March 1/04 Report
9:40 am - 11:50 am

Present:

Collins (Chair), Mitchell, Merulla (left at 11:30), McCarthy, Bruckler, Braden, Ferguson (left at 11:00), Jackson (in at 10:00, out at 10:40)

Non-Members present:

Pearson: (in 9:45 till 11:25), McHattie, Horwath (in 11:05 till 11:50), Whitehead (in 11:40)

Press: CH (Camera and reporter), Spectator - Eric McGuiness, Brabant - Kevin Werner, CFMU Maggie Hughes, CHML

1. No declarations of interest

2. Changes to the Agenda:

Clerk: We're going to add consideration of the outstanding businesses

Collins: "I'll come back to the Committee after delegation requests after we move the minutes from Feb. 16 th " (which he didn't, but dealt with the items at the end)

3. Minutes of the meeting from Feb. 16 th approved (Ferguson/Bruckler)

4.1 Added: Request to appear before the Committee from Leo Laviolette representing the Heavy Construction Association re city upgrade of sewer and watermain infrastructure.

4.2 Request from Paul Smeltzer of the Ontario Concrete Pipe Association to appear before the Committee to talk about the use of precast concrete pipe (IPEX appeared previously to promote use of PBC pipe).

5.1 Items referred from Council: City Hall Accommodations Project Evaluation Status Report (Referred from Council on February 11, 2004) This is the link to the staff report and recommendation:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/Clerk/
agendas-minutes-reports/public-works/2004/Feb02/PW03010a.pdf, the following excerpt will be helpful to follow the discussion : Option 1: Defer Consolidation Decision and Create Contingency Plan

Under this option the current City Hall consolidation project C3-03-03 would be terminated and there would be no further evaluation of the four proposals. The 800 to 900 City staff would remain in downtown leased accommodations or other City-owned facilities located outside of the downtown area.

SUBJECT: City Hall Accommodations Project, C3-03-03 Evaluation Status Report - (PW03010a/FCS03064a) (Ward 2 with City Wide Implications) - Page 3 of 14

Option 1 would limit capital costs related to the renovation of the existing City Hall building to responses to emergency repairs caused by building system failures. In each fiscal year, funds would be allocated to address a combination of planned improvements and contingency plans for building systems failures. This option recognizes the City's current financial status and it delays or defers short term capital expenditures. However, this option would likely not be the lowest long term cost solution and there is a significant risk for disruption of City Hall functions and displacement of staff arising from unforeseeable systems failure caused by building decay. It is not likely that the allocated contingent funds would be sufficient to the costs to relocate City staff and City Hall activities.

Option 2: Defer Consolidation Decision - Proceed with Planned Renovations to

Existing City Hall

Under this option the current City Hall consolidation project C3-03-03 would be terminated and there would be no further evaluation of the four proposals. The 800 to 900 City staff would remain in downtown leased accommodations or other City-owned facilities outside of downtown. The City would make a commitment to maintain the existing City Hall building shell and proceed to renovate the existing building in a planned and organized manner. Although selection of this option does not prohibit a consolidated facility solution in the future, it will limit the City's choices due to the commitment to maintain the existing building shell. This option requires a commitment of short term capital, but selection of this option likely provides less risk of City Hall functional disruption and displacement of staff than Option 1.

Option 3: Continue with RFP Evaluation and Proceed with Consolidation Solution

Under this scenario staff would continue with the evaluation process including proceeding with the interview process. At the conclusion of this evaluation process staff would bring forward recommended consolidated facility solutions to Council. If Council selects this Option and direct staff to continue with the evaluation process, there needs to be a commitment to proceed with the project if the technical requirements and financial targets are met. Without this commitment, staff are not able to negotiate in good faith with any of the proponents. A further summary of risks and benefits and a financial analysis of each option is provided in the body of this report.

Collins : Maybe I can ask Mr. Crockett for a brief update in regards to where this issue sits.Mr Crockett?

Staff (Peter Crockett): .the last time it was through the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee there was a recommendation forward to Council and when it went to Council, Council directed it back to the Public Works Committee to discuss whether or not, in fact the Committee and then Council, wanted to go through with the rest of the evaluation for the Request for Proposal (RFP) and in doing so of course that involves the various bids and presentations to the evaluation committee. So part of the option available for Council is to put us back into.complete the evaluation of the RFP mode .also make some decisions.to listen to the presentations whether Council members.some members of Committee, wanted to be involved in that. And of course the other outstanding issue will be. whether or not to designate this site as an historical site.

