank you. Sort of along the lines of Councillor Ferguson's questions. There is some capacity within the area with another municipality or private sector, for MRF as one alternative. But, as I understand that there's not much capacity for composting. Could you perhaps elaborate on that, Beth?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Through you, Mr. Mayor, that's correct. In our review of the composting options, we found that with Toronto going on-line with their Green Cart program, that they're basically sucking up all the rest of the, if there were any excess capacity for organics in the Province, they need it and then some. Niagara has also expanded their program and they're using private sector capacity. So, that takes away other capacity and verifies that we're not able to look to the private sector. The only other municipality that's looking at expanding is the region of Peel and they're proposing to construct a facility and that facility only has enough capacity for Mississauga - the Peel area - and very limited from the other areas. In terms of recycling, we have verified that the new MRFs under construction in Peel and Toronto, York and Niagara all would have some capacity to deal with our materials, should we decide to share facilities with another municipality."

Bruckler : "Last question, Mr. Mayor. The only way that we could hope to achieve full implementation of the Green Cart in 30% of our total waste is screened for organics is to, to go with the composting facility, then. Is that correct?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Yes, that's correct. Composting is the final piece that's needed to get to 65% diversion."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you. Councillor Whitehead."

Whitehead : "Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of questions. Some of my questions have already been asked. When, Councillor Collins had alluded to issues with (f) which was heavily discussed. I'm just trying to understand what we expect to be an excess capacity?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "I'm sorry, could you ask that -"

Whitehead : "Well, we talked -"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : " - I didn't understand the question."

Whitehead : "- about exploring opportunities with other municipalities with excess, and the question that I'm asking: is this facility designed to take excess and if it is, to what degree are we . . . " (tape stopped, sorry.)

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : (started answer before new tape in, sorry) " . . .municipalities and area so we could, in fact, become a regional MRF should we decide to move ahead with the facility."

Whitehead : "It's my understanding, then, that we are building excess in capacity within this particular proposal? I'm hearing that we're building it for 60, 000 [tons] which we, which we'd be able to provide. But yet, you're suggesting that we would explore opportunities with other municipalities for revenue generation. And, I'm just trying to understand, if we're building it to meet the needs of this community, how is it that we have the ability to bring in excess, have excess capacity to accommodate other communities."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "I should clarify, I was speaking before about the way that MRF was designed and MRF capacity regarding the composting facility capacity, that is not as expandable as the recycling facility. So, we would have some limited capacity - we're thinking in the order of 10, 000 to 15, 000 tons per year additional capacity as a composting facility that we would be able to offer to other municipalities or to, perhaps, commercial interests that would be interested in providing compost and this is based on the design capacity that was submitted by the proponent."

Whitehead : "Great. The other question I have, when you were going through your criteria, what I noted what was not there, in regards to the pointing system, is dispute resolution. And, what, obviously, I'm referring to is the relationships this organization has with the municipalities that they currently serve. Was that investigated at all?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "I'm not sure, are you referring to if we entered into a partnership with another municipality how we would resolve disputes?"

Whitehead : "No, I'm talking about, you went and looked at facilities in the Netherlands and the operation of it. And, I believe in the report, you identify, maybe I'm wrong here, is that a company that's going to be looking at managing the composting or is it the City who will be doing, managing the composting?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Maple Reinders would be responsible for the composting operations."

Whitehead : "Okay, so, I guess the question is what you're talking about the point system. Was there any investigation in regards to the proponent and their function in other municipalities, whether their grievances are settled amicably or is there constant bicker between the municipalities in which they serve?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Yes, we actually checked the references and experience in other municipalities as part of the pre-qualification process. So, only those companies who met the pre-qualification requirements, which included reference checks, were able to submit proposals."

Whitehead : "Okay, and when you indicated that you had looked at these other sites in regards to smell and indicated that you were satisfied that they were great operations. How did you derive that other than just showing up and doing your managed tour? Did you actually have an opportunity to talk to people outside of the facility, outside of the stakeholders? I'm talking specifically about residents that might live in the area, just to get their take on the operation."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "No, our tour didn't permit the opportunity to talk to local residents, but certainly with a composting operation, the bugs work on their own and the composting process happens on their own and you know immediately upon arriving at a facility whether or not it's being operated properly."

