TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999
WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 4
1 Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process -
Greater Toronto Area Memorandum of Understanding
2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Trading
3 Promotional Funding and Guidelines for Environment Days
4 Operating Agreement for Commissioners Street
Material Recovery Facility (Ward 25)
5 Household Hazardous Waste Program;
Implementation of Pilot Project for Used Battery Collection
6 Garbage Packers
7 Vehicle Emission Testing (All Wards)
8 Consulting Services - General Administration and Site Supervision for Western Beaches Storage Tunnel
Phase II
9 Anaerobic Digesters and Boiler Building Extension at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant -
Contract No. MW9804WP, Tender No. 152-98 (East Toronto)
10 Additional Expenditures for Extra Work on Capital Projects Currently in Progress
11 Thackeray Landfill Gas Utilization Project
12 Other Items Considered by the Committee
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 4
OF THE WORKS AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE
(from its joint meeting on March 16, 1999, with the
Urban Environment and Development Committee and
from its meeting on March 24, 1999,
submitted by Councillor Betty Disero, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999
1
Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process -
Greater Toronto Area Memorandum of Understanding
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services:
(March 15, 1999)
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to present recommendations concerning the adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding a potential shared "partnership" solution to secure solid waste disposal capacity for the City of Toronto and the
Greater Toronto Area Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Council authorize the entering into of the Memorandum of Understanding (attached as Appendix A to this report)
setting out a protocol for the co-operation between the City of Toronto and the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and
Durham leading to potential decisions for a shared solution or partnership in securing solid waste disposal capacity; and
(2) Council receive the respective conditions related to participation (listed as Appendix B to this report) as adopted by the
Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham, as per Clause No. 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Reference/Background/History:
On October 2, 1998, City Council provided direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:
"… immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options including waste diversion
and disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements through a Request for Expressions of Interest and Request
for Proposals process based on the work undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the
submission of an environmental assessment." (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities Committee.)
Council also directed the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to facilitate the engagement of Regional
Governments in the Greater Toronto Area (the "GTA") as potential partners with Toronto for future disposal capacity
contracts.
At that time, Council also adopted a report dated September 30, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services which contained a recommendation to authorize the Commissioner to engage the GTA Regional Commissioners of
Public Works "… for the purposes of drafting a 'Memorandum of Understanding' regarding the protocol for inter-regional
solid waste disposal planning and decision-making, which upon completion will be submitted to his/her respective Councils
for approval." (Recommendation No. 3 (ii).)
This report presents the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") developed by the GTA Public Works
Commissioners and the respective conditions under which the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham will
participate.
Discussion and Justification:
Following Council direction to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the protocol for inter-regional solid
waste disposal planning and decision-making, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and staff of Solid
Waste Management Services began working through the GTA Commissioners' Round Table Forum on Solid Waste
Management ("the Commissioners' Round Table Forum") to develop and submit to their respective Councils a workable
MOU. The Commissioners' Round Table Forum has held regular meetings since March 1998 regarding solid waste
management matters.
After several meetings, the Commissioners' Round Table Forum arrived at a consensus regarding the wording of the MOU
that is attached to this report as Appendix A.
Three Regional Councils have decided to participate under the MOU: Peel, York, and Durham. Each of these Regions has
adopted enabling motions to join in the MOU and has submitted their solid waste tonnage projections for 2002 to 2022 to
Toronto. These tonnage projections have been factored into the REOI, and will be refined prior to the issue of the RFP.
The Regional Council of Halton has decided not to participate through the MOU, but has passed a recommendation stating
that Halton wishes to participate in the diversion component of SWM-MEP. Halton has approximately 35 years of disposal
capacity at their regional landfill near Milton. The Commissioners' Round Table Forum is currently drafting a diversion
oriented Terms of Reference to strengthen inter-regional co-operation and information sharing regarding solid waste
diversion.
The MOU sets the terms and conditions of the protocol leading to the decision points in which there could be a shared
solution ("partnership") by commitment of tonnages to a contract under which a potential multi-regional "partnership" could
take place. The MOU states that:
- participation by GTA Regions is voluntary;
- planning principles will be followed to identify waste disposal quantities;
- members will share and review information during the process;
- negotiations are the sole responsibility of Toronto; and
- members can attach conditions related to their participation.
In addition, the MOU has been designed to provide two additional decision points on the part of Regions engaging with
Toronto (Phase I is the initial decision to participate or not). In Phase 2, following the identification of top-qualified
proponents, a Region is required to renew or not renew to continue participation with a view to a shared solution. This is to
help provide clarity (tonnages, geographic catchment area, etc.) before negotiations begin. In Phase 3, at the conclusion of
the negotiations, a Region can become a "partner" through the passage of a by-law to contract. The intent of these phases is
to provide Regional Councils with the ability to manage the extent of their engagement in the interests of their particular
Region.
The attached MOU has been listed as Draft No. 6(b), to reflect the decision by Halton to not become a Member and to
adjust the date of the document. Otherwise, it is the document considered by the Regional Councils of Peel, York, and
Durham.
Clause No. 9 of the attached MOU provides Regions with the opportunity to add to the MOU additional conditions
associated with their participation. Peel, York, and Durham have each put forward conditions related to their respective
participation. (These are recorded in Appendix B attached to this report.) As stated in Clause No. 9:
"… these conditions do not bind other participating Members and are not assented to by their inclusion in this
memorandum; they, however, may guide an individual Member's ultimate decision whether to 'partner' with Toronto by the
commitment of tonnage in any contract(s) resulting from the engagement process."
Some of the conditions reflect the identified need of the participating Regions to continue to conduct business-related
contracts for solid waste management services (such as collection and short-term disposal requirements) with firms which
Toronto may be engaged in negotiations with for disposal capacity. A protocol will be established at the Commissioner
level to deal with these conditions.
York Region has identified that it will be engaged in a parallel planning process for new disposal capacity specific to its
needs, but will not conduct negotiations while Toronto is in negotiations, should the proponents under consideration be the
same in each process.
Each of the three participating Regions has set a condition, related to their continuing participation, that no new landfill
site(s) be established in their respective Region.
Conclusions:
Following Council direction on October 2, 1998, to facilitate the engagement of Regional Governments in the GTA, the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services engaged the Commissioners' Round Table Forum in the development of a
MOU which would provide a protocol for decision-making leading to a potential partnership for future disposal capacity
contracts involving Toronto and the Regional Municipalities of the GTA.
The Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham have agreed to participate with Toronto through the MOU. Each of
these Regions has included with their agreement to participate conditions which are not binding on other parties, but which
guide their respective decision-making for any ultimate commitment to contract.
The Regional Municipality of Halton has decided not to participate through the MOU but has identified a willingness to
participate in the diversion component of Toronto's Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process.
We recommend the adoption of the attached MOU and the receipt of the attached conditions put forward by the three
participating Regional Municipalities.
Contact Name:
Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.
Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-4745
E-mail: lawson_oates@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
Appendix A
Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding a Potential Greater Toronto Area Partnership to Secure Long-Term
Solid Waste Disposal Capacity
Draft No. 6(b)
February 12, 1999
Introduction:
On October 2, 1998, Toronto City Council moved to formally invite the Regional Governments of the Greater Toronto Area
(Durham, York, Peel, and Halton) to enter into a potential partnership with Toronto in its proposal call for long-term solid
waste disposal capacity by:
(i) declaring through Council motion an "Expression of Interest"; and
(ii) requesting their Commissioners of Public Works (or designates) to meet with Toronto's Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services for the purposes of drafting a "Memorandum of Understanding" [hereinafter referred to as the "MOU"]
regarding the protocol for inter-regional solid waste disposal planning and decision-making, which, upon completion, will
be submitted to his/her respective Councils for approval.
Toronto City Council also initiated at that time the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process
("SWM-MEP") which is designed to provide new disposal capacity prior to the projected 2002 closure date of Toronto's
remaining in-service landfill, the Keele Valley Landfill Site. This landfill site currently provides disposal capacity for
Toronto, York, and Durham, in addition to servicing the needs of a portion of the private sector's waste disposal needs.
Listed below is a Statement of Principles for Participation that contains the protocol involved in and the conditions of
participation leading to the potential partnership arrangement.
Statement of Principles for Participation:
The undersigned members of the Greater Toronto Area (the "Members") agree to collaborate in the engagement of the
marketplace to supply long-term solid waste disposal capacity (the "engagement process") based on the following
conditions of participation:
1. Participation shall be voluntary on the part of all Members and any Member may withdraw from the engagement process
at any time subject to clause 7 of this MOU.
2. In order to identify waste quantities required for disposal, Members will follow acceptable solid waste management
planning principles including the identification of waste diversion targets, a public consultation process, and the preparation
of study or planning documents.
3. Toronto will manage the engagement of the marketplace through the preparation and issuance of a Request for
Expressions of Interest (the "REOI") and a Request for Proposals (the "RFP"), which incorporate, in addition to the base
waste diversion and disposal quantities for which Toronto is responsible, the waste diversion and disposal quantities
resulting from the planning undertaken by Members in clause 2. Information, in the form of submissions, at the REOI and
RFP stages will be shared by Toronto and the Members through their respective Commissioners of Public Works. Toronto
will be solely responsible for negotiations. Toronto's Commissioner will consult with his counterparts prior to any major
decisions either advancing the evaluation process or any negotiations. Toronto will address any input by Members. Any
sharing and review of documents or of information received during the evaluation process or in any negotiations may be
subject to conditions requiring confidentiality by Member staff and councillors.
4. It is acknowledged that Toronto shall be solely responsible for any obligations to proponents in the engagement process
subject to any subsequent contractual commitments of Members under clause 7 of this MOU.
5. The Members' Commissioners of Public Works will review the draft REOI and RFP evaluation criteria prior to issuance
of the documents. It is acknowledged that any input may be subject to timelines for such input adopted by Toronto Council.
6. All Members will provide to Toronto their best estimate of their long-term disposal needs based on the planning
undertaken under clause 2 of this MOU prior to the issue of the REOI, and the then most current disposal capacity
requirements prior to the issuance of the RFP.
7. Members will be kept informed of developments in the engagement process by periodic reports from Toronto's
Commissioner to the Members' respective Commissioners. Members will be advised by advance notice of two months of
the decision point prior to Toronto executing a contract(s) with a successful proponent or proponents. Members must decide
at this point whether or not to "partner" with Toronto by passage of an appropriate by-law to contract for the relevant
tonnages in the contract(s) with the successful proponent(s) or with Toronto, as the case may be.
8. Each Member shall, following the identification of the top qualified proposals (i.e., the outcome from the RFP
submissions evaluation) and prior to Toronto engaging the top qualified proposals in contract agreement negotiations,
decide to renew (or not to renew) their commitment to a GTA shared solution (i.e., by commitment of tonnage). A decision
to renew shall be made by adoption of a resolution to that effect and within a timeframe consistent with the project schedule
as adopted by Toronto Council. Members who decide to renew shall not conduct separate negotiations with the top
qualified proponents from after the point that members are notified that Toronto City Council has authorized negotiations
with those proponents and up to execution of contract(s).
9. The attached appendices contain conditions or principles adopted by individual Members which currently address
specific interests or concerns associated with those Members' participation. These conditions or principles do not bind other
participating Members and are not assented to by their inclusion in this memorandum; they, however, may guide an
individual Member's ultimate decision whether to "partner" with Toronto by the commitment of tonnage in any contract(s)
resulting from the engagement process. It is acknowledged that such expressed conditions or principles shall not be deemed
to be specific conditions or criteria to be addressed in Toronto's REOI or RFP, but may be factors to be evaluated under the
general criteria contained in the proposal process as described to date in the planning documents.
Dated February 12, 1999
For the Regional Municipality of Durham For the Regional Municipality of York
For the City of Toronto For the Regional Municipality of Peel
Appendix B
Conditions Passed by the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham, Under Clause No. 9 of the "Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding a Potential Greater Toronto Area Partnership to Secure Long-term Solid Waste Disposal
Capacity"
Regional Municipality of Peel. March 3, 1999
"That the Regional Municipality of Peel enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Toronto,
regarding a potential Greater Toronto Area partnership to secure long-term waste disposal capacity;
And further, that the Memorandum include the following conditions specific to the Region of Peel:
(a) that no new landfill site(s) be established in the Region of Peel;
(b) that existing landfill capacity in the Region of Peel not be utilized for the City of Toronto's landfill needs;
(c) that the Region of Peel may conduct separate negotiations with any service provider for short-term Regional waste
management services, while the City of Toronto is negotiating with qualified proponents for long-term waste management
services;
(d) notwithstanding Clause 7 of Draft No. 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding which states that, "Members will be
advised by advance notice of two months of the decision point prior to Toronto executing a contract(s), with a successful
proponent or proponents," Peel Regional Council will through its member, review any decision point and report back to the
City as to, "whether or not to partner with Toronto by passage of an appropriate by-law to contract for the relevant
tonnages";
And further, that a copy of the report and the corresponding resolution be forwarded to the City of Toronto, to be appended
to the Memorandum of Understanding, as per Clause 9 of the MOU."
Regional Municipality of York. January 28, 1999
1. "That the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk be authorized to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
Toronto regarding a potential Greater Toronto Area partnership to secure long-term solid waste disposal capacity, in a form
similar to that shown as Attachment 1, and as outlined in this report, subject to the particular concerns pertaining to York
Region as noted in the text of this report being adequately addressed."
2. "That Regional Council endorse the Region's preliminary diversion rates and corresponding disposal quantities for
incorporation into the City of Toronto's Request for Expressions of Interest document, as outlined in this report."