Collins : I concur with what Peter said.Councillor Mitchell it was your motion to have the proponents come in and make a presentation to Committee?

Mitchell : My recollection was to do that, .I think Legal was asked. We didn't want to go forward with the RFP process, but we did want to be fair to the 4 proponents to allow them to come in and show what the pictures would look like.to investigate whether there was any ways of saving more costs to get this down to what initially the Committee passed .without having to go further on the RFP process. So it had to vetted past Legal to see if we could do this, and I thought we could so that's where I thought it was left, Mr Chairman.

Collins : "Mr. Barkwell is there an opportunity for the proponents to come in without .continuing the RFP process?"

Legal : "The best advice I could have for you would not to proceed down that path. To either proceed with the evaluation or to proceed with the previously endorsed recommendation. If Committee wishes to hear from proponents, it would be wise to establish a set of ground rules for that, including advising the proponents that they're not coming to negotiate.that the Committee is not itself seen all these proposals and is not going to be evaluating the proposals. If the proponents are coming forward it becomes tricky and we would need to sit down and draw up a set of guideline so that its very clear to the proponents what is and is not on the table for them when they come to the Committee. There's some risk associated with departing from the RFP process."

Merulla : "On that note then Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the staff recommendation"

Collins : "I have a motion.seconder.Councillor McCarthy"

Mitchell? (I had Ferguson in my notes, but the voice on the tape sounds like Mitchell): I can't support the motion.we don't know enough. .we don't need to get into the nuts and bolts of the finances or lease or cost recovery or any of that. I need to know.do we have a 100,000 sq ft. too much? Do we have golden doorknobs? What do they think.parking? I need more meat on the bones. Have they talked to other stakeholders.the school board.the Y, we just don't know. So, to not explore this would be irresponsible. And I think we can do that.one of the four proponents wouldn't tip their hand in terms of competitive spirit with the other three."

Bruckler : "I guess I feel much the same about it. This is an extremely important issue with a high cost associated to it and I feel that I just don't have enough information in order to make that decision. And based on the information that we do have before us from the Staff report, the Option #2 is clearly not the one .that makes the most economic sense. It doesn't address.relocating from the City Hall while renovations are going on. It doesn't address the area of productivity. So the bottom line alone is one that doesn't give me a great deal of comfort in approving. .before we make a serious decision .incumbent on us to hear from the proponents without committing ourselves."

Mitchell : "Mr. Chairman, as you're aware I'd been the Accommodations sub-committee chair up until this point, and now it's being dealt with here. .Councillor Ferguson .works with a Committee dealing with the School Boards, and there's been more information come forward there. . I can see.a Public Public Private Partnership with some kind of building, because they're in the same dilemma with their facilities . And to continue right now .without further information on how together we can save tax dollars I think would be wrong. . I know we have to vote on the motion's that's on the floor, but the direction I'd like to see is to go back to Legal . "

Braden: "I'd like to ask our Legal department what sort of work is involved to set up these kinds of parameters.in order for us to hear a reasonable presentation from the original four proponents to give us an idea about what their thinking process was about.in order for us to gain information about how they saw the process".

Legal : "I take it the question is how long would it take us to provide the Committee with the guidelines if they wish to hear the proponents? .we could be back at the next Committee meeting with a recommendation and a set of guidelines ."

Collins : "Along those same lines, I think Councillor Braden is also asking can you give us a flavour of what those guidelines would entail?"

Legal : ".the proponents should be required to make any submissions in public, so that no proponent is gaining an advantage over another. They should be advised that this is not a negotiation. They should be advised that the Committee is not engaged in the evaluation of the proposals. There are several more, but basically setting out a clear set of guidelines, with respect to.they can and cannot expect from the Committee. .(but) I cannot assure you that there is no risk involved in departing from the RFP process in this way."