Whitehead : "It's just my experience that - and I know, because I worked in the industry - that when you have a managed tour, you have a managed tour and if you want to talk about a plant that's going to be running at premium, it's going to be when a tour is organized. And, my concern is not when the staging is going on, but in fact the real operation and that's why, when we do these kinds of investigation, I'd like to see them a little more thorough, relative to actually getting outside of that organized tour and talking to others that may have a stake in this or obviously have lived the experiences of these kinds, or in this case, of course, the composting facility. So, I just raise those questions as a concern, but, again, I'd like to thank staff for a great presentation."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you. Councillor McHattie."

McHattie : "Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions, as well. I guess my feeling is that I'm very uncomfortable not going the full route on this to achieve the recommendations of the Committee - the Solid Waste . . . [Management ]Master . . . Plan Committee. To reach the 65% diversion rate, we really need both facilities. And, I'd like to see staff investigate additional ways to try and find the money that we don't have - I guess the $20 million that we're talking about. And, I think there may be some other councillors that have some ideas on that, because when they speak later, the suggestion to my left is the Hydro Fund as a possibility, as a possibility for this. It's certainly a legacy undertaking for the community. So, that certainly would be a possibility. I'd like to think that with the City's agenda with the Federal and Provincial government - Mr. Mayor, you may have some insight into this, or whether we've had any discussion at the staff level - whether those two levels of government may be interested in contributing additional monies. What we're doing here is very proactive, very leading edge. And, I would hope they would look to municipalities to take that kind of leadership roll. So, I'd like to see this Recommendation (b) it says we go ahead on the CCF and we look for options on the MRF. I think that's fair enough. But, I think the number one option should be to try and find the money to build it as quickly as possible. I'm a little bit nervous about the exchange with various waste streams amongst different municipalities, because we lose control to some extent over that kind of situation: how much stuff is coming into us; how much is going out; and the capacity issues that Councillor Whitehead indicated. So, I think that would be a secondary approach in my mind. The question I have is, with the approach we have in (b) - and it's fairly general, so it may not be easy to answer that - but, how does it affect our landfill costs in terms of looking for a new landfill site. Right now, if we go the full route, the year's 2023, I guess when we actually need a landfill or some kind of alternative waste method to deal with the waste beyond the diversion. So, with point number (b), recommendation (b), where does that take us in terms of being in the Landfill - 2021, 2020, whatever it might be and what are the additional costs, then, involved that I don't see here. We know it's $20 million more to do the right thing, but what are the additional costs involved to go in with the, in terms of the landfill site, trying to site a new landfil and that sort of thing?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Through you, Mr. Mayor, I'll start and may hand over to Dave, here. What we did in the options were identified, estimated landfill, when we would need a landfill and then introduced those costs into the various scenarios. So, those numbers do reflect the cost of siting a landfill and we would assume we would have to start the process 10 years in advance of when the landfill would be required and that's when the numbers started hitting those options. As far as recommendation (b) goes and what we would come back with, we would indicate what diversion rate would be achieved and the subsequent impact on landfill life. So, if we're only looking at options for 65% diversion, then they would all have, continue to have the same landfill life as if we were to move forward with constructing, also, a new MRF."

McHattie : "I guess the question I had, though, if I can add to that, is in our briefing session the other day, I think you were talking about the costs for investigating a new landfill site is so much per year - was it a $1 million a year or whatever it might have been, to do the studies and that sort of thing. That's another cost, I think, that may be involved here."

David Trevisani (RFP-Financial Evaluation - Recycle/Compost Facilities contract) : "Yes, under our options, if we went with status quo, which would just be putting $10.5 million into the MRF, we would require a new landfill, I think it was approximately 2015, so we would have to start putting $10 million a year immediately beginning in 2005 to do all the site prep work that we need to do. So, obviously, the longer we can push that out, the more opportunity we have to put that money towards a new MRF or a solution to the MRF."