[Conditions.]
1. "That there be no new landfill capacity established in York Region."
2. "That the Region continue to give priority to waste diversion over waste disposal in structuring the Region's waste
management system; and, that contracts for the disposal of the Region's waste be structured to reflect both the ongoing and
intended future target performance of the Region's waste diversion program."
3. "That export of the Region's waste to disposal facilities outside the Region be considered; and, that that process of
consideration incorporate an awareness of the host community's positions on the waste disposal facilities proposed to
receive the Region's waste."
4. "That export of the Region's waste to facilities in the United States (U.S.) be considered in addition to facilities located in
Ontario, but that in comparatively evaluating the U.S. facilities to Ontario facilities, priority be given to facilities which
benefit Ontario in terms of jobs and economic investment; the degree of priority assigned should be developed through
further public consultation."
5. "That waste incineration with energy recovery (EFW) be considered as a waste disposal technology in addition to landfill;
and, that any specific proposals for EFW be comparatively evaluated with landfill proposals, utilizing criteria which address
macro environmental impacts (including health and safety, natural environment, energy resource management) as well as
the matter of Ontario benefits and financial cost."
6. "That proposals involving EFW facilities located in the Region be considered and comparatively evaluated in the manner
described immediately above; and that the process of consideration involve detailed consultation with the host area
municipality and immediate community with the objective of establishing the elements of a "community-facility
performance agreement" addressing matters including but not limited to: environmental performance, performance
monitoring and reporting, and non-performance penalty and compensation."
7. "That proposals involving waste from York Region and other GTA Regions and Toronto transferring through transfer
facilities in York Region for disposal at facilities outside the Region, be considered; and that such consideration place
significant priority upon measures to ensure that potential land use and transportation impacts are fully mitigated."
8. "That proposals to manage the Region's waste disposal tonnages be permitted to include tonnages from the ( [sic]
industrial, commercial and institutional sector, provided that the Region's waste disposal capacity needs have priority."
9. "That the Region entertain offers from the waste disposal marketplace which could involve the Region as a partner in the
form of the Region having an equity interest in facilities."
10. "That the Region should continue with the "dual track" approach to long term solid waste disposal planning, namely
involving: the Region continuing to participate with Toronto and other GTA regional municipalities in consultations
directed at establishing a framework for the participating GTA municipalities identifying a shared solution for their long
term waste disposal capacity needs; that subject to a satisfactory framework being identified and manifest in a
Memorandum of Understanding, the Region provide the City of Toronto with ranges of waste disposal tonnage needs which
quantity would be integrated into Toronto's waste disposal marketplace request for expressions of interest and detailed
proposal call; and that, in parallel to the Region participating in the GTA/Toronto process, the Region initiate a process of
canvassing the waste disposal marketplace for proposals to address the waste disposal capacity needs of the Region only."
[In addition, in the body of the report before York Regional Council, the following appendices were listed and adopted for
inclusion as additional conditions:]
"Condition No. 8 of this MOU is interpreted to not prohibit York Region from engaging the marketplace through issuance
of requests for proposals and negotiating with any proponents submitting proposals pertaining to provision of solid waste
disposal capacity for York Region's disposal quantities. Pursuant to the latter portion of Condition No. 8, if York Region
renews its commitment to the GTA shared solution approach, York Region will not negotiate with the top qualified
proponents during the period Toronto is negotiating with these proponents."
"York Region has the right under this MOU to carry out its own Request for Proposals for a York only disposal solution and
to conduct any negotiations with any proponents in the time periods before and after the City of Toronto is negotiating with
its top qualified proponents. Furthermore, if York's top qualified proponents are different than Toronto's top qualified
proponents, then York has the right under this MOU to conduct its negotiations at the same time as Toronto is conducting
negotiations."
Regional Municipality of Durham. January 19, 1999
"That the Region of Durham enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding a potential Greater Toronto Area
partnership to secure long term waste disposal capacity and that the Memorandum include the following conditions specific
to the Region of Durham:"
1. That no new landfill site(s) be established in the Region of Durham;
2. That Energy from Waste or Refuse Derived Fuel facilities be considered;
3. That new emerging waste disposal technologies be considered;
4. That the Region may conduct separate negotiations with any service provider for short term Regional waste disposal
services while Toronto is negotiating with top qualified proponents for long term waste disposal services."
--------
(March 23, 1999)
Purpose:
This report is supplementary to the report submitted on March 15, 1999, regarding the "Solid Waste Management
Marketplace Engagement Process - Greater Toronto Area Memorandum of Understanding".
The purpose of this report is to present an additional recommendation related to assuring Toronto's interests during the
negotiations stage of the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process ("SWM-MEP"), and to clarify the
conditions the Regional Municipality of Peel has placed on its participation in the SWM-MEP process through the Greater
Toronto Area Memorandum of Understanding (the "GTA MOU").
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that, in addition to the authority to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding as set out in the report
dated March 15, 1999, Council also authorize the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to cease information
sharing with any of the Greater Toronto Area participants (Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham) during the
negotiations phase as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding, in the event that negotiations may be adversely affected
because of concurrent negotiations by the participants as referenced in any of the conditions appended to the Memorandum
of Understanding.
Reference/Background/History:
A report was submitted on March 15, 1999, to the Works and Utilities Committee by the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services regarding the GTA MOU. That report (which is also listed on this agenda) recommends the adoption
of the GTA MOU regarding a potential shared "partnership" solution to secure solid waste disposal capacity for the City of
Toronto and the GTA Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham. Contained within the GTA MOU is a clause
stating that participants "shall not conduct separate negotiations with the top qualified proponents from after the point that
members are notified that Toronto City Council has authorized negotiations with those proponents and up to execution of
contract(s)." (Clause No. 8, Draft No. 6(b), February 12, 1999.)
Each of the participating GTA Regions has included in their conditions linked to their participation (as per Clause No. 9 of
the MOU), the ability to continue to conduct negotiations related to the ongoing provision of solid waste management
services, while Toronto is conducting negotiations with top-qualified proponents.
After the submission to the Clerk of our March 15, 1999, report regarding the GTA MOU, we were advised by Peel
Regional staff that their Council on March 11, 1999, had modified the set of conditions proposed by staff which we had
understood to have been approved by Peel Regional Council. The modifications focussed on securing Peel's ability to:
"conduct separate negotiations with any service provider for Regional waste management services, while the City of
Toronto is negotiating with qualified proponents for long-term waste management services" (Peel Region Conditions, Item
"c"); and that
"no reference or commitment be made in the MOU relating to capital financial commitments or funding sources for any
disposal options at this time." (Peel Region Conditions, Item "e").
The conditions from the three participating GTA Regions, with Peel's modifications, are attached as Appendix "A". The
Commissioner's report of March 15, 1999, contains the proposed GTA MOU and the participants' conditions as of that date.
In regards to the second of Peel's modifications, the GTA MOU does not commit the participants to capital financial
commitments or funding sources at this point in the planning process.
Discussion and Justification:
We recognize that the participating GTA Regions have a requirement to manage their solid waste management
responsibilities in an ongoing fashion and that the associated need for negotiations related to such matters as collection
contracts with private sector firms may overlap with our negotiation period with top-qualified respondents. However, it is
important that Toronto protect its position by ensuring that negotiations are not adversely affected by concurrent waste
disposal negotiations by GTA MOU participants.
Conclusions:
This report is supplementary to the report of March 15, 1999, concerning the adoption of the GTA MOU regarding a
potential shared "partnership" solution to secure solid waste disposal capacity for the City of Toronto and the GTA Regional
Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham. In order to secure Toronto's negotiating position with top-qualified respondents,
we are recommending that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to cease information sharing
with any of the GTA participants during the negotiations phase as set out in the MOU, in the event that negotiations may be
adversely affected because of potential concurrent negotiations by the participants.
Contact Name:
Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.
Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-4745
E-mail: lawson_oates@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
Appendix A
Conditions Passed by the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham, Under Clause No. 9 of the "Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding a Potential Greater Toronto Area Partnership to Secure Long-term Solid Waste Disposal
Capacity"
Regional Municipality of Peel. March 11, 1999
"That the Regional Municipality of Peel enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Toronto,
regarding a potential Greater Toronto Area partnership to secure long-term waste disposal capacity;
"And further, that the Memorandum include the following conditions specific to the Region of Peel:
(a) that no new landfill site(s) be established in the Region of Peel;
(b) that existing landfill capacity in the Region of Peel not be utilized for the City of Toronto's landfill needs;
(c) that the Region of Peel may conduct separate negotiations with any service provider for Regional waste management
services, while the City of Toronto is negotiating with qualified proponents for long-term waste management services;
(d) notwithstanding Clause 7 of Draft No. 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding which states that, "Members will be
advised by advance notice of two months of the decision point prior to Toronto executing a contract(s), with a successful
proponent or proponents," Peel Regional Council will through its member, review any decision point and report back to the
City as to, "whether or not to partner with Toronto by passage of an appropriate by-law to contract for the relevant
tonnages";
(e) no reference or commitment be made in the MOU relating to capital financial commitments or funding sources for any
disposal options at this time;
And further, that a copy of the report and the corresponding resolution be forwarded to the City of Toronto, to be appended
to the Memorandum of Understanding, as per Clause 9 of the MOU."
Regional Municipality of York. January 28, 1999
(1) "That the Regional Chair and Regional Clerk be authorized to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the City
of Toronto regarding a potential Greater Toronto Area partnership to secure long-term solid waste disposal capacity, in a
form similar to that shown as Attachment 1, and as outlined in this report, subject to the particular concerns pertaining to
York Region as noted in the text of this report being adequately addressed."
(2) "That Regional Council endorse the Region's preliminary diversion rates and corresponding disposal quantities for
incorporation into the City of Toronto's Request for Expressions of Interest document, as outlined in this report."
[Conditions.]
(1) "That there be no new landfill capacity established in York Region."
(2) "That the Region continue to give priority to waste diversion over waste disposal in structuring the Region's waste
management system; and, that contracts for the disposal of the Region's waste be structured to reflect both the ongoing and
intended future target performance of the Region's waste diversion program."
(3) "That export of the Region's waste to disposal facilities outside the Region be considered; and, that that process of
consideration incorporate an awareness of the host community's positions on the waste disposal facilities proposed to
receive the Region's waste."
(4) "That export of the Region's waste to facilities in the United States (U.S.) be considered in addition to facilities located
in Ontario, but that in comparatively evaluating the U.S. facilities to Ontario facilities, priority be given to facilities which
benefit Ontario in terms of jobs and economic investment; the degree of priority assigned should be developed through
further public consultation."
(5) "That waste incineration with energy recovery (EFW) be considered as a waste disposal technology in addition to
landfill; and, that any specific proposals for EFW be comparatively evaluated with landfill proposals, utilizing criteria
which address macro environmental impacts (including health and safety, natural environment, energy resource
management) as well as the matter of Ontario benefits and financial cost."
(6) "That proposals involving EFW facilities located in the Region be considered and comparatively evaluated in the
manner described immediately above; and that the process of consideration involve detailed consultation with the host area
municipality and immediate community with the objective of establishing the elements of a "community-facility
performance agreement" addressing matters including but not limited to: environmental performance, performance
monitoring and reporting, and non-performance penalty and compensation."
(7) "That proposals involving waste from York Region and other GTA Regions and Toronto transferring through transfer
facilities in York Region for disposal at facilities outside the Region, be considered; and that such consideration place
significant priority upon measures to ensure that potential land use and transportation impacts are fully mitigated."
(8) "That proposals to manage the Region's waste disposal tonnages be permitted to include tonnages from the ( [sic]
industrial, commercial and institutional sector, provided that the Region's waste disposal capacity needs have priority."
(9) "That the Region entertain offers from the waste disposal marketplace which could involve the Region as a partner in
the form of the Region having an equity interest in facilities."
(10) "That the Region should continue with the "dual track" approach to long term solid waste disposal planning, namely
involving: the Region continuing to participate with Toronto and other GTA regional municipalities in consultations
directed at establishing a framework for the participating GTA municipalities identifying a shared solution for their long
term waste disposal capacity needs; that subject to a satisfactory framework being identified and manifest in a
Memorandum of Understanding, the Region provide the City of Toronto with ranges of waste disposal tonnage needs which
quantity would be integrated into Toronto's waste disposal marketplace request for expressions of interest and detailed
proposal call; and that, in parallel to the Region participating in the GTA/Toronto process, the Region initiate a process of
canvassing the waste disposal marketplace for proposals to address the waste disposal capacity needs of the Region only."
[In addition, in the body of the report before York Regional Council, the following appendices were listed and adopted for
inclusion as additional conditions:]
"Condition No. 8 of this MOU is interpreted to not prohibit York Region from engaging the marketplace through issuance
of requests for proposals and negotiating with any proponents submitting proposals pertaining to provision of solid waste
disposal capacity for York Region's disposal quantities. Pursuant to the latter portion of Condition No. 8, if York Region
renews its commitment to the GTA shared solution approach, York Region will not negotiate with the top qualified
proponents during the period Toronto is negotiating with these proponents."
"York Region has the right under this MOU to carry out its own Request for Proposals for a York only disposal solution and
to conduct any negotiations with any proponents in the time periods before and after the City of Toronto is negotiating with
its top qualified proponents. Furthermore, if York's top qualified proponents are different than Toronto's top qualified
proponents, then York has the right under this MOU to conduct its negotiations at the same time as Toronto is conducting
negotiations."