Braden : ". It's just that very last condition that was upsetting me...when our staff say that . I think what you're saying to us is that you're not sure what the risk is. .do you in this time between now and the next time, reduce this risk or actually eliminate it.?" Legal : "The intention of the guidelines I've been talking about is to reduce the risk as best we can. The only risk free procedure I can see, would be to instruct staff to proceed onward with the RFP process and the interviewing, and the evaluations. There is a risk there however, if there has not already been a decision to proceed with the project, that the City may be found to have proceed down that road in bad faith.

Pearson : ".I just can't understand why we can't have a letter go out to all the proponents .we have had a change of Council.I would certainly like to have presentations made, that we could understand better what was before Council in the last term to make a better decision. Could we not just have a letter go to everybody saying there's no binding on anybody, there's no contract insinuations, whatever!"

Legal : .When we depart from the established RFP process we are creating a risk.I cannot assure you that I can eliminate that risk. But the guidelines would be intended to reduce that risk as best we're able".

Pearson : "On that I would like to see if Staff could do something ...eliminate as much risk as possible and bring it back to Committee.

Merulla : "To staff: How much money have we spent to date exploring and following due diligence on this project?"

Staff (Crockett ): "I'm not sure I could put a dollar value on it. Are you talking about the consulting costs to go through this process.it's over $200,000 as far as I know, and that doesn't include all the staff time".

Merulla : "So we're probably looking at closer to $300,000, give or take."

Crockett : Or more".

Merulla : "Or more. .in comparison, how much money did we spend in exploring the water and sewage treatment plants contract before going to an RFP process?"

Crockett : "I believe it was about $150,000 ."

Merulla : "And that was all staff time?"

Crockett : "No there was a consultant retained for that purpose".

Merulla : "Was that prior to our decision on Council or .subsequent to our decision?"

Crockett : ". It involved a consultant prior to the decision of Council".

Merulla : ".by looking at the cost analysis we really didn't focus that much attention to all of the costs associated with the public vs. private."

Crockett : "Yes that's true".

Merulla : ". So we really didn't have any information on that issue. .what we have before us.do you believe we followed due diligence and is this a thorough report?"

Crockett : "We followed due diligence. .summarize.we're at the point where we put out a proposal asking for X amount of office space, parking space and so on at City Hall with private partnership opportunities requested. None of the submissions that we got met both the financial envelope that we identified and the capability of the site in terms of the .space requirements. .we've done enough work to know that we can't .make both objectives .so the question was, as far as Council was concerned, do we simply stop the RFP process, or do we continue through the RFP process to identify what is the best proposal, and then do much of the discussions and negotiations in terms of trying to work down what that proposal might look like?"

Merulla : ".in your opinion it's a full report. I could only have hoped that we would have received a report like this , regarding the water treatment plant. Having said that, I find it really unusual that I'm on this side of the equation right now. Normally, I'm actually in opposition of staff recommendations, but what I find consistent in this, .it seems that I'm always opposed to the private sector involvement. .my colleagues, who've always been supportive of Staff .I find myself now in the situation where the only consistent aspect is that wherever the private sector is going to make a significant amount of money I'm opposing it.in the name of public accountability, where others are a complete contrast to that. .at least I'm consistent in my approach, and I wish others could say the same. .I find just find it unbelievable that we have a report before us which states clearly that financially it's not in the best interests of the City.but we're still pursuing it as a result of pressure from those private sector companies coming forward telling us that our staff is not doing the job that they should be doing, and suddenly we're not listening.well some of us are. .To Staff: How old is this building?"

Crockett : "It's 40 years old.pushing 50 actually".

Merulla : ".if people consider a building that's 50 years old.should have to be replaced, I beg to differ. It's ludicrous that we're in a frame of mind that we believe in disposable buildings. I can't imagine other countries, or Europe as an example. Where is our sense of obligation to our historical significance as well - not to mention the fact that it just doesn't make any financial sense. .I really have to question a number of aspects before us because I'm not quite sure what the argument in favour of building the City Hall is, and we've just spent $300,000, if not more, on trying to find that information before us...and the only ones that can truly benefit from us pursuing this is the private sector - not the taxpayer. .I say I support the Staff recommendation wholeheartedly and let's just move forward ."

Ferguson : "I thought we were debating the motion and I thought we were debating the aspect of having the proponents come in, not the whole. To answer Councillor Merulla's questions, I believe it's in Appendix E. I believe we've spent $391,000. Is that correct Mr. Crockett?"