McHattie : "I guess that was my point I was looking for is that if we don't go with a new MRF now and we don't know what that means, because option (b) is pretty general - we're going to look for options - how does that affect that landfill year, number, is it 2021, for example and do we have to start looking for a landfill site earlier, which costs us $10 million a year, earlier to do? So, that's the question."

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : "Two years, in terms of the site difference, if we go with this current option, cause we currently have capacity for MRF right now, and as you know, we're going to explore our other options over the coming months so - the differential is about 2 years. But, I want to remind Council that even this proposal will drive up taxing, property taxes for this community, because, in reality who's funding this is our tax payers, not the other levels of government, with the exception of the $5 million [SuperBuild] and that's a 2.5% increase over the next 3 years, because once we get into these contracts - even for the composting, we're going to be obligated to pay those over the next 3 years, so, we're expecting a tax increase of about 2.5% to fund the current plan over the next 3 years."

McHattie : "I'm certainly of that, reading that in the report, that certainly jumped out for us to look at. So, and I guess the comment that was made in the presentation this morning, referred to Recommendations (d) and (e), the actual approval of the terms and conditions of the contract and then they're asking the Mayor, or suggesting that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized and directed to execute the contract and that the comment in your presentation was that perhaps we might want to consider changing that to have it come back to Council. As well, it's a very expensive and extensive long-term contract and I would like, at the appropriate time, Mr. Mayor, to alter that, those recommendations in some way as the contract comes back to Council it have a look at that as well before it goes on. It's very important to get the details right and we know we've had some problems with contracts with private firms in the past, so, we want to make sure that's right. So, I don't know how to actually alter the way the direction their going, but -"

Mayor DiIanni : "I think what you're suggesting is that before any authorization be given, that Council be made aware of the, of the specifics of the contract - that they feel comfortable with that."

McHattie : "That's right."

Mayor DiIanni : "We can deal with that, it's not a problem."

McHattie : "And, I guess the other part, I would add, just at the beginning of my comments was that, that I think the emphasis should be looking at finding alternative funds to actually build the MRF as soon as possible. And I would suggest, certainly, the Hydro Fund be a possibility to be looked into from a legacy perspective and then we actively engage other levels of government - the Province and the Feds. We're trying to do the right thing here, and we need the support."

Mayor DiIanni : "I think that, and, I understand there may be a motion coming forward for staff to investigate and they've done some talks already and they want to look at some options. We can certainly include that as an option to look at. If a motion comes, I'll certainly recognize it. Okay, I do have some other speakers, though. Councillor Mitchell"

Mitchell : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I want to thank Beth and Dave and Pat Parker and the Waste Management staff for all the work they've done to date and the Chairman Dave, I see, is up here in the audience and all the volunteers that have worked on the Waste Management Plan. Having the pleasure of serving on, as Councillor Bruckler, and Braden and Ferguson do, the pleasure of working, serving on the Niagara Waste Management Committee to try to find a way to solve the waste dilemma and enjoying that process. It's a good committee and I guess in my opinion, the sooner we can get from a, get back to an energy from, a modern energy from waste facility, the better off we we'll be. Under the (f) section, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to see that amended that Niagara be included in there, if we're going to discuss that, further, because I find a whole lot more similarities with them and the massive amount of rural area that they have, rather than being compared to Halton, York and Peel. So, I'd like to see that addressed. I guess the cost of this, Mr. Mayor, is my main concern. I understand the need for this to reduce waste going to our landfill site, but when I hear a 2.5% tax increase, and I've been receiving significant ones for 3 or 4 years, now, and the service is not provided at all to the majority of my rural rate-payers - what's the cost of a composter that gets sold at our Community Service Centres? Can somebody answer me that, please?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Backyard Composter costs $29.95 plus GST."