Regional Municipality of Durham. January 19, 1999
"That the Region of Durham enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding a potential Greater Toronto Area
partnership to secure long term waste disposal capacity and that the Memorandum include the following conditions specific
to the Region of Durham:"
(1) That no new landfill site(s) be established in the Region of Durham;
(2) That Energy from Waste or Refuse Derived Fuel facilities be considered;
(3) That new emerging waste disposal technologies be considered;
(4) That the Region may conduct separate negotiations with any service provider for short term Regional waste disposal
services while Toronto is negotiating with top qualified proponents for long term waste disposal services."
--------
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration
of the foregoing matter the following communications:
(i) (January 28, 1999) from the Regional Clerk, Region of York, advising that the Council of the Regional Municipality of
York on January 28, 1999, adopted, as amended, the appended Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 1 of the Commissioner
of Transportation and Works, headed "Long-Term Solid Waste Disposal Shared Solution for the Greater Toronto
Area - Memorandum of Understanding"; that by the adoption of the aforementioned clause, Regional Council has
authorized the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Toronto regarding a potential Greater
Toronto Area partnership to secure long-term solid waste disposal capacity, subject to the particular concerns pertaining to
York Region as noted in the text of this report being adequately addressed; and that Regional Council had endorsed the
Region's preliminary diversion rates and corresponding disposal quantities for incorporation into the City of Toronto's
Request for Expressions of Interest document.
(ii) (February 1, 1999) from the Regional Clerk, Region of Durham, advising that the Works Committee of Regional
Council considered the matter of planning for long-term solid waste disposal capacity, and that at a meeting held on January
27, 1999, Council adopted the following recommendations of the Committee:
"(a) that Council Correspondence #98-563 (WRC-18-98) be received for information; and
(b) that the Region of Durham enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding a potential Greater Toronto Area
partnership to secure long-term waste disposal capacity and that the Memorandum include the following conditions specific
to the Region of Durham:
(i) that no new landfill site(s) be established in the Region of Durham;
(ii) that Energy from Waste or Refuse Derived Fuel facilities be considered;
(iii) that new emerging waste disposal technologies be considered; and
(iv) that the Region may conduct separate negotiations with any service provider for short-term regional waste disposal
services while Toronto is negotiating with top qualified proponents for long-term waste disposal services."
Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services, gave
a presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to Toronto's Solid Waste Management Marketplace
Engagement Process, and submitted a copy of his presentation.
Mr. Robert Mansell, Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, was present at the meeting of the Works and Utilities
Committee and responded to questions from the Members.
The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the Solid Waste Management
Marketplace Engagement Process:
- Mr. R.A. McCaig, President, Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Ms. Karen Buck, and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Bob Webb, Republic Services, Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Gregory M. Vogt, Eastern Power;
- Ms. Gina Gignac and Mr. Karl Bartlett, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, and submitted material with respect
thereto;
- Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems, and Mr. Gordon E. McGuinty, President, Notre Development,
representing Rail Cycle North; and
- Mr. George Paturalski, Vice-President - Market Development, Browning Ferris Industries.
2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Trading
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause by:
(1) amending the report dated March 11, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, by:
(a) deleting from Recommendation No. (2) the words "be used as a guide during negotiations pertaining to
Recommendation No. (1) above", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "be met in order for an emissions trade/sale to be
entered into by the City", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(2) the principles proposed by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) in its report to the
City and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) dated November 24, 1998, be met in order for an emissions trade/sale to be
entered into by the City;";
(b) adding to Part (c) under Section (5), entitled "Policy Guidelines", the words "The potential purchaser of Toronto's
greenhouse gas credit shall be required to ensure that this transaction in no way facilitates the increase of emissions, or
ambient concentrations, of other air pollutants in the Toronto airshed. In the absence of a regulatory cap, the City of
Toronto will only trade with parties that have a voluntary cap on greenhouse gas emissions.", so that Part (c) shall now
read as follows:
"(c) The trading of greenhouse gas emissions should not compromise the City's goals of improving the local environment,
particularly air quality. The potential purchaser of Toronto's greenhouse gas credit shall be required to ensure that this
transaction in no way facilitates the increase of emissions, or ambient concentrations, of other air pollutants in the Toronto
airshed. In the absence of a regulatory cap, the City of Toronto will only trade with parties that have a voluntary cap on
greenhouse gas emissions."; and
(2) adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that Councillors Balkissoon and Layton be included on the staff team negotiating the trade/sale
of greenhouse gas Emissions Reduction Credits.")
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To seek authority to determine the feasibility of trading greenhouse gas Emissions Reduction Credits (ERC) that are
attributable to actions taken by the City of Toronto to reduce its corporate greenhouse gas emissions.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
(1) This initiative is to be carried out within the recommended 1999 Budget.
(2) This program initiative has the potential to become a modest new source of revenue for the City of Toronto.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to enter into negotiations with interested buyers of
Emissions Reduction Credits in order to determine if a receptive market currently exists for the trading of selected
greenhouse gas Emissions Reduction Credits, and report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the subsequent actions
that the City should take with respect to this matter;
(2) the principles proposed by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) in its report to the City
and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund (TAF) dated November 24, 1998, be used as a guide during negotiations pertaining to
Recommendation No. (1) above; and
(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
City Council at its meeting held on April 16, 1998, adopted Clause No. 10 of Report No. 3 of The Works and Utilities
Committee, and in so doing authorized the engagement of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives to
undertake the design of a Pilot Project for Carbon Emissions Trading.
City Council at its meeting held on July 8, 1998, received for information, Clause No. 10 embodied in Report No. 6 of The
Works and Utilities Committee, entitled "Strategic Action Plan to Reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions in the New
City of Toronto".
City Council at its meeting on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted Clause No. 15 embodied in Report No. 26 of The
Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled "Sustainable Energy, Greenspace/Nature and Water Actions", and in so
doing formally committed the new City of Toronto to a carbon dioxide emission goal of 20 percent relative to 1990 levels
by year 2005.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
(1) Global Warming and its Climate Change Impact:
The "greenhouse effect" is a phenomenon where heat is absorbed by gases which occur naturally in the earth's atmosphere.
This trapped energy warms the land and oceans within a relatively narrow temperature range supportive of life on our
planet. The greenhouse effect has become problematic because excessive amounts of heat, normally dissipated, are now
trapped by the presence of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) largely generated by
human actions such as fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. The resulting increase in average surface temperature is
commonly referred to as 'global warming'. Since the Industrial Revolution, increases in greenhouse gases have contributed
0.5 Celsius to mean global warming. Scientific evidence indicates that the average global temperature may increase by
approximately 1.0 Celsius to 3.5 Celsius by the year 2100 as a result of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Climate change induced by global warming to the extent described above would have significant adverse impacts on the
environment and on humanity.
(2) The Kyoto Protocol:
The United Nations Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, at its third meeting held in
Kyoto, Japan on December 12, 1997, gave final approval to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol proposes legally
binding targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions for participating nations. The Protocol will come into
effect when 55 national governments ratify the agreement. The Canadian government has yet to ratify the agreement. Of
interest to the City is that the Protocol establishes the basis for an international greenhouse gas trading system, one that
would allow buyers and sellers to trade greenhouse gas Emissions Reduction Credits.
(3) How the Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Credits Works:
Greenhouse gas Emissions Reduction Credits are traded when a purchaser, typically a large emitter of CO2, is in need of
Emissions Reduction Credits to meet a corporate target or cap on emissions and a transaction is made with a seller of
emissions.
Purchasers with more costly emission reduction measures normally seek to buy emission credits from a seller with lower
cost emission reduction measures. It makes no difference where a particular tonne of greenhouse gas is emitted in terms of
the impact on global warming.
Typical buyers will be organizations such as oil and gas companies, electric generation utilities and industrial process users
who consume large amounts of fossil fuels. Typical sellers may be forestry companies, municipal governments and other
organizations that have lower cost measures for greenhouse gas reductions available to them such as energy efficiency and
conservation, sequestration and fuel switching.
The economic value of Emissions Reduction Credits becomes real when emissions limits are established for both buyers
and sellers. Potential buyers with long planning and production cycles are interested in negotiating and entering into
agreements for the trading of Emissions Reduction Credits in anticipation of the introduction of mandatory limits of
emissions being instituted by the Canadian Federal Government.
Emissions trading is used as a tool to achieve further reduction in emissions and to realize a more cost efficient
implementation of mandatory emission limits. Experience shows that this practice not only brings down the mandatory
compliance costs but can provide incentives for polluters to achieve reductions in emissions earlier than they are actually
required to do so by regulation.
In our local context, revenues from emission trading could become a source of funding for City and community projects that
will further contribute to the City's 20 percent emission reduction target. Furthermore these additional emissions reductions
could be credited to any commitment made under the Kyoto Protocol.
(4) ICLEI's Report:
ICLEI's report on the "Design of a Carbon Emissions Pilot Trade for Toronto", dated November 24, 1998, was jointly
commissioned in 1998 by City Council and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. In summary, it is being recommended that the
following policy guidelines which are based on ICLEI's findings, conclusions and recommended principles, be used to
ensure the most favourable environmental outcome for the City in any future trading transaction.
(5) Policy Guidelines:
(a) Greenhouse gas emissions trades should not erode the City's CO2 emission reduction credit base to the extent that the
City's ability to reach its goals is compromised.
(b) Legal ownership of the Emissions Reduction Credits must be clearly settled.
(c) The trading of greenhouse gas emissions should not compromise the City's goals of improving the local environment,
particularly air quality.
(d) Procedural and administrative functions of executing emissions trades should be undertaken by the City's Energy
Efficiency Office.
(e) The requested report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Works and Utilities Committee
should address a maximum of three potential purchases of Emissions Reduction Credits.
(f) The City's potential trading revenues should be considered for deposit into a fund which is guided by a re-investment
strategy in support of further emission reductions.
(g) Primary candidate projects to receive funds from the sale of Emissions Reduction Credits should include planning,
feasibility or engineering projects and/or community projects that support increased participation and/or technical
penetration rates that may result in further CO2 reductions, and measuring, monitoring and verification projects that support
the City's efforts to maintain an ongoing inventory of emissions.
(h) Where appropriate, the City should enter into direct negotiations with potential buyers who have an interest in trading.
(i) In the event that the City's corporate and/or the community's concerns are not satisfied during the negotiations for
emissions trading, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services will report back to Council on options for any
future action and/or involvement in emissions trading.
(6) PERT - Pilot Emissions Reduction Trading Project:
The City should also register with Canada's Voluntary Challenge Registry (VCR) and the Pilot Emissions Reduction
Trading Project (PERT). PERT is an industry-led, multi-stakeholder initiative formed to evaluate the potential
environmental and economic benefits of open-market emission reduction trading in Ontario.
PERT is the forum in which Ontario protocols and rules for trading are being developed and many of the measures that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions also reduce air pollutants. The PERT model offers the promise of an integrated system for
qualifying and brokering measures that create Emissions Reduction Credits for both air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
ICLEI has advised the City that "Few purchasers will consider a pilot trade with Toronto unless these potential Emissions
Reduction Credits are duly scrutinized by a group such as PERT".
It is noteworthy that the policy guidelines recommended above are congruent with PERT's guiding principles for emissions
trading which are:
(1) "Emissions reduction credits will be real, surplus, retrospectively quantifiable and verifiable."
(2) "Trades of emissions reduction credits will be reviewed to ensure their environmental benefit."
(3) "All actions taken by all parties in PERT will comply with the letter and intent of all laws and regulations."
(4) "Actions taken by parties in PERT will have no negative impact on the environment."
(5) "The Pilot will identify issues related to trading among emitters from different industries and different jurisdictions over
time."
(6) "Issues will be resolved, as much as possible, through a consensus-based multi-stakeholder process."
(7) Quantifying Emissions Reduction Credits:
The actual quantity of Emissions Reduction Credits which the City will negotiate for trading purposes will be defined in the
context of the guidelines noted above, and will be dependent upon the available margin of excess greenhouse gas emissions
as illustrated in Figure No. 1 (attached).
Figure No. 1 illustrates that the City will have eligible historic Emissions Reduction Credits of approximately 477,000
tonnes from past projects from 1994 to 1998 and potential future Emissions Reduction Credits of approximately 991,000
tonnes for the period from 1999 to 2005. PERT protocols are used to define eligible Emissions Reduction Credits, and it
should be noted that PERT does not recognize historic emissions prior to 1994. Also, 10 percent of eligible Emissions
Reduction Credits must be "retired" or not traded.
In this initial and exploratory stage of greenhouse gas emissions trading, it is recommended that a conservative estimate be
taken with respect to the actual quantity of Emissions Reduction Credits which the City negotiates for trade. Specifically,
Emissions Reduction Credits should be limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the net excess projected. This action would
ensure that in the event that future greenhouse gas emissions reductions become problematic, excess greenhouse gas
emission reductions would continue to be available and therefore not result in a net erosion of the City's greenhouse gas
emission reduction base. Consequently, the actual amount of Emissions Reduction Credits that would be deemed eligible
for trading would be 238,500 tonnes (50 percent of 477,000) of historic credits, and future Emissions Reduction Credits to
be traded would be limited to 495,500 tonnes out of the available 991,000 tonnes noted above.
The City may realize additional financial benefits from its greenhouse gas reduction policies and programs by selling
greenhouse gas Emissions Reduction Credits into the emerging greenhouse gas trading market. As a result of the former
City of Toronto's and Metro's early commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, Toronto is well positioned
to tap into a potentially significant new revenue stream for the financing of local environmental improvement projects.