Crockett : "Yes, it is".

Ferguson : "Is there an outstanding purchase order of $124,000?"

Crockett : "Yes there is. .outstanding value of the work that's been assigned".

Ferguson : "Also on that list, emergency operations centres, ITS to library, and future acquisition - that doesn't really relate to the accommodation of City Hall, is that a fair statement?"

Crockett : "The ITS relocation to the Library was a capital cost to move a group of staff out of City Hall to the Library building".

Ferguson : "But in the final analysis those 3 issues don't relate to the accommodation of City Hall?"

Crockett : "No."

Ferguson : ".if the water failure we had in this building this winter - if IT was still in the basement - what kind of shape would the City be in?

Crockett : "IT believes .our system would have been shut down".

Ferguson : "Which equates to what in dollars.?"

Crockett: ".don't (know). don't know .(depends on) how long that we would have been (down).major destruction.".

Ferguson : "Back to the allowing the proponents to come in.could we not just invite them to come in.(and) hold the City harmless?"

Legal : ".if we are going to depart from the RFP process we must do so carefully .to protect the City from repercussions from the proponents. .that would be one of the .guidelines if .proponents .invited to appear."

Ferguson : "Square footage per person in this structure - how does that differ from the new Federal building?"

Crockett : .the RFP that we put out is in keeping with the standard square footage, and it varies for different staff across the organization, but I'm not sure how that compares to the Federal standard in the new Federal building."

Bruckler : ".they'd want a commitment from the City in order to (proceed) more formally. .given the seriousness and the expenditure of this project, .take this additional step befor e investing that additional amount of time and energy .not a false hope for anyone... .the pressure point is not is it a public private partnership. .are we getting the best value for our money? .providing a facility .to give us the most efficient and productive workforce... . option 2 requires a higher cash flow than option 3 does. . look at the very bottom line, the total cash flow over the period of pay back option 2 is a higher option. .can't understand why . go with option 2. .don't believe that included in option 2 are the costs for relocation and disruption by moving staff out of the City Hall.Mr. Crockett .advise".

Crockett : "I'm not sure I can give you an idea on the relocation and the leasing costs and so on. .clarifying a bit about why we're here: at the end of the day all 4 of the proposals that were received failed to meet both requirements, .in terms of the RFP documents that were sent out. .we said this the first time we were before the Public Works Committee with this issue, and Mr. Rinaldo was very clear - without doubt that option #2 is the higher cost in the long term.that option #3 - building new - is without doubt, over the life cycle of a building, the cheaper cost alternative. .very typical... But the reason that we're back here, .the guidelines that Council gave us in order to put out this RFP, none of the proposals meet ..the requirements.sought Council direction in terms of how would you like to proceed, either stop the evaluation, or continue on with the evaluation.we know right now.we can't meet the financial guidelines that Council gave us for the RFP".

Bruckler : ".both options put us in the same dilemma - not being able to proceed with a zero increase, or perhaps a minimal increase. .before we select one or the other, .choice of how to proceed.".

Jackson : "I'm not embarrassed to say that I've been all over the map on this issue. That'll be a sound bite I'm sure! .attention.to City Hall .experienced recently (this) winter.more awareness in the community. .feedback from constituents .'if you're going to do it, do it right'.construction industry - people .in the know - say to me that once you get into it it's going to cost more. .. .price tag of building new. on our own can't afford. .partnership .more affordable .go in that direction... .we want to continue to have the focal point of the new City here on City Hall Plaza. .I think that's a good thing because this is the identifiable focal point of local government in our greater City of Hamilton. .I'm not prepared today to proceed with the Staff recommendation that would have us just do renovations to accommodate the current 400 staff here at City Hall. .the other 900 to 1000 staff that are dispersed. I want to have all the information in front of me as quickly as possible. If there are people out there, just as there were with the Quad Pad Arena,. Flamborough "Y" .south mountain Community centre - with the private public partner coming in there bringing million of dollars to the table .we'd be remiss if we didn't look at and invite in those that want to transparently and openly provide us with the best package they see could help us with this new City Hall facility. .I won't support the current recommendation that was referred back Council, which was basically to renovate, and if that fails, if there's some way to word a motion to invite in the proponents who had originally bid, and keep us on the legal grounds that keep us safe, I'm prepared to go in that direction at this time".