Mitchell : "So we've got my rural tax-payers, Mr. Mayor, purchasing their own composters to have in their backyards. We've got their tax increases - and what did we say, a 2.5% tax increase to fund this facility? In reality, it's probably closer to 5% and a lot of them aren't even using this service at all. There is a definite inequity, here. I know we have to go forward, but this Council's got to start to react to that inequity of paying significant increases for services that they don't receive in any way, shape or form. So, I have a hard time supporting this in principle until we can find a way to deal with some of those other issues, Mr. Mayor. And, it's not to be negative on our staff and the hard work, and its need for the big picture, it's just that the inequity to the rate-payers that I represent, is getting more astronomical everyday. So, that has to be dealt with and I request that that be documented through the Clerk's department in here that request that some report be repaired back to us on how we deal with that issue - paying for something you don't receive at all and then being expected to buy your own composters and do it yourself and then the CVA" (Current Value Assessment) "grates not 2.5% but 5%. It's the community, the rural community of this big city - 65% of it - can't sustain these kind of tax increases again."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Braden."

Braden : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just some comments. First of all, I went to Holland and when I go on the tours, I'm here, it's the same hat I wear here. I'm a little bit tough, I'm blunt and I'm not there to be polite. So, I'm not there for a party. And, I'm asking the hard questions - just so you know. Now, I didn't wander into the neighbourhood and ask them what they thought of it. But, clearly, I went in places where we weren't really welcome to try to find out, you know, if there's problems, what the problems are. And, I need to say, by and large I'm extremely impressed with the technology, with, I think, honesty. Seeing operations that are already 10 years old functioning quite well. Composting - and for those of us that have been involved with farming, it's easy - composting you're dealing with something that's alive and there's a heavy moisture content. So, right away you think - if you're a home-owner for instance - you think about moisture and moisture damage, rust and corrosion. If we're going to compost the inside, basically you need a stainless steel or an environmentally sealed thing that's going to last forever. And, if you recall, I also went to Edmonton and Halifax. And, if you see where people cut corners, those things are rotting right out. So, we don't need another City Hall, you know, 20 years from now that's worthless. If were going to go in the business, you got to do it right, you manage going in with the understanding that what we have now is different than what it was 4 or 5 years ago. The difference between stainless steel and pressure-treated wood, couldn't be more different. If we're going to do this situation, then I think we do what's proposed. And, if you ask me what I would do, I represent a rural area, of course, we'd be doing it outside - you might call it half-assed - but that's not what it would be. But, it would be with nature and there would be some problems and there would be some odors and in our area, we could probably handle that. But, if you're going to put this in an urban area, I think your tolerance for those kinds of things, is much less than mine. I think you want this to be almost perfect. But even in nature, nothing is perfect - I mean it's not perfect to our nose, anyway. So, if we're going to do the composting thing very well, these folks seem to have a system that is tried and true but also flexible. You're dealing with, you know this is going to sound like a university lecture, but you're dealing with things like humidity; you're dealing with things like air; you're dealing with your nose; and you're dealing with a future that we're not really sure about. This thing, I think, works well and gets a very, very good quality product out the other end. I had nothing to do with the evaluation process and intentionally, I didn't want to know what the processes led to. I just wanted to go based on a person that asked questions, what we find. And, much as I'm extremely annoyed with the total number, it's now a fact - nothing you can do about it - So, either we pay the number or we don't. That's really where we are. So, I am fully supportive of going ahead - just qualify one thing - the big number, the sign up number is scary. Okay? The tens of millions of dollars to get in is scary. But, what we really want to know is, what's the long term cost, right? We've got a debt problem. But, we need to know, what's it really going to cost. And, when those guys finish their operational contract, we want to know that thing has some value left. Again, when you see one 10 years old, by and large, it isn't pretty looking, but think most of it's value is still there. So, that's very important. So, I want to speak in favour of the composting part. And, I want to deal with the other one, because it becomes more political. It's maddening to hear, finally, that we reached a point where we can't afford things. Our staff, as long as I've been in this Council Chamber, our staff have been saying you can't do this anymore. And, I guess in terms of staff's point of view, we've hit the wall. I don't need to say, but I will say again: You can't build the expressway; and you can't do the industrial parks; and you can't do MRF and the CCF - you got to chose which one you want. Priorities here are different. So, we simply can't do them. And, that's unfortunate because we really need to do these things well and dealing with our garbage, is just, it's a fundamental cost of doing business. We can't hide it out in Mitchell's area and bury it, right? We haven't got the SWARU - we just can't avoid this problem anymore. It's simply expensive and it's expensive to do well. So, the good aspect is this and Councillor Collins mentioned this and by and large, I just want to give a different opinion. I'm not interested in taking the nasty garbage from any municipality, including Toronto. But, if I was, if we had a little extra capacity in the composting unit, or if we had a good MRF - because MRF is basically just, it's sort of seed stock for what you want to buy. It's the material used in which to make things - I'm quite happy to take that because we would be in the sorting business. At the same time, if Halton - if the Halton Government - had capacity, if Halton Recycling has capacity, I, speaking for myself, my interest is in diversion - real diversion - not hiding or burying, but my real interest in this community is to get the diversion to where we want it to be. And, if we can help neighbours and accomplish that diversion, and save money, then I would ask you all to give that fair consideration. I'm not talking about taking Toronto's garbage to burn or bury; I'm talking about good management that, in fact, helps our bottom line. So, I make that distinction because I think, really, we have to weigh, diversion as opposed to this ideology about local garbage. Mr. Mayor, I think that in total, I've seen it. I didn't like the numbers, but I haven't changed. But, you have to pay for good quality stuff. And, taking - one other thing, in the contract, we did not look, apparently, I'm told this, we didn't look for the absolute potential, top technology - because, we all have ideas - we wanted the technology that was proven. There's big difference there. Like, I've got lots of ideas that aren't proven, and they sound good. But, if we're going to invest $20 million of government money, we can't afford to take the risk to be on the cutting edge and then flunk. We've got to be cutting edge and smart. And, I think this is what this does. Thank you."