ICLEI reports that "At a possible range of $0.50 to $3 ($US) per tonne of eCO2, Toronto's historic Emissions Reduction
Credits available for 1994-1999 may be worth in the range of $240,000 to $1,440,000 in $US. Toronto's historic and new
potential Emissions Reduction Credits available 2000-2005 may be worth in the range of $418,000 to $2,508,000 in $US".
ICLEI's revenue estimates fall within the range of the City's "most likely" scenario for greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
The revenue realized will depend on the actual quantity of greenhouse gas emissions credits traded.
ICLEI's quantification of the potential quantity of Emissions Reduction Credits available for trading is based on a limited
initial screening of eligible greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects. Further assessments beyond the scope of ICLEI's
report will identify the potential of other eligible greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects.
Conclusions:
Based on the report submitted by ICLEI, the City has the opportunity to extend, enhance, and make more effective, its
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the trading of excess Emissions Reduction Credits which is supported
by a re-investment strategy.
It is first necessary to determine the practicability of the proposals documented in the ICLEI report by entering into
negotiations with the interested purchasers of greenhouse gas emission credits to assume a "learn by doing position". Only
then will the City be in a position to determine the nature and scope of any trading that the City should enter into and the
environmental and economic benefits that will result from trading.
It is therefore recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to enter into
negotiations with interested buyers of emissions credits, based on the principles documented in the ICLEI report, in order to
determine if a receptive market currently exists for the trading of the City's greenhouse gas emission credits, and report to
the Works and Utilities Committee on the subsequent actions that the City should take with respect to this matter.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
John Warren, Director, Environmental Services
Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 397-4625; Fax: (416) 392-6279
E-mail AJohn_Warren@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
Insert Figure 1
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration
of the foregoing matter the following communications:
(i) (March 12, 1999) from Mr. Jeb Brugmann, Secretary General, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives,
and Mr. Philip Jessup, International Director, Cities for Climate Protection, respecting the carbon trading potential for
greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and providing additional information; and advising that potential further revenue
possibilities from the evolving international carbon trading market may arise from the policies and programs being regularly
considered.
(ii) (March 19, 1999) from the Toronto Environmental Alliance providing comments on the report from the Commissioner
of Works and Emergency Services with respect to greenhouse gas emissions reduction trading, and making further
recommendations with respect thereto.
(A copy of Clause No. 10 of Report No. 3 of The Works and Utilities Committee adopted by Council on April 16, 1998,
referred to in the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and
Utilities Committee meeting of March 24, 1999, and a copy there of is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication
(April 12, 1999) addressed to Councillor Betty Disero, Chair, Works and Utilities Committee, from the Toronto
Environmental Alliance, providing recommendations with respect to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Trading.)
3
Promotional Funding and Guidelines for Environment Days
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause to provide that Members of Council be permitted to
choose either $500.00 worth of compost or $500.00 worth of advertising to promote their Environment Day event.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 8, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to show the effects of per capita funding on the amount of money available to each ward for the
promotion of Environment Days, and to establish general guidelines for Councillors to follow when promoting their
Environment Day.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds for Environment Day promotion are provided in the Works and Emergency Services, Support Services Operating
Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the Works and Emergency Services Department maintain its current practice of providing Councillors with up to
$1,000.00 per ward to promote their Environment Day event, rather than providing funding to each ward on a per capita
basis, during the months of April through October 1999;
(2) to be eligible for funding, promotion of an Environment Day must include one or more of the following: an
Environment Day ad in a community newspaper, a ½-page or larger Environment Day ad in a Councillor's constituency
newsletter, or an Environment Day flyer distributed door-to-door;
(3) each ad, newsletter or flyer must contain the following information: Host Councillors' names, date, location, time, list of
items to be dropped off, picked up or purchased at an event, prices, contact numbers and a Works and Emergency Services
word mark; and
(4) to guarantee reimbursement of funds for advertising in a community newspaper or constituency newsletter(s) or for
distributing a flyer, the arrangements for the promotions should be made by Works and Emergency Services
communications staff or a copy of the ad or flyer along with the print or distribution invoice must be provided to Works and
Emergency Services communications staff.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting of January 13, 1999, the Works and Utilities Committee approved a motion to request the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee at its meeting to be held on March 24, 1999, on the
allocation of the costs of Environment Days on a per capita basis for future years.
Environment Days are an important component of the Department's public education strategy to promote waste reduction in
the City of Toronto. Since 1991, the events have been organized by the Department and hosted by Toronto Councillors.
This partnership has been successful and has helped to establish a good relationship with the public with respect to these
local community events and promoting the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle).
Currently, Works and Emergency Services allocates $1,000.00 per ward to Councillors for the promotion of Environment
Days. This amounts to $28,000.00 annually. Councillors may use this $1,000.00 to promote their Environment Day to their
constituents using community newspaper advertising, door-to-door flyers and/or Councillor newsletters. In addition, the
Department spends approximately $50,000.00 to promote Environment Days through newspaper advertisements
(six ¼-page ads in the Toronto Star), radio advertisements (five series of English ads and five series of multi-lingual ads
from the end of April to September), distribution of posters, recorded telephone messages, listings in "Waste Watch", and
information dissemination at displays.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The $1,000.00 that is currently provided equally to each ward is based on the average ward size in Toronto. The total
Councillor promotional budget ($28,000.00) is divided by the city population (2,331,170) to arrive at the per capita amount
of $.012. The average ward size (83,256 residents) is multiplied by $.012 to give us $999.07 which is then rounded up to
$1,000.00.
Using a per capita-based formula to calculate the amount of promotional funding distributed to each ward would affect the
amount of funding received by each ward. In some instances, a ward could receive up to approximately 25 percent more or
approximately 25 percent less depending on the size of its population. A formula based on the population size in each ward
would be $.012 x ward population = amount of promotional funding for each Environment Day. As an example, the three
equations below demonstrate the effect on funding of the smallest, average and largest ward sizes (by population):
Ward 9 - $.012 x 60,230 = $722.76
Ward 17 - $.012 x 83,370 = $1000.44
Ward 18 - $.012 x 109,350 = $1,312.20
The calculations for each ward are attached in the appendix at the end of this report.
The variations in funding may make it more difficult to ensure that residents receive consistent, accurate information,
regardless of the ward in which they live. It would also make tracking and administering the budgets more complex.
Therefore, staff recommend that we continue to provide funding for Environment Days based on the average ward size (i.e.
$1,000.00) rather than per capita funding based on specific ward populations.
It is also important that key messages about Environment Days are consistent and prominent in all communication pieces
and that information about the events remain current and up-to-date. For that reason, the Department encourages
Councillors and their staff to work with Works and Emergency Services communications staff in writing and producing
their promotional materials. In most cases, departmental communications staff can provide camera-ready material and will
assist with production and distribution. To allow for optimum planning and production, Councillors or their staff should
contact the department at least eight weeks prior to their event (where possible).
Conclusions:
A per capita funding formula would significantly alter the amount some wards receive for Environment Day promotion, and
would make administration of the budgets more difficult. Maintaining the current practice of allocating $1,000.00 per ward
ensures that there is adequate funding to cover the costs of basic promotion in all wards.
The success of the Environment Day events relies on consistent, effective promotion in each ward. The consistency and
effectiveness of promotions will be enhanced if the recommended guidelines are followed.
Councillors and their staff are encouraged to work with Works and Emergency Services communications staff to provide
clear, consistent promotional messages.
Contact Name:
Nicole Dufort
Manager, Communications
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-2963, Fax: (416) 392-2974
Appendix
Promotional funding of Environment Day events based on ward populations:
Ward 1 $.012 x 100,930 = $1,211.16
Ward 2 $.012 x 78,370 = $ 940.44
Ward 3 $.012 x 76,230 = $ 914.76
Ward 4 $.012 x 73,180 = $ 878.16
Ward 5 $.012 x 92,360 = $1,108.32
Ward 6 $.012 x 87,490 = $1,049.88
Ward 7 $.012 x 93,440 = $1,121.28
Ward 8 $.012 x 82,300 = $ 987.60
Ward 9 $.012 x 60,230 = $ 722.76
Ward 10 $.012 x 74,310 = $ 891.72
Ward 11 $.012 x 91,740 = $1,100.88
Ward 12 $.012 x 88,250 = $1,059.00
Ward 13 $.012 x 90,150 = $1,081.80
Ward 14 $.012 x 65,230 = $ 782.76
Ward 15 $.012 x 105,110 = $1,261.32
Ward 16 $.012 x 96,950 = $1,163.40
Ward 17 $.012 x 83,370 = $1,000.44
Ward 18 $.012 x 109,350 = $1,312.20
Ward 19 $.012 x 80,710 = $ 968.52
Ward 20 $.012 x 68,060 = $ 816.72
Ward 21 $.012 x 84,100 = $1,009.20
Ward 22 $.012 x 81,700 = $ 980.40
Ward 23 $.012 x 69,520 = $ 834.24
Ward 24 $.012 x 94,870 = $1,138.44
Ward 25 $.012 x 84,310 = $1,011.72
Ward 26 $.012 x 80,340 = $ 964.08
Ward 27 $.012 x 76,990 = $ 923.88
Ward 28 $.012 x 61,580 = $ 738.96
4
Operating Agreement for Commissioners Street
Material Recovery Facility (Ward 25)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated March 15, 1999, from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services to consult with the Ward Councillors for the area, Councillors Bussin, Jakobek, Layton and
McConnell, on the impact of the opening of the Dufferin Material Recycling Facility on the Commissioners Street Material
Recycling Facility, and to report thereon to the Committee in the fall.
The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to enter into a two-year agreement with Canadian Waste Services
Inc. for the operation and maintenance of the Material Recovery Facility located at 400 Commissioners Street.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The preliminary 1999 Operating Budget submission for Costing Unit O SW210 R70022 Recycling Operations/Materials
Recovery Facilities includes provisions for the operation and maintenance of the Material Recovery Facility located at 400
Commissioners Street for 1999. A preliminary estimate for the facility's operation and maintenance for the year 2000 has
also been prepared.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that authority be granted to enter into an amending agreement with Canadian Waste Services Inc. for the
operation and maintenance of the Material Recovery Facility located at 400 Commissioners Street for a period of two years
commencing January 1, 1999, and concluding December 31, 2001, subject to termination on 60 days' notice and pursuant to
the terms and conditions of the previous operation and maintenance agreement which expired on December 31, 1998.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting held on September 24 and 25, 1997, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 6 of Report No. 12 of The
Environment and Public Space Committee entitled, "New Operating Agreement for Commissioners Material Recovery
Facility". The report included the recommendation that Metropolitan Council authorize the Commissioner of Works to enter
into an operating agreement between Metro and Canadian Waste Services Inc. (formerly WMI/Canada CRInc. Ltd.) for the
operation of the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at 400 Commissioners Street (Commissioners MRF), based on the
existing agreement which was then in effect between the parties but subject to a number of terms and conditions. Among
others, the report recommended that the term of the operating agreement will be one year with a month-to-month extension
clause of up to 24 additional months; any cancellation of the agreement after the first 12 months will be at the sole
discretion of the Commissioner of Works, subject to providing 60 days' notice.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
At its meeting held on August 15, 1990, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 47 of Report No. 23 of The Management
Committee which awarded a contract to New England CRInc. for the design and construction of a Recyclable MRF at the
former Commissioners Street Incinerator site. The report further authorized the Metropolitan Corporation to enter into
detailed discussions/negotiations with New England CRInc. and to enter into an operating, maintenance and marketing
agreement for the above-mentioned facility. The operating maintenance and marketing agreement commenced on June 1,
1992, when the plant officially opened and was scheduled to terminate 24 months thereafter. The contract also contained
two 12-month extension terms which could be exercised upon mutual agreement by both parties. Metro staff and
representatives from Canada CRInc. (a Canadian subsidiary of New England CRInc.) were unsuccessful in their efforts to
negotiate an extension to the contract before the scheduled termination date of May 31, 1994. Council subsequently
authorized the Commissioner of Works to enter into a Continuation Agreement with Canada CRInc. for a period of up to
120 days, and subject to terms and conditions to be negotiated by the Metropolitan Solicitor and Canada CRInc. The
Continuation Agreement provided staff with sufficient time to issue an operation and maintenance tender call for the MRF,
to review the submissions, and to award the contract while the plant was still in operation.
At its meeting held on September 28, 1994, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 13 of Report No. 27 of The
Management Committee, entitled "New Operating Agreement - Commissioners Street Blue Box Material Recovery
Facility". The report recommended that authority be granted to enter into a new operating agreement with Canada CRInc.
for the operation of the MRF at 400 Commissioners Street, for a period of 26 months effective October 31, 1994 until
December 31, 1996, subject to a number of terms and conditions. The new agreement included an option to extend on a
month-to-month basis for a period of up to 12 months at the discretion of the Commissioner of Works, subject to terms and
conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and the Metropolitan Solicitor. The award of the operating agreement
to Canada CRInc. was the result of a competitive bid process.
On November 20, 1996, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 19 of The Environment and Public
Space Committee which authorized the extension of the operating agreement between Metro and Canada CRInc. for a
further one year until December 31, 1997. The rationale for extending the agreement was to provide staff with the necessary
time to review future processing needs and resolve outstanding issues with respect to the future of Metro's Blue Box
processing facilities. Specifically, the extension provided staff with time to prepare, issue, review and report on the Request
for Proposals (RFP) for Blue Box processing. Canada CRInc. was subsequently 'taken over' by Waste Management of
Canada (WMI) during the term of the extension.