McHattie : "I certainly support maintaining this existing building. Councillor Pearson and myself are on the LACAC (Heritage) committee .moving ahead. .designating this building as an historical building, .strong interest there and I agree with Councillor Merulla that we should get away from the disposable society idea and dispose of buildings in that same way of thinking. .to Staff, just clarifying in my own mind some of the costs involved here, . It's my understand that two of the proposals include a renovation of the existing City Hall building with a new adjoining building, .clarification the costs involved on those two options. We know $50M to renovate ourselves in the next couple of years, .if the private proponent is doing the same thing - renovating City Hall as we would - and then adding the new building.just a general comparison of costs involved in those two options".

Crockett : "Appendix D is an outline of the costs . roll it down into the annual cost. All four proposals came in at a cost of $100,000 plus, as far as refurbishing and adding a tower, or demolishing and adding a new tower, vs. the $50M in terms of refurbishing. "

McHattie : ".we're looking at $50M to renovate, and to renovate and add a new building is twice that - roughly $100M..?"

Crockett : Yes, recognizing of course the fact that the higher priced options gives you everybody on this site and the renovation does not. Renovation however does not preclude the ability to expand the site at a later date, it just ensures that the investment in this building - that you don't want it to be throw away later on. So you do the refurbishment and then you can expand. All of the proposals dealt with trying to bring all of the staff into the City Hall site, so it did both at the same time, hence the larger cost figure".

McHattie : ".staffing implications .the private proponents talks about 14 FTE's (the equivalent of 14 full time staff jobs) that are currently here at City Hall doing cleaning and maintenance .be moved elsewhere in the system. I can understand why design/construct with a private proponent, .do we need to go with the need to operate and maintain with the private proponents or can we not do that ourselves with our own staff? .concern I have is with the long term costs of operating and maintenance .not being able to control it all that well, .being done by private operators. There are some risks in doing that. .comment .from Staff .need to have proponent do the operation and maintenance .? What those costs may be.but is it a worry for Staff that those may be out of our control in the future.that sort of thing".

Crockett : .RFP was put out trying to get at how to maintain our City Hall costs at the current level, which is why the RFP included the option for 'design/build/operate' with a long-term lease so that we would own the building at the end of the lease. That's why the proposal submissions all include operating and maintaining the facility - because it's theirs until the end of the lease, at which point we take it over.

McHattie : ".if we continue to get involved in private operations .make sense in some cases, but if it means we're having to move our staff around.private operators doing some things and then our staff have simply been displaced. There may be limit to the places we can move people around to, to conduct meaningful work for the City."

Mitchell : Lived through building a new Town Hall. Information came back with a staff report and the Council didn't accept it because it was too expensive. Talked about how to get the costs down. Simple as that. Re this situation: What is in this thing? Where can we shave down the cost. Do we need 800 $2000/spot parking spots? . Is there space in other town halls that can be revenue to this City, while we build.here to help keep the cost down. This information hasn't been brought to us.need this information. Issue not about tearing this one down, . about efficiencies. meet with more people.ok. .our lease payments are going to skyrocket in the next 10 years. Covert the buildings that our staff move out of into Condo's.wouldn't that be a great thing?

McCarthy : Peter.report .comes back that $1M renovation to this existing building in next 2 years, preclude going with requests for proposals down the road?

Crockett : 2 issues: 1) how long can we go without going into failure mode eg. Elevators need replacing. 2) doesn't preclude going into an RFP.but amount you put into the building becomes 'throw away'

McCarthy : . supporting recommendation before us, for that reason. Budget this year.we'll ask just for the safety of this building to be insured.in a years time go out for proposals..this will eliminate the potential liability we have hanging over us.

Pearson : re repairs.have all cost been factored in.re asbestos etc.?

Crockett : Intent to come back with a much more detailed cost estimate for the 2005 budget process.we've factored in as much as we can know at this time.restoration.unknowns.

Pearson : experience re school with asbestos.give this serious thought

Ferguson : To Crockett: Appendix D - $52M to refurbish this structure - option 2?