Mayor DiIanni : "Good points. Councillor McCar - I've got McCarthy, Merulla, I've slotted myself in and Councillor Ferguson for a second time. Councillor McCarthy."

McCarthy : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to be supporting the Staff Recommendation. I think there's enough flexibility in item (b) to facilitate the concerns of this Council in not going forward with the MRF. And, I think we've got the ability, then to investigate through the approval of this process to factor in those considerations and come back to Council. But, I think it's important that we go forward with this, given all the staff work that's taken place and the fact that we want to get on with the process to date. So, those are my comments and I'll leave it at that."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you, Councillor Merulla."

Merulla : "Just quickly, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to, to move as expeditiously as possible in ensuring that both are actually fulfilled. I think we can't afford to do half the job. We need to complete the job. And, if it's a matter of finding money, the Hydro Trust Fund was established directly to legacy type of endeavours and I can't think of another example that is far more important than this particular area of Waste Management in providing a legacy, so at the appropriate time, I'd like to move, that this be referred to the Hydro Trust Fund, for consideration on the $20 million - already seconded by Councillor McHattie. Secondly, with respect to item (f), I do have issues with item (f), unless, however, there's a business case surrounding how much of an actual revenue source would be created from it and how much of an impact will it have to the neighbouring environment. So, through you, Mr. Mayor, to staff, there's presently a private - or public/private - partnership in Niagara with a private processing company. I'm just wondering how much is the Region of Niagara presently paying them under that contract?"

Mayor DiIanni : "Anybody know?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "You're referring to how much they're paying for private-sector capacity?"

Merulla : "That's right. Organics."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Organics - I know we're paying $55.00 a ton for our existing Green Cart materials and I'm not sure about Niagara's amount. They're probably in that order. Or, probably, perhaps a little bit more."

Merulla : "Okay. So, I guess what I'd like to find out is what does it mean to us as a city from an income standpoint, or revenue standpoint before we go on. And, I think that we can't delay this any longer. We have to make it sustainable ethically. The Hydro Fund is the perfect funding source for that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor."