At its meeting held on September 24 and 25, 1997, Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 6 of Report No. 12 of The
Environment and Public Space Committee, entitled "New Operating Agreement for Commissioners Street Material
Recovery Facility". The report recommended that Metro enter into a new agreement with Canadian Waste Services
(formerly WMI/Canada CRInc. Ltd.) for the operation of the MRF at 400 Commissioners Street. The new agreement
included a number of new conditions including a one-year operating term with a month-to-month extension up to 24
additional months. At the time, staff chose not to prepare a tender call for the operation of the MRF for a number of reasons.
The results of the RFP process were imminent. The preferred Blue Box processing alternative could have resulted in the
closure of the Commissioners Street MRF, or the operation of the Commissioners Street facility at a lower capacity. Staff
believed that a one-year operating agreement, which was the longest time period that Metro was prepared to commit to in
light of the RFP evaluation process, would have resulted in higher processing fees through a competitive bid process.
Further, the provision to terminate the operating contract after the first year, upon 60 days' notice, provided staff with the
necessary flexibility to integrate the Blue Box material processing activities with future facilities and/or activities as they
became available over the next one to three years.
The agreement dated January 1, 1998 (the Agreement), between the City and Canadian Waste Services Inc. (CWS) for the
operation and maintenance of the MRF located at 400 Commissioners Street expired by its provisions on December 31,
1998. It had been intended that Council authority would be sought to extend the one-year term for an additional two-year
period as contemplated by the option in favour of the City contained in the Agreement. That was not obtained prior to
expiry of the initial term. CWS has agreed to continue to process materials in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Agreement pending Council approval of a new agreement.
The new agreement will embody the same terms and conditions of the Agreement save and except for the length of the term
(which would be for the contemplated two-year extension, effective January 1, 1999, but still subject to termination on 60
days' notice).
Staff informed CWS that the City plans to have the Dufferin MRF in operation by the fall of 1999. Once the Dufferin
facility is operational, less material will be directed to the Commissioners Street MRF for processing. Preliminary estimates
indicate that the Commissioners Street MRF will still receive in excess of 25,000 tonnes of material in 1999. Therefore, the
annual processing rate of $57.50/tonne (including GST and all taxes) would apply for 1999. However, during the final year
of the new agreement, staff anticipate that the Commissioners Street MRF will receive 15,000 to 20,000 tonnes of material
at a processing rate of $66.50/tonne as stipulated in the Agreement.
CWS has reviewed a draft copy of the proposed agreement prepared by the City Solicitor and concur with the terms and
conditions contained therein.
Conclusions:
The proposed agreement is, simply stated, an extension of the original contract as provided for by the option in favour of
Toronto contained in that contract. It was contemplated that the option would be exercised prior to expiry of the initial term
but inadvertently was not. The two-year term of the proposed agreement, subject to termination on 60 days' notice, provides
staff with the necessary flexibility to manage material tonnages between the Commissioners Street MRF, the Metro Waste
Paper facility (which processes the former City of North York's commingled container material), and the new Dufferin
MRF. This operational flexibility will enable staff to meet contractual processing (tonnage) commitments at the lowest
possible costs.
Contact Name:
Richard Butts
Director - Transfer, Processing and Disposal Operations
Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-8286; Fax: (416) 392-4754
E-Mail: Richard_Butts@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
5
Household Hazardous Waste Program;
Implementation of Pilot Project for Used Battery Collection
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated March 8, 1999, from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee in September 1999 on the status of the pilot project at City
Hall, and on new locations for extension of the project.
The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to implement a pilot project to collect used batteries from City
employees at City Hall, and to provide information on Toronto's Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program which
reduces the release of toxic materials into the environment.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funding in the amount of $1,000.00 is required to finance a used battery collection program at City Hall, and can be
accommodated within the proposed 1999 Operating Budget for the HHW Program.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) a one-year pilot project to collect used batteries from City employees at City Hall be implemented; and
(2) additional hazardous waste drop-off sites at public places such as fire stations not be pursued at this time.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting of December 18, 1998, the Environmental Task Force had before it a draft report prepared by staff of the
Environmental Task Force which was forwarded to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommending among
other items:
(1) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Environmental Task Force on actions that are
currently being taken to reduce the release of household hazardous waste into the environment and suggestions for actions
that could be taken by the Environmental Task Force or City Council;
(2) that the City of Toronto's new seat of government have, as a pilot project, a drop-off spot in a visible location for
disposal of batteries used by City employees;
(3) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prepare a report regarding the setting-up of hazardous waste
drop-off sites for the public in places such as fire stations; and
(4) that the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to prepare
a plan for disposal of pesticides whose use will be eliminated.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
(1) Household Hazardous Waste Program:
Solid Waste Management Services of the Toronto Works and Emergency Services Department currently operates a HHW
Program which provides the following services to reduce the release of HHW into the environment:
(a) seven permanent drop-off depots situated at six waste management transfer stations in the City of Toronto and one at
Toronto's landfill, located in Maple, which are open two days a week to accept HHW from residents;
(b) a vehicle called the Toxics Taxi which is available upon request by residents to pick-up HHW at their home;
(c) approximately 28 "Environment Day" events held from April to October where residents can bring their HHW for
disposal or recycling; and
(d) a HHW telephone Hotline receiving calls from the public on HHW. Residents can schedule a Toxics Taxi pick-up or
request pamphlets and other information material by calling this phone line. To supplement the hotline, a section on HHW
has been set up on Toronto's Internet Web Site to provide information to the public.
(2) One-Year Pilot for Collection of Used Batteries at City Hall:
A collection depot for the drop-off of batteries used by City employees can be set up at City Hall as a one-year pilot project.
A storage container for batteries can be set up in front of the East and West Tower elevators. A label will be put on the
container to stipulate the types of batteries that can be accepted.
Before start-up of the project, in accordance with Regulation 347 under the Environmental Protection Act, a Generator
Registration Report is required to be completed and filed with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The battery
collection depot can commence upon the issuance of a Generator Registration number by the MOE identifying City Hall as
a generator of this type of hazardous waste.
Staff in the HHW Program can monitor the operation of this pilot. We estimate the cost of this program to be
approximately $1,000.00 which includes labour, materials and disposal/recycling costs. The cost for this program can be
accommodated within the 1999 Operating Budget estimates for HHW operations.
(3) Additional Household Hazardous Waste Depots:
The capital cost to fabricate and install a drop-off depot is approximately $75,000.00. The design of a depot must comply
with the Ontario Building and Fire Codes. Before operation commences, a HHW depot requires a Certificate of Approval
(C of A) which is issued by the MOE. This C of A is only issued if the MOE is satisfied that the design of the depot satisfies
the requirements for a waste disposal (transfer) facility for HHW operations and must meet all of their requirements.
Further, the design of the depot must meet the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act such as providing
mechanical ventilation to a hazardous material storage area to minimize the build-up of hazardous or toxic fumes.
The need for additional depots is questionable when two drop-off depots have been closed due to poor participation.
Staff in the Fire Department have been contacted to discuss this proposal. At this time, we concluded that due to the poor
participation at other depots, it was difficult to justify the capital expenditure required to establish HHW depots at fire
stations. Consequently, we recommend that setting up additional depots throughout the City not proceed at this time.
(4) Disposal of Surplus Pesticides:
A plan for the disposal of pesticides and reduction of their application on public green spaces has been referred to a
pesticides sub-committee under the Toronto Interdepartmental Environment Team (TIE). The Medical Officer of Health has
proposed terms of reference to the TIE Pesticides Sub-Committee. A final report to TIE and City Council is expected at the
end of 1999.
Conclusions:
A HHW Program has been in operation since 1988 providing services to residents seeking to dispose of their HHW
properly thereby reducing the release of HHW into the environment and landfills. A drop-off depot for batteries can be
established at City Hall where City employees can dispose of their used batteries rather than bringing them to one of
Toronto's seven licensed HHW facilities. Setting up additional depots at public places such as fire stations is not
recommended to proceed at this time. Disposal of pesticides will be the subject of a report from the TIE Pesticides
Sub-Committee.
Contact Name:
Dennis Lam, Supervisor - Hazardous Waste
Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-3668; Fax: (416) 392-4754
E-Mail: Dennis_Lam@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
6
Garbage Packers
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Works and Utilities Committee
for further consideration.
Council also adopted the following recommendation:
"It is recommended that Chair of the Works and Utilities Committee, Councillor Shiner and the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services meet to discuss this matter prior to it being again considered by the Works and Utilities
Committee.")
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (March 8, 1999) from the
General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, respecting garbage packers, which was forwarded to
Members of Council under confidential cover.
7
Vehicle Emission Testing (All Wards)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
(1) the Province of Ontario be requested to:
(a) return to the City of Toronto half of the administrative fee for the 'Drive Clean' program, to be dedicated as a fund for
public transit; and
(b) ensure a consistent standard of testing to maintain public confidence for this important program;
(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works and Utilities
Committee on:
(a) the $30.00 fee for vehicle testing, and what percentage of that fee is returned to the Province of Ontario for
administrative fees;
(b) a comparison of fees for vehicle and licence registration charged in the City of Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area and
the Province of Ontario, in order to identify any discrepancies in the fees charged; and
(c) the development of a strategy whereby motorists or residents who are forced to participate in the 'Drive Clean'
program may have the opportunity to obtain a second test at no cost;
(3) the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for report thereon to the
Works and Utilities Committee:
Moved by Councillor Duguid:
'That the Clause be amended by:
(a) striking out Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the report dated February 11, 1999, from the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(1) Council re-endorse the principle of a vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program, provided it does not
discriminate against Greater Toronto Area drivers and provided it is 100 percent revenue-neutral;
(2) Council request the Province of Ontario to:
(i) lower the $30.00 inspection fee to a maximum of $20.00, withdrawing the Province's share of $10.00 per inspection fee,
and that the Province fund any advertising and administrative expenses for this program from general revenues;
(ii) provide estimated advertising and administrative expenditures for this program, and anticipated revenues from the
$10.00 per inspection provincial charge;
(iii) recognize that this program, as it is currently being implemented, discriminates against Toronto and Greater Toronto
Area drivers; and
(iv) consider raising the revenues to pay for this program (including the inspection costs) through province-wide revenue
generating sources such as gasoline taxes and plate renewal fees;"; and
(b) renumbering Recommendation No. (2) embodied in such report as Recommendation No. (3).' ")
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 11, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on a vehicle emission testing program for Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
None.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the Ministry of the Environment mandatory vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program, to be known as
"Drive Clean," initiated for full operation by April 1, 1999, for cars and light duty trucks and by mid-1999 for heavy duty
trucks, be re-endorsed; and
(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report further early in year 2000 on the experience of the
provincial program and whether the City of Toronto should consider carrying out independent testing of the effectiveness of
the Drive Clean Program, at that time.
Council/Committee Reference:
City Council, at its meeting on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 11 of The Board
of Health, entitled "Update on the Implementation of the Provincial Mandatory Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Program (Drive Clean Program)".
Council, by adopting this Clause, endorsed the action by the Ontario Minister of the Environment to implement a
mandatory vehicle inspection and maintenance program using dynamometer technology that accurately measures vehicle
emissions under simulated road conditions.
Further, the Works and Utilities Committee, on November 4, 1998, had before it a communication (October 6, 1998) from
Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, respecting the status of the request by the former Metropolitan Toronto Council to the
Province of Ontario to implement a stringent vehicle emissions testing program, accompanied by procedures which would
ensure that vehicles exceeding emission limits would be brought into conformance or taken out of operation; requesting that
City of Toronto staff report on the technology, procedures and funding (user fees) that would be required to implement a
vehicle emissions testing and enforcement program for automobiles and commercial vehicles in the City of Toronto and in
the Greater Toronto Area with a minimum of delay; and suggesting that the City invite all municipalities in the GTA to
participate in this exercise, in order that working proposals for a rigorous emissions testing/enforcement program for the
GTA could be presented to the Province.
The Committee referred the aforementioned communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a
report thereon to the Committee.
Comments:
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is in the process of implementing its Drive Clean Program as announced
on November 23, 1998. The program, to be operated by private contractors and administered by the MOE, will reduce the
levels of smog-causing emissions from light duty vehicles (passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, vans and light trucks) and
heavy duty trucks.
Program Schedule:
- Phase I of the Drive Clean Program will be fully operational by April 1, 1999. Drive Clean facilities opened January 2,
1999, to conduct "early bird" tests.
- Cars and light duty trucks (under 4,500 kg GVWR) vehicles within the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth will be subject to
testing starting April 1, 1999.
- Heavy duty trucks and buses (over 4,500 kg GVWR) will be subject to testing starting mid-1999.
- Phase II of the program will commence on January 1, 2001, when 13 other urban areas and commuting zones will be
included in the program.
Program Goals:
The fully implemented, biennial testing program is expected to achieve the following:
- reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by up to 62,000 tonnes per year; reduced carbon
dioxide emissions from vehicles by up to 900,000 tonnes per year, and reduced microscopic particulates by 220 tonnes per
year;
- high standards of customer service and public acceptance; and
- zero tolerance of fraud.
Program Features:
- Drive Clean facilities will use a dynamometer, a device that allows testing under actual driving conditions, and a tailpipe
emission tester to test vehicle emissions.
- Vehicles are accelerated on the dynamometer until they reach 40 km/hr, to simulate normal driving conditions. Several
consecutive readings will be taken. The final result will be an average of the readings.
- Vehicles that fail because emission readings exceed the standard must be repaired and retested.
- The test will cost a maximum of $30.00, plus applicable taxes, and will take about 20 minutes on average.
- $200.00 repair cap: During the first two years of the program, owners of vehicles that fail the emissions test the first time
can receive a conditional pass if they fail a re-test. In order to obtain the conditional pass, owners must be able to
demonstrate that at least $200.00 worth of emission-related repairs were carried out at an approved Drive Clean facility. The
$200.00 repair cap and conditional pass provision will not apply for resales.