Crockett : Yes

Ferguson : Option 3B is 90M..includes new tower also?

Crockett : Based on lowest financial cost before us, does not preclude with RFP.options were more than $90M.

Ferguson : 2 proposals included preserving this building? .the $90M was in that mix in terms of refurbishing and providing space for 900 more?

Crockett : Yes

Ferguson : $52M to house 300, or spend $90M to house 1300.double the money to house 25%.took option 2 includes paying leases.$4.5M not available to cash flow the $90M.?

Crockett : Yes

Ferguson : Option 2 address swing space, when this building being refurbished?

Crockett : Allowance put in for swing space.don't know whether adequate.asbestos

Ferguson : Option to begin till 07? Failure this structure in the next 3 years? Option 2 does not address the inefficiencies of people having to come to City Hall that currently exist, whereas 3A or 3B does.can't see spending 2x money for quarter the work space, wouldn't have lease costs.new building would house everybody.

McHattie : .what are the cost advantages going full step right now?

Crockett : Caution: no evaluation on any of the four proposals yet. Economics between the two scenarios.3B lowest cost . does not meet all physical requirements. If RFP .best proposal and subsequent negotiations after.

Merulla : How many leases downtown?

Crockett : Several.named a couple.

Merulla : How long term?

Crockett : Most initially 5 years, some in 2,3 4 year right now.

Merulla : Impact on downtown landlords and businesses.re leaving leases?

Crockett : Not concentrated on this

Merulla : Will be significant impact on downtown core.commerce and landlords.council should take into account.

Collins : .How are we going to fund this with an $83M deficit.capital budget? Rules of engagement needed to engage with proponents (deviating from RFP process.examples of bad outcomes) We set specifications, committee looked at this maybe 2 dozen times, no one can meet the requirements. Why are we going on with this. discomfort with going behind closed doors with proponents that have lobbied very hard.process reasons .I can't support this. Motion on the floor.all those in favour of the recommendation.Motion looses on a tie.

5.1 Motion : Defeated. Braden, Merulla, Collins and McCarthy supported

Collins : Jackson put your motion..

Jackson : Wanted to eliminate other site options.seconder?

Merulla : Settle issue first?

Collins : Motion on floor .whatever proposal means use this site.

Back and forth Merulla and Jackson re site issue in now or later

Braden : wants to keep option open on site, not to do so might cost us money .supports this site.

Motion : Mitchell/Jackson that legal dept. prepare terms of engagement.guidelines to protect RFP process. Carried 5 to 3, Braden switched vote

Ferguson: 5.1 won't go anywhere till we meet again to look at staff report on the Mitchell motion?

Collins : Correct

6. No consent items.

7.1 Fred Zimmerman, Binbrook, re Garbage, odour, dust and plastic bags and paper blowing onto his property from nearby landfill site. Ongoing. Landfill was to be closed by 2003 (designed in 1980). Wants City to clean up and pay for water. 20 years going. In 1990 from Region, settlement, $21,800 to cover central air and to have clean water trucked to their cistern. Accepted in good faith believing it would be closed by 2003. Composting now means increased odour. Since SWARU closed dumping now goes on in extremely windy conditions, which it didn't before.

Mitchell: Been dealing with Mr. Zimmerman. Positive thing that the landfill site is not closed. Shows that we're going in the right direction with recycling and so on. Understand that they thought dilemma would be over by now. Wants to refer to staff to investigate re costs, re other people etc. No reason that they should have garbage bags in their trees.

Staff: Litter dealt with on a daily basis.knows that Mr. Zimmerman has phone number to call, encourage him to call Canadian Waste. Refer back to staff

Motion: Mitchell/McCarthy: That staff come back within a months time with a report deals with Mr. Zimmerman's concerns. CARRIED

8.1 Staff Presentations: Niagara Hamilton Waste Plan - Agreement for Joint Study on Waste Disposal: Power point presentation, CATCH has hard copy. Details on this initiative can be found at this link:
http://www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
public-works/2004/Mar01/Item%208.1.pdf.

Notable: Jackson out during whole presentation, Merulla trying to make a phone call in Chambers during presentation. No quorum at beginning, which I mentioned.Mitchell in Chair.says there will be quorum soon as Councillors will be coming back (which happened).