Mayor DiIanni : "I'll take that recommendation in due course and we'll pass, or refer it on. The, before I go to Councillor Ferguson, Councillor Whitehead if you'd take the Chair and recognize me." (Councillor Whitehead does this and acknowledges Mayor DiIanni, as he would like to speak to the matter.) "Thank you. Just a couple of points that I want to make. And, I think there's been a good debate. And, I think everybody wants to move forward in reaching the diversion goal that we've established ourselves, as a Council though a fairly wide-ranging and representative citizen committee. The recommendations in front of us don't take that goal away. We still have that same goal - 65%. The issue is how we fund the MRF component to arrive at that. And, I think staff has some ideas and some good ideas have come forward this morning, as well. In terms of the recommendation that staff enter into discussions with other municipalities - and I think it is good to include the Niagara Region in that, as well, since we are discussing with them, already - I concur entirely with what Councillor Braden said in terms of that being perhaps an opportunity for us to, as regions, as regional areas, all of ourselves, do each other - all communities a good by entering into partnerships. And, I mention that specifically because Councillor McHattie, you suggested that maybe the Provincial government or the Federal government - I know that there's a motion coming forward about the Federal government - but, I can tell you that in recent discussions with the Provincial ministers - including the Minister of Public Infrastructure - one of the things that became evidently quite clear to me - I think it was reported quite accurately in the paper this morning, if you had a chance to read it - is that the Province is looking, not strictly at just municipal boundaries, but they're looking at areas. Areas that can partner with the Provincial government and maybe the Federal government - hopefully, the Federal government, as well - to do what's right and what's good. And so, we need to, for the appropriate reasons, not to bury Toronto's garbage here, as Councillor Braden so well stated, but in areas where we can mutually benefit, we need to look at those boundaries. And, all that staff is saying really is, let's see. Let's look at that. Let's see what those opportunities are, as well as implications - I might suggest - and then we can make an informed decision moving forward. I think that would be attractive to any Provincial involvement with us, as well. And so, I leave that for you to consider. In terms of the potential tax impact, I concur with Councillor Mitchell - and I think all of us around this table - that, as we move forward for next year's budget, we know that there's no Market Value Reassessment this coming year. We know that phase-in has ended. So, with the exception of Area Rating, which may provide some, some slight differences among the various components of the community, essentially, whatever we do, whatever we direct, is going to be the tax impact. And so, we need to keep that in mind, as well. And I think that this is - I'm going to speak, I'm speaking in support of the Staff Recommendation - this is the prudent way that moves us forward and has us look at some options - including perhaps, the Hydro Fund to fund the second phase of this. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Councillor Ferguson is next."

Whitehead : "Councillor Ferguson."

Ferguson : "Mr. Chair, two quickies of Beth, if I could. Beth, with respect to item five - or (f) - is the capacity of the plant, is it sized for current needs? Future needs? Or, is there some room for outside product?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "The proponent's capacity for the plant would have around 10, 000 tons excess capacity, once we've achieved our 60, 000 tons. So, we would have capacity, so in the early, the first year or two, that would be able to operate the facility at full capacity almost immediately, if we were to be able to bring materials in from outside."

Ferguson : "So, you anticipate a 10, 000 ton expansion cushion, for growth?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "The 10, 000 [ton] cushion allows us for peak periods, at the facility, for example, and spring and fall, if we decide to bring leaf and yard waste there."

Ferguson : "Okay, the other issue is, is this a fair assumption, that organics produce the majority of methane gas and leachates in landfil?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Yes, that's correct. The organic materials are a contributor to landfill gas and this is actually the reason that Nova Scotia has banned organics from landfill and the Province of Ontario is considering that in its 60% Diversion Discussion Paper. And, certainly that has been a driver in Germany for the advancement of composting there and their ban on organics in landfills will occur next June."

Ferguson : "So, in terms of 2020 hindsight, 40 years ago, if we'd banned organics from landfill, we wouldn't have the leachate problems we have today?"

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "That's correct. It's hard to say if we would have no leachate concerns, but, it certainly would dramatically improve landfill operations and overall management of those sites over time."

Ferguson : "Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think this proposal is, or this recommendation is responsible and prudent and I'll support it."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you, now Councillor Mitchell, mentioned to me a letter that was sent to us by Anchorel [Inc.] with a series of questions. Councillor Mitchell, did you want to talk about that?"