- Proof of a passed test is required to renew vehicle registration or change vehicle ownership, such as at a resale, when a
certificate of mechanical inspection is required.
- All emissions inspectors at Drive Clean test facilities must be officially certified in order to operate testing equipment.
- Testing equipment will perform to a standard that is among the most stringent in the industry.
- The Ontario Government will ensure that Drive Clean facilities are thoroughly audited to ensure the accuracy and integrity
of equipment and testing procedures.
- An independent auditor will review the effective use of the overall program.
Program Technology:
The technology applied in the Drive Clean Program will be an Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) 2525 dynamometer
test for light duty vehicles operating on gasoline, propane, natural gas, methanol or ethanol. This test requires that the
vehicle be operated on a chassis dynamometer at a constant speed of 40 km/h (11 m/s). During the test, the dynamometer
load is adjusted in relation to the specific vehicle being tested so that the load applied to the vehicle is proportional to its
weight and is roughly equivalent to climbing a grade of about 3 percent. Specifically, the load is approximately 25 percent
of the power required to accelerate the vehicle at 1.5 m/s2 from 40 km/h (11 m/s). Under stabilized operation, tailpipe
emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are measured. The volume flow rate
of exhaust is not measured, but the results are recorded as a volumetric concentrations in units of parts per million for HC
and NOx and percent for CO. In order to reflect the fact that vehicles are designed to meet emission standards on a mass per
distance travelled basis, standards used for ASM testing are adjusted according to vehicle weight such that the standards
become more stringent as vehicle weight increases.
The ASM dynamometer test provides a more accurate assessment of the performance of the vehicle under actual driving
conditions than the currently common Two Speed Idle (TSI) test. In the TSI test, the vehicle is tested with the transmission
in neutral and the tailpipe emissions are measured at two operating conditions: a steady 2500 rpm and curb idle.
Commencing January 1, 2001, the technology will be improved further by replacing the ASM test with a transient type
emission test such as acceleration, cruise, deceleration and idling. Details are still to be finalized by the Province.
Program Resource Requirements:
There are approximately 2.5 million vehicles registered in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton-Wentworth, of which
one-third is estimated to be registered in Toronto. Considering a 20-minute test duration, an eight-hour shift per day and
bi-annual testing, a minimum of 250 test stations will be required to meet the program objective. While as of January 26,
1999, approximately 1200 private operators have expressed interest in participating in the Drive Clean Program, only about
200 contractors have purchased the equipment and are in the process of being certified by the MOE. Forty-five stations have
been certified and are up and running. The MOE expects that by March 31, 1999, there will be about 380 stations in
operation. The cost of an ASM dynamometer is approximately $60,000.00. Accordingly, a separate program for emission
testing of vehicles registered within the limits of the City of Toronto will require an investment by testing-garage operators
in excess of $6 million.
Prior to signing a contract, the operator of a Drive Clean facility will require a certificate for the facility issued by the MOE.
Also, personnel assigned to the Drive Clean Program must be certified as an Emissions Inspector or a Repair Technician.
The issuance of a Certificate and training of personnel will require additional investment by the operators. The certification
is mandated through Regulation 361/98 under the Environmental Protection Act.
Program Adequacy:
Questions have been raised about the adequacy of biennial testing. While there are jurisdictions which have an annual
testing program, other jurisdictions do test vehicle emissions on the biennial basis as proposed by the MOE. One
consideration in support of a biennial program is the fact that only approximately 20 percent of the vehicles are the
"polluters." Doubling the frequency of testing would not only require twice as many test stations and twice as much
investment, but also subject 80 percent of the vehicle owners to additional expenditures.
Strict test methods for measuring vehicle emissions will be employed as well as emission standards which vehicles must
meet to pass a Drive Clean test. The legislation giving legal force to the various Drive Clean requirements is Regulation
361/98, as amended by Regulation 401/98, made under the Environmental Protection Act. The certification program, as part
of Regulation 361/98, will ensure a consistent and effective program.
Monitoring of Air Quality Improvement of Testing Program:
If the City of Toronto wishes to audit independently the effectiveness of the biennial testing, it could do so by purchasing
and operating one set of remote sensing equipment. This equipment could be stationed periodically at various locations
across the City and should confirm the trend of a decreasing number of polluting vehicles. If this cannot be confirmed, the
City could then advocate a more stringent provincial program. While operating this equipment, City staff would investigate
the feasibility of using this equipment to address other issues related to local ambient air quality issues and the testing of the
City's fleet. The purchase price for such equipment is estimated at $300,000.00 and the annual equipment maintenance cost
is approximately $8,000.00. The equipment could be operated by City staff.
City Fleet:
City vehicles will have to comply with the emission standards and the test methods for measuring emissions. Accordingly,
the Director of Fleet Management Services is currently investigating how best to meet the requirements of the Drive Clean
Program for the City's fleet. Based on a cost comparison, he will recommend in a report to the Corporate Services
Committee whether the emissions testing should be contracted out or conducted in-house. The latter will require the
purchase of a number of dynamometers as well as facility and personnel certification.
Summary:
The Ministry of the Environment has set up a comprehensive, mandatory vehicle emissions testing program, which will be
enforced through the process of renewal of vehicle registration and/or change of vehicle ownership registration. The
mandatory testing for vehicles registered in the GTA, including Toronto, and in Hamilton-Wentworth will start on April 1,
1999. The program will employ strict test methods for measuring vehicle emissions as well as emission standards. Fully
implemented, the program is expected to achieve the program goals of reducing nitrogen oxides by up to 62,000 tonnes a
year, carbon dioxide by up to 900,000 tonnes and microscopic particulates by 220 tonnes annually. In view of this, it is
recommended that the provincial Drive Clean Program be re-endorsed rather than the City of Toronto implementing a
parallel program of vehicle emission testing.
The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services will report early in the year 2000 on the need, or otherwise, for the
City of Toronto to carry out its own monitoring program.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Karl Hemmerich, Manager, Air Quality Improvement
Environmental Services - Technical Services Division
Tel: (416) 392-7702; Fax: (416) 392-0816
E-mail: "khemmeri@toronto.city.on.ca"
8
Consulting Services - General Administration and
Site Supervision for Western Beaches Storage Tunnel -
Phase II
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 4, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To obtain Council authorization to amend the engineering consultant agreement with CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and
MacViro Consultants Inc. to include detailed design services and general administration and site supervision during
construction of Phase II of the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel.
Funding Services, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds are available in the approved 1999-2003 Water and Wastewater Services Division, Water Pollution Control Capital
Account C-WP951, New District Sewers.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) authority be granted to amend the existing engineering services agreement with the joint consulting firms of CH2M
Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. for review of detailed design calculations and drawings proposed by
the design/build contractor, and general administration and site services during construction for Phase II of the Western
Beaches Storage Tunnel, by an additional amount of $650,000.00 including the Goods and Services Tax and including a
contingency allowance of $120,000.00, to cover extended services during construction for Phase I and Phase II, if necessary
and as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, all in accordance with the terms of the existing
engineering agreement; and
(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background
Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of July 5, 1996, in considering Communication No. 59 from the Board
of Management, approved the engagement of CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc.
(CG&S/MacViro) to provide engineering consulting services for the preliminary design, preparation of the design/build
proposal call and assistance in the pre-qualifications and tender process for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel (WBST)
project in the amount of $727,229.20 including Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Subsequently, the Board of Management of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of December 11, 1997 (Minute No.
2.6) approved amending the terms of reference of the engineering assignment with CG&S/MacViro to increase the
consulting fees by $84,630.00 to $811,759.20 including GST, to allow for the preparation and evaluation of revised
predesign and design/build Request for Proposals.
By adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee, City Council, at its meeting of May
13, 14 and 15, 1998 approved amendment of the engineering consulting agreement with CG&S/MacViro to include detailed
design review and general administration and site services during construction for Phase I of the WBST project, by an
amount of $970,000.00 thereby resulting in a total agreement amount of $1,781,759.20 including GST.
Comments and Justification:
Council of the former City of Toronto by adoption of Clause No. 6 of Report No. 1 of the Community and Neighbourhoods
Services Committee on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, awarded Phase I of the WBST to McNally-Frontier Joint Venture Inc. at
a total contract price of $31,500,000.00 including GST. See attached Appendix 'A' for summary of project costs.
City of Toronto Council by adoption of Notice of Motion J(19) at its meeting on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, awarded Phase
II of the WBST to McNally-Frontier Joint Venture Inc. at a contract price of $17,259,100.00 including GST. See attached
Appendix 'A' for summary of project costs.
The purpose of the WBST, following Lakeshore Boulevard West between Strachan Avenue and Parkside Drive, is to
intercept and store, during periods of rainfall, polluted sewer discharges which otherwise would flow to Lake Ontario from
the City's combined sewer system for subsequent treatment before release to the lake. Intercepting and treating the polluted
sewer discharges will improve the water quality along the western waterfront and substantially reduce the frequency of
beach postings during the summer seasons. As previously advised, both phases of the WBST project have now been
awarded and the contractor has completed approximately 65 percent of Phase I construction. The contractor is currently
mobilizing for Phase II construction with the establishment of the construction compound at Cowan Shaft located on the
south side of Lakeshore Boulevard in line with Dunn Avenue.
The WBST project is a design/build contract, and during its entire construction period, the City must review and approve
detailed engineering design calculations and design/shop drawings proposed by the contractor, as well as carry out general
project administration and site supervision during construction, to ensure that the constructed work meets specified and
approved standards, performance specifications, and design drawings. The City must also review and approve progress
payments and change orders. To assist in carrying out these tasks, the City engaged the consulting services of the joint
consulting firms of CG&S/MacViro for Phase I of the WBST project.
During construction of Phase II of this project, continuation of the same above-noted services by the same two engineering
consulting firms is recommended as being most beneficial to the City of Toronto. These consultants undertook the
preliminary design, preparation of the design/build RFP and evaluation of contractor proposals, and their initial
involvement gives them detailed knowledge of the WBST project enabling them to competently review the detailed design
calculations and drawings being prepared by the general contractor. Both consulting firms also have experience and
expertise in deep tunnel and shaft construction. The cost of the consulting firms' services for Phase II of the WBST project
has been estimated at $650,000.00 including GST and including a contingency allowance of $120,000.00 to cover extended
services during construction for Phase I and Phase II, if necessary. The consultants' services will be paid on a time basis plus
allowable disbursements, all in accordance with the terms of the existing engineering agreement.
Conclusion:
The consulting firms of CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited and MacViro Consultants Inc. had been selected by the City to
undertake the preliminary design and preparation of design/build tender documents for the WBST project and to provide
general administration and site supervision during Phase I construction. Accordingly, these consultants will provide
continuity of engineering services for the project and are therefore best suited to undertake the detailed design services and
the construction supervision and administration for Phase II of the WBST project.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
A. Pagnanelli, P.Eng.
Manager, Plant & Facility Construction
Engineering Services - Works Facilities and Structures
Technical Services Division
Telephone No. (416) 392-8245
Appendix "A"
Western Beaches Storage Tunnel Consulting and Contractual Costs
CG&S/MacViro Engineering Consulting Fees
Authority
Approved Fees
Cumulative Fees
Scope
Council (Former City
of Toronto) July
5,1996
Board of Management
Communication No.59
$727,229.20
$727,229.20
1st RFP
Board of Management
(Former City of
Toronto) Dec.11,1997,
Minute No.2.6
+$84,630.00
$811,759.20
2nd version of 1st RFP
Council
May 13,14,15,1998,
WUC Rep.4, Cl.2
+$970,000.00
$1,781,759.20
Phase 1
Design-Build
Proposed Council
April 13,14,15,1999,
WUC of
March 24,1999
+$650,000.00
$2,431,759.20
Phase 2
Design-Build
Awarded Contractual Sums to McNally-Frontier Joint Venture Inc.
Authority
Total Lump Sum
Cumulative TLS
Description
Council
Feb.4,5,6,1998,
C&NSC Rep.1, Cl.6
-$31,500,000.00
$31,500,000.00
Awarded Phase 1 with
Alternative B (Battery
Park instead of
Coronation Park main
shaft)
Council
Feb.2,3,4, 1999,
Notice
of Motion J(19)
+$17,259,100.00
$48,759,100.00
Phase 2 Design-Build
All above amounts include the Goods and Services Tax.
These costs are included in the approved 1999-2003 Capital Works Program, Capital Account WP951, New District
Sewers.
9
Anaerobic Digesters and Boiler Building Extension
at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant -
Contract No. MW9804WP, Tender No. 152-98 (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the tender issued for the construction of Anaerobic Digesters and Boiler
Building Extension at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant, in accordance with specifications of the Works and Emergency
Services Department, and to request the authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.
Source of Funds:
This project is included in the approved 1999-2003 Water and Wastewater Services Division Capital Works Program, and
funds are available in the Highland Creek, Stage IV capital account.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Contract No. MW9804WP for the construction of Anaerobic Digesters and Boiler Building
Extension at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant be awarded to the lowest tenderer, Bondfield Construction Company
Limited, for the Total Lump Sum Price of $25,884,000.00, including all taxes and charges.
Background:
On February 19, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the following tenders for Contract No. MW9804WP for the construction
of Anaerobic Digesters and Boiler Building Extension at the Highland Creek Treatment Plant:
Tenderer
Total Lump
Sum Price
$
Bondfield Construction Company Limited
25,884,000.00
Granville Construction (1999) Ltd.