Motion to receive presentation: Carried

9.1 Discussion Items: WastePlan Working Group Report:

Recommendation : That the Minister of Environment recognize the need to adopt legislation and policies that support Ontario municipalities in the implementation of integrated waste management systems to maximize diversion of waste from landfill and allow for the approval and implementation of disposal alternatives to manage the waste that remains after diversion. (There is more to this but the document was not on the agenda, hence not posted on website - this was an added item. CATCH has a hard copy)

Note: Staff comment in presentation: Not sure how Environmental Assessment will turn out.large concern.

Discussion :

Mitchell : (on the working group): Important re burying garbage. Waterloo and Halton showing interest. Everyone benefiting (in Province) from the work the study group is doing .EA etc. Can we apply for Provincial funding grants for this study?

Staff : None available, but we can ask

Ferguson : Location.greenbelt protection moratorium issue

Staff: Aware

Ferguson : What other communities are involved?

Staff : Terms of reference (altered?) to allow Halton to be observers (only). Capacity issue (energy from waste needs regular capacity) comes into this. Brantford not wanting formal involvement.Haldimand interested.

Ferguson : Will this slow down the process?

Staff : This concern meant that Halton was not brought in as a full member.

Ferguson : Tight time frame.

McCarthy : Gave staff article re Florida's waste solutions.

Staff : Yes, re baling waste before landfilling.

McHattie : Energy from waste jumping gun.technology.bad experience with SWARU.better technology now.wants to feel not jumping right to energy from waste.although there may be technology advances in time frame.also in packaging (the actual content for disposal).

Collins : Niagara's position on incineration?

Staff : Niagara came to this talking incineration.but now through process group is stepping back and looking at all alternatives, including more composting.

McHattie : Good.learn from other municipalities. Involvement of others.wouldn't want to see us accepting other's waste.re large incinerator: "If you build it they will come"

Collins : Current agreement includes this provision?

Staff : Master plan does include this now with Niagara involved. Accepting waste possibly.may be taking our waste to Niagara.spring/winter re landfill.capacity issue may involve occasionally bringing in waste

Collins : Re: process.back to Council

Staff : Re: Environmental Assessment: will bring back

McHattie: Concerned.got to feed these things (incinerators, to keep temperature up).

Braden : Complemented Horwath on her leadership in regards to this initiative. Re: site. honeymoon at present.when decided, impact hits.then what? How might site selection occur?

Staff : Siting process already begun.public workshop held. How to rule out areas done, eg. Escarpment. Process: screening criteria, short list. similar to other waste. This is more controversial. Comment came in from public workshop: 'How can we choose this if we don't know what type of technology will be used?' Next workshop on how people should be informed (letters to the neighbours etc). Compensation.Appendix 8

Braden : Re: taking others garbage (Niagara's).early on we should address whose garbage is in and whose is out.

Staff : Important.can't comment now.discussion occurred at workshop.something to flag.

Braden : Uniquely positive process (for some reason). Invite others to watch.

Horwath : Re: McHattie's comments.this is only for residuals?

Bruckler : 35% only?

Staff : Yes, this is clear.

Bruckler : EA needs to be clear - re costly process

Ferguson : Motion last term re importing and exporting waste?

Staff : In Solid Waste Master Plan.

Ferguson : Fluctuations in amounts of waste month to month?

Staff : Yes, by as much as 30%.will get back to you on that.

Collins : Shares concerns with McHattie. House near SWARU.

Ferguson : Border shut off to Toronto? .or will bring to Hamilton

Mitchell : Yes

10. Motions : To remove PVC pipe item from Outstanding business, To add the Glanbrook sports item to Outstanding business:

Mitchell : Re: Glanbrook - update soon.funding already there.

Motions : CARRIED

11. No notices of Motions

12. General Information and Other Business:

Ferguson : To Crockett: Budget year to date figures?

Crockett : Overview winter control: Jan/Feb 03 and 04 same level of spending.in context of $83M budget issue - on target, in context of $65M.$4.5M over.

Braden : To Beth: Info re Blue Box cottage cheese containers allowable soon!

Q? : Power conference report?

Mitchell : Was there, also Jackson and Bruckler. Summarized (see Spec report)

Adjournment