Mitchell : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to have these questions answered and sent out to us, as Councillors with this information. I'm sure it can be collected quite easily. And, the other one that I wanted to add to it, was the cost for leaf and yard waste. We never did receive that report through the Budget process. So, I think these are a concern. And, we, it'd be good information to have and I think it's readily available. So, and it's been asked for by the community. So - "

Mayor DiIanni : "And, we'll let them know? Okay, thank you. All right, then, I'm going to go to the Recommendations, seeing no other speakers. Moved by Councillor Whitehead; seconded by Councillor Jackson - Councillor Jackson, you have an amendment, I'll take your amendment, first and then Councillor McHattie's . . ."

Amendment to Recommendation - addition of (k) - (Jackson / Kelly - CARRIED)

Jackson : "Thanks, Mr. Mayor, I just want to add a (k) part here, moved by myself; seconded by Ward 7 Councillor Bill Kelly that the 5 area MPs: Valeri, Phinney, Powers, Christopherson, Allison, be requested to support the $21 million need to build a new MRF in Hamilton, as part of the priorities given to Cities for infrastructure improvements in the June 28 th Federal Election. Thank you."

Mayor DiIanni : "Thank you, on the amendment, then, the addition. Questions; comments - all in favour?" (hear councillors say carried) "That's carried. Councillor McHattie, you have an amendment."

Amendment to Recommendation - changing (e) - (McHattie / McCarthy - CARRIED)

McHattie : "Thanks, Mr. Mayor, my amendment is to Recommendation (e). So, the preamble that I would add as an amendment is: 'subject to final approval of the contract by Council, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized and directed' the motion would carry on as it is - just adding that preamble: 'subject to final approval of the contact by Council - ' is my amendment to number (e)."

Mayor DiIanni : "Any seconder for that, please? Councillor McCarthy. Questions, comments, all in favour?" (hear councillors say carried.) "That's carried. Councillor Mitchell."

Mitchell : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rose has it. The Clerk has it" (referring to the letter - 6.1 hand-out) "I don't know whether it needs to be and amendment (l)? But, it was actually the official request by Council supporting the idea of a report coming back on personal, private composters and services levels. Who's getting the service, who isn't and so on. She has the wording. We've been told that in order to get the report back from Staff, Council needs to support it, so - "

Mayor Dianni : "Yes, that's fine. Staff understands the direction?"

Staff (not sure who) : "Yes, I understand what he said . . ."

Mayor DiIanni : "So, moved by Mitchell; seconded by Braden. Questions, comments all in favour? Oh, question, Councillor Ferguson, yes."

Ferguson : "I wonder if in that report, it can include the number of trucks less that'll be going to landfill because of organic diversion?"

Mayor DiIanni : "Okay. Thank you. All in favour?" (hear Councillors say carried) "That's carried. And, Councillor Merulla, your suggestion around the Hydro Fund. Do you want to make that official?"

Merulla : "Just that it'll be moved by myself; seconded by Councillor McHattie that this report be referred to the Hamilton Hydro Trust Fund for consideration of the $21 million shortfall to complete the entire project . . ."

Mayor DiIanni : "Moved by Merulla; seconded by McHattie. Questions, comments? Councillor Pearson, first and then Councillor Whitehead."

Pearson : "Thank you, Mr. Mayor, just a question to that is: I was wondering if that would be appropriate to do at this time in light of the other direction that's been given to pursue Provincial and Federal funding?"

Mayor DiIanni : "I think so because it's one of the options that we had explored. So, it's fully in order - if Council approves it. Councillor Whitehead"

Whitehead : "Ya, I just, my one concern is that I just, it's I support the intent, but I just don't like dealing with things in a vacuum relative to other priorities that the City may have and the, and what the funds were actually designated for. So, I would love to see this put on the Table and have us do some thorough discussion about the Hydro Fund. What is, in fact, the priorities, because this certainly is a priority. I don't know how it matches up against some of the other priorities. So, I think we need to have that discussion; have a report come back and identify from staff what some of the priorities might be and then have that discussion then."

Mayor DiIanni : "Well, I can tell you that there are a lot of people who have made a request of that fund and I know that Councillor Ferguson's the closest I think to organizing that group coming together because of those, of those pressures which will involve coming back to Council, as well."