26,700,000.00
Kenaidan Contracting Ltd.
27,225,000.00
Walter Construction (Canada) Ltd.
27,770,000.00
Lisgar Construction Company,
a Division of United Shelters Limited
27,948,000.00
Comments:
Representatives of the Works and Emergency Services Department and the project consultants having met with the lowest
tenderer, Bondfield Construction Company Limited (Bondfield), to review the contract, are satisfied that this company fully
understands the contractual requirements and has the capability to carry out the work as specified. Currently, Bondfield is
successfully performing similar work for this Department.
The lowest tenderer, Bondfield, made arithmetical errors in the Schedule of Prices contained in the contract specifications
and, as per the terms of the tender documents, the total Lump Sum has been adjusted accordingly. Purchasing and Materials
Management has verified that the mathematical errors are correct. This necessary correction does not affect the ranking of
the tenders.
The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended and its proposed
subcontractors.
Conclusion:
This report requests authority to issue a contract for the construction of anaerobic digesters and boiler building extension at
the Highland Creek Treatment Plant to the lowest tenderer, Bondfield Construction Company Limited, in the corrected
Total Lump Sum Price of $25,884,000.00.
Contact Name: Contact Name:
Mr. A. F. Piccolo, P.Eng., Mr. L.A. Pagano
Senior Project Engineer, Director
Technical Services Division Purchasing and Materials Management
Telephone No.: (416) 392-8853 Telephone No.: (416) 392-7312
10
Additional Expenditures for Extra Work
on Capital Projects Currently in Progress
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 8, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To obtain Council authority to negotiate and authorize additional expenditures for the performance of necessary additional
work on various contracts within the Water and Wastewater Services Division as outlined in this report.
Funding Sources:
Funds are available in the approved 1999-2003 Water and Wastewater Services Division Capital Accounts for each contract
outlined in this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) additional expenditures in the amount of $307,141.80 including Goods and Services Tax be authorized for the
performance of necessary additional work on water and wastewater contracts, as described herein and in accordance with
the estimates listed in Appendix B attached; and
(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
At its meeting of January 6, 1998, City of Toronto Council enacted By-law No. 7-1998, Interim Financial Control By-law,
which repealed former Metro By-law No. 146-90. As the new By-law contains no provision to exceed the awarded contract
value, as confirmed by the City's Legal Division, the Department has effectively lost its ability to authorize the unforeseen
and necessary additional work that may arise during construction of capital projects. This is particularly problematic given
that the majority of capital construction performed by this Department is tendered on a firm, lump sum basis. For contracts
recently tendered, since confirmation of the repeal of former Metro By-law No. 146-90, we have been providing, on an
interim basis, a general contingency allowance for possible extra work into the Schedule of Prices for Alterations, Extras,
and Deductions for incorporation into the total lump sum tender price. In the case of the contracts identified herein,
however, no such general contingency was added, as we believed it was still available through former Metro By-law No.
146-90.
At the time of award and/or contract tendering, in accordance with former Metro By-law No. 146-90, as amended, a
Department Head had authority to approve additional expenditures on a commitment in accordance with the By-law up to
an amount equal to ten percent of the commitment. As such, under the former Metro By-law a further ten percent of the
awarded contract amount for each of the contracts identified herein would have been available for required extra work on
each contract.
Comments and Justification:
Shown in Appendix A is a listing of contracts requiring the performance and/or payment of approved extra work. In all of
the contracts, additional information and unexpected circumstances have arisen during construction, which have
necessitated changes to the original tendered scope of work. To ensure continuity with respect to liability and warranty
issues under the contracts, these changes must be implemented by the issuance of extra work orders. In some of the
contracts, staff of the Department and/or our consultants have identified changes to the design of the original contract which
are now advisable to be performed to conform to changed regulatory code requirements or operating procedures, and which
should be implemented to ensure construction of the best possible finished product.
Appendix B identifies as of March 1, 1999, the extra work necessary to be performed for each of the contracts described in
Appendix A along with their corresponding costs.
The total value of the extra work required as a percentage of the overall value of the contracts is equivalent to 0.57 percent.
Conclusion:
The additional expenditures required for extra work in the amount of $307,141.80 including GST applicable to various
contracts are summarized in Appendix B attached. This additional work is necessary to either meet regulatory code
requirements and/or ensure construction of the best possible product.
Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:
A. Pagnanelli, P.Eng. A.F. Piccolo, P.Eng.
Manager, Plant & Facility Construction Senior Project Engineer
Engineering Services - Works Facilities & Structures Engineering Services - Works Facilities & Technical Services
Division Structures
Telephone No. (416) 392-8245 Technical Services Division
Telephone No. 392-8853
Insert Appendix A
APPENDIX B
Request for Authorization of Additional Expenditures
For Extra work on Water and Wastewater
Contracts Identified in Appendix A
Contract No.
WS-3-96
WS-3-96
WS-3-96
WPC-7-96
WPC-7-96
WPC-7-96
WPC-7-96
WPC-9-97
WPC-9-97
WPC-12-94
Extra Work
Description/Justification
CREDIT: Delete
HL1 paving on
McNicoll Avenue
between
Middlefield and
Tiffield Roads as
requested by
former City of
Scarborough
Realign sanitary
sewer and remove
large boulder
unexpectedly
found at
intersection of
McNicoll and
Middlefield
interfering with
alignment of water
main including
restoration of
intersection
Upgrade native
backfill material
with clear stone
including the
installation of a
subdrain for
intercepting
unknown
groundwater
seeping into the
watermain trench
on Tiffield Road
Subtotal re extra
work for WS-3-96
Relocate electrical
conduits
unexpectedly
found to interfere
with installation of
air handling unit
Additional labour
cost for roof repair
due to unexpected
relief of flue gases
via building
emergency stub
stacks
Supply and
placement of
additional glycol
solution in existing
heating system
Modify existing
reinforced
concrete wall due
to realignment of
ventilation shaft of
new air handling
unit
Subtotal re extra
work for
WPC-7-96
Remove existing
buried concrete
unexpectedly
found interfering
with structural
modifications to
south primary
tanks
Modify MCC
panel to
accommodate
alarms and
additional
protective devices
pertaining to the
operations of
primary tank
collection system
Subtotal re extra
work WPC-9-97
Remove, restore
replace existing
deteriorated glazed
blocks inside Head
House facility
Subtotal re extra
work for
WPC-12-94
Terms
Lump Sum
Schedule
And
Cost Plus
Schedule
And
Cost Plus
Lump Sum
Cost Plus
Cost Plus
Cost Plus
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Schedule
And
Lump Sum
Authorized
Additional
Amount
$
-8,317.36
12,607.52
20,583.53
24,873.69
2,134.65
579.66
9,461.57
4,414.23
16,590.11
3.200.00
6,800.00
10,000.00
30,528.00
30,528.00
WPC-2-97
WPC-2-97
WPC-2-97
WPC-2-97
WPC-11-97
WPC-11-97
WPC-11-97
WPC-11-97
WPC-11-97
Upgrade computer
and software
control to current
industry standards
for monitoring
hydro usage
throughout the
Plant
New potable water
meter for
monitoring water
usage in digester
galleries
Cleaning of
existing digester to
permit required
maintenance/upgrade for overall
efficient operation
of digester
Improve efficiency
of electrical power
usage by utilizing
photocells for
control of lighting
in digester
galleries
Subtotal re extra
work for
WPC-2-97
Construct concrete
encased electrical
duct bank to
provide Toronto
Hydro the ability
to remotely control
their hydro feed to
the Plant during
operation of the
cogen engines
Replace
deteriorated/outdated electrical cables
unexpectedly
found in walls and
ceiling of Engine
Room in order to
meet current
electrical codes.
Acoustical
modifications
required to ensure
noise rating in
administration
areas of the Plant
meet code
requirements
Relocation of
existing
miscellaneous
Plant utilities to
allow the
installation of
ventilation
requirements for
the cogen engines
Switchgear,
control relay and
software upgrades
as requested by
Toronto and
Ontario Hydro to
meet interface
requirements
between the cogen
generators and
hydro's distribution
system
Subtotal re extra
work for
WPC-11-97
Total re extra work
for all contracts
noted
Lump Sum
Est.
Lump sum
Est.
Est.
Est.
Est.
Est.
Est.
$
6,100.00
16,050.00
61,000.00
2,000.00
85,150.00
50,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
40,000.00
30,000.00
140,000.00
$307,141.80
11
Thackeray Landfill Gas Utilization Project
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for issuance of a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) and a
subsequent Request for Proposals (RFP) for the utilization of landfill gas at Thackeray Landfill Site.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no direct funding implications arising from this report.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to issue a Request for
Expressions of Interest and subsequent Request for Proposals for the utilization of landfill gas at Thackeray Landfill Site.
Council Reference/Background/ History:
Thackeray Landfill Site, located in the City of Vaughan at the north east corner of Kipling Avenue and Steeles Avenue, is
the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's fourth largest landfill site. Approximately 2.2 million tonnes of
non-hazardous waste was deposited at the 45-hectare site prior to site closure in 1978. By agreement signed on November 6,
1979, the property was turned over to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to be utilized as parkland. The City
maintains the environmental control system at the site as part of the perpetual care program. Approximately one hectare of
the landfill is currently used by the Etobicoke Model Airplane Flying Club.
Results from two series of gas extraction pump tests conducted in 1996 and 1998 at the site indicate that the landfill is
capable of sustaining a landfill gas generation rate in excess of 250 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm).
Discussion and Justification:
Utilization of the methane component of the landfill gas at Thackeray Landfill will qualify as the City's fourth landfill gas to
energy project. Currently landfill gas is converted to electricity at Brock West Landfill, Keele Valley Landfill and Beare
Landfill. At Brock West Landfill, approximately 6000 scfm of landfill gas is converted to approximately 12 MW of
electricity. At Keele Valley Landfill, approximately 15,000 scfm of landfill gas are converted to 33 MW of electricity.
Beare Landfill, located east of the Metro Zoo, converts approximately 1500 scfm of landfill gas to approximately 3.5 MW
of electricity.
The City receives royalties in an amount exceeding $2,000,000.00 annually from the sale of electricity to Ontario Hydro
from the three landfill gas utilization schemes. Capture and utilization of the methane generated at the three landfills
prevents an annual equivalent impact in excess of 2,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; this value equates
to the amount of carbon dioxide produced by approximately 400,000 automobiles per year.
The purpose of the REOI and the RFP is to seek conceptual proposals and subsequent detailed proposals for the utilization
of the landfill gas at the Thackeray Landfill site. The REOIs will be reviewed through a formal process by City staff to
short-list those which are viewed to be in the best interest of the City. Those companies will be sent RFPs. The proposals
received will in turn be reviewed through a formal process by City staff to select the preferred proposal. As the Thackeray
Landfill Site is located in the City of Vaughan, staff will consult with the City of Vaughan staff to incorporate any
comments in the proposal process. A summary of the results of this process and recommendations will be the subject of a
further report to Council.
The amount of landfill gas available from the Thackeray site is relatively small (250 scfm) compared to the City's three
existing landfill gas utilization projects. This makes the project marginally viable financially due to the high cost of
electrical infrastructure. However, growing interest in green energy, i.e., energy generated from a resource which is
otherwise lost, is beginning to sustain or support projects. Energy purchasers are prepared to pay a premium for the energy
provided from "green" sources such as river hydro, wind turbine, photovoltaics, and landfill gas projects.
The response for the proposed REOI and the RFP may result in proposals to utilize the landfill gas for projects such as
heating in greenhouses, micro turbines, fuel cells, reciprocating engines for electrical generation, conversion of landfill gas
into vehicle fuel or compressing and trailer transporting the landfill gas directly to an end user.
Regardless of the technology selected, this project, if proceeded with, will have measurable environmental benefits since the
landfill gas at Thackeray Landfill Site is currently escaping to the atmosphere. Utilization of 250 scfm of landfill gas,
applying the 100-year time horizon Global Warming Potential for methane, will result in an annual methane emission
reduction of over 22,000 tonnes in carbon dioxide equivalent, which may be available as emission reduction credits if the
City chooses to participate in emission reduction credit sales or trading. This amount of carbon dioxide is equivalent to the
removal of 4700 cars from the roadways of the City.
Staff of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority have been consulted about the landfill gas utilization concept and
concur with the issuing of an REOI for harvesting of the landfill gas.
Staff of Parks and Recreation - Etobicoke District have been advised of the concept of harvesting the landfill gas, and have
recommended that a public consultation opportunity should be facilitated for the surrounding neighbourhood. This public
consultation will run concurrently with the REOI and RFP processes.
Conclusion:
Obtaining proposals through the REOI and the RFP process will enable the City to evaluate and select a suitable proposal
from a wide range of technologies that may be available for utilization of approximately 250 scfm of landfill gas at
Thackeray Landfill Site.
Contact Name:
K.S. Hogg, Manager, Operational Support
Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: 392-4226; Fax: 392-4754
E-mail: ken_hogg@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
12
Other Items Considered by the Committee
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, received this Clause as information, subject to striking out and referring Item
(a), entitled "Provision of Litter Bins with Advertising", embodied therein, back to the Works and Utilities Committee for
further consideration at its meeting to be held on April 21, 1999, and report thereon to Council for its next regular meeting
to be held on May 11, 12 and 13, 1999.)
(a) Provision of Litter Bins with Advertising.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having directed that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services be requested to amend the draft terms of reference embodied in the following report by:
(1) deleting the last sentence in No. (9) of the draft terms of reference; and
(2) striking out No. (17):
(March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing draft terms of reference for a
Request for Proposals for the provision of litter bins with advertising, in response to the request of Council at its meeting on
February 2, 3 and 4, 1999; advising that discussions are underway with the Finance Department as to whether issuing an
RFP at this time for advertising on litter bins fits in with the development of the Corporate Sponsorship Program recently
approved by Council; and recommending that this report be received for information.
(b) Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process - Results of Consultation Program.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report:
(March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing an account of the consultation
activities regarding the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process conducted from December 1998 to
March 1999 following the public issue of the Stage One (Draft) Planning Document; forwarding a comprehensive summary
of the consultation feedback and input received during the course of the consultation regarding the Planning Document,
including responses, set out in Appendix "A"; and recommending that this report be received for information.
--------
Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services, gave
a presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to Toronto's Solid Waste Management Marketplace
Engagement Process, and submitted a copy of his presentation.
Mr. Robert Mansell, Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, was present at the meeting of the Works and Utilities
Committee and responded to questions from the Members.
The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the Solid Waste
Management Marketplace Engagement Process:
- Mr. R.A. McCaig, President, Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Ms. Karen Buck, and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Bob Webb, Republic Services, Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Gregory M. Vogt, Eastern Power;
- Ms. Gina Gignac and Mr. Karl Bartlett, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, and submitted material with respect
thereto;
- Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems, and Mr. Gordon E. McGuinty, President, Notre Development,
representing Rail Cycle North; and
- Mr. George Paturalski, Vice-President - Market Development, Browning Ferris Industries.
(c) Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process - Prohibition Against Lobbying.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report until the special meeting of the Committee to be called with
respect to the matter of the Request for Expressions of Interest for the Solid Waste Management Marketplace
Engagement Process;
(2) requested the Chair of the Committee to submit to the Committee a more detailed proposal for the scheduling of
standard deputations; and
(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit to the Committee further information
with respect to the four examples of cities referred to in the presentation where a prohibition against lobbying has
been successfully implemented:
(March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:
(1) the Request for Expressions of Interest in the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process for solid
waste disposal, diversion, and new and emerging technologies, contain a requirement, as set out in Appendix "A" attached
to this report, prohibiting respondents from lobbying Council members and staff;
(2) the prohibition against lobbying be effective from the date of the issuance of the Request for Expressions of Interest
until a contract(s) is reached at the conclusion of the subsequent Request for Proposals phase, or the process is
discontinued; and
(3) in conjunction with the implementation of the prohibition against lobbying as contained in Appendix "A", Council
adopt the following protocol:
(i) should Members of Council wish to receive information from any respondent(s), then the request shall be made through
the designated official as defined in Appendix "A"; and
(ii) in the event of any alleged breach of the requirement against lobbying, Council shall be the arbiter of the effect of such
a breach.
--------
Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services, gave
a presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to Toronto's Solid Waste Management Marketplace
Engagement Process, and submitted a copy of his presentation.
Mr. Robert Mansell, Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, was present at the meeting of the Works and Utilities
Committee and responded to questions from the Members.
The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the Solid Waste
Management Marketplace Engagement Process:
- Mr. R.A. McCaig, President, Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Ms. Karen Buck, and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Bob Webb, Republic Services, Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Gregory M. Vogt, Eastern Power;
- Ms. Gina Gignac and Mr. Karl Bartlett, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, and submitted material with respect
thereto;
- Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems, and Mr. Gordon E. McGuinty, President, Notre Development,
representing Rail Cycle North; and
- Mr. George Paturalski, Vice-President - Market Development, Browning Ferris Industries.
(d) Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process - Request for Expressions of Interest.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report, if possible to a special meeting of the Committee to be convened
at the call of the Chair prior to the next meeting of Council scheduled to be held on April 13, 1999, to resolve
outstanding issues;
(2) adopted the following recommendations and tabled such recommendations until the report is again considered
by the Committee:
(i) that all terminology be changed by adding the word "resource" after the words "solid waste" wherever they
appear in the City's waste resource management process; and further, that the title to be used to describe the entire
process be: "Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process";
(ii) that the overall objective of the process adopt the following mission statement:
"The City of Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process be designed to be flexible enough to
incorporate new, environmentally sustainable technologies that will move the City towards its ultimate goal of 'Zero
Waste', that is, a strategy based on maximizing"; and
(iii) that in order to enhance the potential for diversion from disposal, the maximum limits on the size of proposals
in the "proven diversion capacity" (currently limited to 250,000 tonnes/year) and the "new and emerging
technologies" (currently limited to 100,000 tonnes/year) be increased; and that the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services be requested to submit a further report to the Committee with options for alternative limits or
no limits, with the corresponding wording for amendments which would give effect to these options;
(3) requested that City Councillors attending the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Annual Conference who
are Members of the Works and Utilities Committee (and others if possible) report back to the Committee on their
investigations of the City of Halifax program which is achieving high levels of diversion through separate collection
of compostable waste resources; that City staff investigate this system with Halifax staff and prepare a full report
for special presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting on Wednesday, June 16, 1999, and that a
team of appropriate Halifax officials (including an elected official) be invited to participate, as guests of the City, at
such meeting to describe their experiences; and that funds for the delegation's expenses be provided from the
project budget;
(4) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to revise the Request for Proposals to ensure
that there is an opportunity for the private sector to provide the City with Expressions of Interest based on
fluctuating tonnage or number of years and openings at which point the City can reduce its minimum tonnage;
(5) requested that when this matter is again considered by the Works and Utilities Committee, the process and the
staff process that is involved be tabled as part of these recommendations;
(6) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee on the
following proposals and requests for information including any recommendations which flow therefrom:
(a) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services develop an evaluation system for the Request for
Expressions of Interest to include a complete list of criteria and recommended weighting of the criteria in the
evaluation process for approval by the Works and Utilities Committee and City Council;
(b) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services include, in the evaluation process, criteria which
would address the following:
(i) local economic impacts and local economic development potentials; and
(ii) greenhouse gas reduction potential and performance;
(c) that staff draft Requests for Proposals in as broad terms as possible to permit flexibility, innovation and
creativity of responses;
(d) in order to obtain the best disposal prices possible for the City by committing sufficient volumes, that the RFP
process allow all respondents to make their longest term commitments; and
(e) that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the following:
(i) harmonizing and/or clarifying the definitions of "proven waste resource diversion", "proven waste resource
disposal" and "new, emerging and innovative technologies" as proposed in the Mandatory Qualification Criteria for
these categories;
(ii) the possibilities of "performance based criteria" rather than or in combination with "prescriptive criteria"
throughout this process; and
(iii) provisions which could ensure that all greenhouse gas emission reductions, including downstream reductions,
would remain in the ownership of the City; and
(7) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Committee at the time
of the Request for Proposals on the possibilities for provision of flexibility in the City's collection strategies which
would allow optimization of diversion within proposals:
(March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that:
(1) Council endorse provisions contained in the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process Request for
Expressions of Interest regarding the inclusion of:
(i) options for 5, 10, 15, and 20-year timeframes for provision of disposal capacity (or an amount beyond five years which
is not a multiple of 5);
(ii) the right of Toronto to engage in a subsequent tender for the haulage component from our transfer stations by third
party haulers in order to broaden the potential marketplace response for the transport component;
(iii) the right of Toronto to maintain a role for its public sector employees in the haulage component of the project, based
on the existing levels of staff and equipment involved in the haulage of waste from Toronto's transfer stations to the Keele
Valley Landfill Site;
(iv) a preferred customer clause to ensure that the disposal price(s) charged to Toronto remain competitive over the contract
timeframe; and
(v) disposal facilities that are certified to receive only solid waste from the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional sectors
in order to broaden the potential marketplace response for the City's disposal needs;
and, subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), further recommending that:
(2) the attached Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process Request for Expressions of Interest be
approved for issuance on April 26, 1999; and
(3) the workplan for Proctor & Redfern Limited be amended to include the following work tasks:
(i) development of a separate haul tender process to be incorporated into the contracting out methodology and development
of a protocol to utilize Toronto public sector employees in the haulage component;
(ii) project management of the preferred customer clause in the Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for
Proposals;
(iii) project management related tasks regarding the inclusion of waste disposal sites certified to accept only waste
originating from the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional sectors; and
(iv) the approved budget for Proctor & Redfern Limited be adjusted by the addition of $95,395.85, inclusive of GST, to
fund the additional workplan items listed in Recommendation No. 3 (i), (ii) and (iii), with funds to be drawn from the
contingency allowance previously approved by Council on October 2, 1998.
--------
Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services, gave
a presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to Toronto's Solid Waste Management Marketplace
Engagement Process, and submitted a copy of his presentation.
Mr. Robert Mansell, Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, was present at the meeting of the Works and Utilities
Committee and responded to questions from the Members.
The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the Solid Waste
Management Marketplace Engagement Process:
- Mr. R.A. McCaig, President, Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Ms. Karen Buck, and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Bob Webb, Republic Services, Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Mr. Gregory M. Vogt, Eastern Power;
- Ms. Gina Gignac and Mr. Karl Bartlett, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, and submitted material with respect
thereto;
- Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems, and Mr. Gordon E. McGuinty, President, Notre Development,
representing Rail Cycle North; and
- Mr. George Paturalski, Vice-President - Market Development, Browning Ferris Industries.
(e) 1999 Operating Budget Review.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:
(1) recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following programs embodied in the 1999 Operating
Budget under the purview of the Works and Utilities Committee; and
(2) requested that the Budget Committee review and reconsider the issue of public recycling igloos referred to in the
synopsis of the recommendations of the Budget Committee under Solid Waste Management:
(i) 1999 Operating Budget for the following:
Works and Emergency Services:
- Solid Waste Management;
- Support Services;
- Technical Services; and
- Water and Wastewater.
(i) (March 5, 199) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee has completed its preliminary review; and
attaching a communication (March 5, 1999) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, Chair, Budget Committee, together with a
synopsis of the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Committee.
--------
The Chief Administrative Officer gave a presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the 1999
Operating Budget, and submitted a copy of his presentation.
The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. John Bray, Executive Director, Ontario Waste Management Association, and submitted material with respect thereto;
- Ms. Shelley Petrie, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and submitted material with respect thereto; and
- Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland Centennial.
(f) Operation of Commissioners Street Transfer Station (Ward 25).
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having:
(1) referred the following report to the Commissioners Street Transfer Station Public Liaison Committee, with a
request that the Public Liaison Committee monitor changes in operating procedures at the transfer station and be
invited to submit their comments to the Works and Utilities Committee at the appropriate time; and
(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to canvass members of the Public Liaison
Committee on the design of the catch basin:
(March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to requests for information tabled
at the last meeting of the Committee with respect to the operation of the Commissioners Street Transfer Station;
commenting on the hopper management approach/issue of overloaded trucks; door closure strategy; outdoor storage of
recyclables; tracking of garbage down ramps; diversion of waste from the Commissioners Street Transfer Station; capacity
and utilization of the transfer station network; and air quality standards; and recommending that this report be received for
information.
(g) 1998 Residential Waste Diversion.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following report to the Toronto 3Rs
Sub-Committee for its information:
(March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing a detailed background of the City of
Toronto's 1998 residential waste diversion; advising that in 1998, approximately 245,900 tonnes of residential waste were
diverted from landfill through the City's waste reduction and recycling programs, representing a residential diversion rate of
25 percent, which is slightly higher than the 24 percent diversion rate achieved in 1997; noting that the main increase in
tonnage was realized in the fibre portion of the recyclable stream; further advising that staff will continue to improve and
increase recovery in current programs and implement other diversion programs where feasible; and recommending that this
report be received for information.
(h) LCBO Funding for Glass Recycling.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having received the following report:
(March 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advising the Committee of the Liquor Control
Board of Ontario's funding commitment of $953,111.00 to offset Toronto's 1998 glass recycling costs, and that the City
Clerk has submitted the necessary form to the LCBO advising that the City complies with the conditions for eligibility to
receive the funding from the LCBO for 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information.
(i) Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having referred the following communications to the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services with a request that staff research the following issues and report back to the
Committee by June 1999 on:
(1) the cost to the City for handling plastic soft drink containers that come from vending machines; and
(2) the licensing provisions available to the City to require soft drink vending machine operators to either operate
two-way vending machines or else place a reverse vending machine in proximity to vending machines:
(i) (March 8, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, forwarding an Executive Summary of a report entitled
"Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling in Canada", dated November 1998, prepared by the Container Recycling
Institute; and noting that in Ontario, only 40 percent of beverage containers require producer responsibility, compared to
over 90 percent in every other province.
(ii) (March 24, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, recommending that staff research the following issues and
report back to the Works and Utilities Committee on:
(1) the cost to the City for handling plastic soft drink containers that come from vending machines; and
(2) the licensing provisions available to the City to require soft drink vending machine operators to either operate two-way
vending machines or else place a reverse vending machine in proximity to vending machines.
(j) Contract No. EB9980WS, Tender No. 24-1999 - Watermain Cleaning and Cement Mortar Lining on Various
Streets (Ward 2).
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the following report,
in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended:
(March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommending that Contract No.
EB9980WS, Tender No. 24-1999, watermain cleaning and cement mortar lining on various streets be awarded to the lowest
bidder, Main Rehabilitation Company Limited, in the total amount of $1,928,568.00, including all taxes and charges.
(k) Service Harmonization.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports having held a joint meeting with the Urban Environment and
Development Committee on March 16, 1999, with respect to Solid Waste Management and Winter Maintenance
Service Harmonization, and having referred joint recommendations thereon to the Budget Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY DISERO,
Chair
Toronto, March 24, 1999
(Report No. 4 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including an addition thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City
Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.)