Whitehead : "So, can I ask this be referred to the appropriate committee to prioritize relative to all of the other interests in respect to the Hydro Fund?"

Mayor DiIanni : "In fact, Councillor Merulla, that is, that's the inclusion - In fact, I'm just advising Councillor Merulla that the best way of doing that is to amend (b) to include that as an option."

Merulla : "That's correct."

Mayor DiIanni : "Okay, so -"

Merulla : "My point it that some people have a priority to skate; others have more of a priority for other things. And, I had to look, this is more of an important priority to put behind a skate board park. So, Councillor Whitehead . . ." (Couldn't hear Merulla very well)

Mayor DiIanni : "Okay, fair enough. So, on the amendment to, when I take the items, we'll deal with them as amended. No other comments then? So, recommendations, I'll take them one-by-one -"

Joe Rinaldo - General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services : " Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, we need some clarification. If you want to pursue some of those options, we want to know whether or not if you want to change option, recommendation (a) because that takes that off the table right now. And, I think that's what we wanted to ask staff, I wanted to highlight to you, because that, in fact, closes the bid on that process, or if you want to defer that decision if that's what you make as a result of those changes. That's the only clarification we need from Council."

Mayor DiIanni : "So, are you suggesting that if we change (a), we're not approving the composting side of the equation? Summary, that's what you're suggesting."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Recommendation (a) deals with stopping the process on project A, which is the Materials Recycling Facility and project C, which would be the combined facility. So, if you still wanted to consider, in the future, once you understand what the funding implications are of moving ahead with that proposal, you would need to change that recommendation, as well."

Mayor DiIanni : "Okay, so, staff is recommending it - I'm taking it this is from staff, Rose? - staff is recommending that the, that Recommendation (a) be amended to read as follows: 'that the City defer the award of requests for proposal for said contract, Project A for the Design, Construction and Operation of a MRF and then the City exercise its right not to award RFP C11-' et cetera' of a combined Materials Recycling Facility and Central Composting Facility' the rest is the same. In other words, we're separating the two and we're still keeping open the option of looking at funding for the second. Councillor Ferguson."

Ferguson : "Through you, Mr. Chairman, to staff: How long is the price good for on the MRFs? . . ."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "The price is good until September 15 th ."

Ferguson : "So, we have to make that decision of the MRF by the 15 th of September."

Beth Goodger - Acting Director, Waste Management : "Or, request extension of the pricing from all the proponents."

Ferguson : "Council should be aware of that."

Mayor DiIanni : "Councillor Mitchell."

Mitchell : "Mr. Mayor, how does this affect the fact that this work firm, that they bid on the joint one? Like, is there a problem with, it might have been cheaper having the same company build the whole facility, as just breaking it out. Or, is it going to create a new RFP or - "

Mayor DiIanni : "It's not the same, no."

Mitchell : "No? Okay."

Mayor DiIanni : "No, we're okay. All right, are we ready for (a) as amended, then? All in favour?" (hear councillors say carried) "(b)" (hear councillors say carried) "(c)" (hear councillors say carried) "(d)" (hear councillors say carried) "(e) as amended" (hear councillors say carried) "(f)" (hear a glass clink) "(f), okay, (f)"

Merulla : "I'd like to support it. But, perhaps, actually it's just . . . a bit complicated" (couldn't hear all of Councillor Merulla's statement.)

Mayor DiIanni : "And, it's going to come back to us. I mean, the discussions will come back to us. But, we'll record you as opposed. But, (f)" (kind of hear Councillors say carried) "Let's have a little stronger sense of where our (f)" (hear a 'stronger sense' of Councillors say carried, but as mentioned, Councillor Merulla will be recorded as opposed to (f)) "Thank you. (g)" (hear councillors say carried) "(h)" (hear councillors say carried) "(i)" (hear councillors say carried) "(j)" (hear councillors say carried) "(k)" (hear councillors say carried) "(l)" (hear councillors say carried) "Thank you. Good Discussion."

Continue to part 3 starting at Item 7 - Discussion Items