TABLE OF CONTENTS RFP 9119-12-3061

Notice to Potential Proponents ...................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 TERMINOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 References to Labeled Provisions ....................................................................................... 3 1.2 Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Interpretation……………………………………………………………………………... 5 1.4 RFP Process Terms and Conditions ……………………………………………………... 6

2.0 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Success Criteria ................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Technical – Waste Projections .......................................................................... ………....11 3.2 Technical – Mixed Waste Processing – Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) –

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) - Conceptual Design………………………………………...11 3.3 Financial ............................................................................................................................ 12 3.4 Strategic ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.5 Analytical .......................................................................................................................... 14 3.6 Deliverables ...................................................................................................................... 15 3.7 Meetings ............................................................................................................................ 15 3.8 Timeline ............................................................................................................................ 15

4.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION REQUIREMENTS ........................................ 15 4.1 Selection Committee ......................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Selection Criteria .............................................................................................................. 16

4.3 Selection Process .............................................................................................................. 16 4.4 Schedule of Events ............................................................................................................ 16 4.5 Clarifications ..................................................................................................................... 16 4.6 Interviews or Demonstrations ........................................................................................... 16 4.7 Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................ 17 4.8 Negotiations and Agreement............................................................................................. 17

5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 18 5.1 General Overview ............................................................................................................. 18 5.2 Proposal Documentation and Delivery ............................................................................. 18 5.3 Proposal Content ............................................................................................................... 19 APPENDICES Appendix A RFP Process Terms and Conditions .................................................................................. 25 Appendix B Agreement Terms and Conditions .................................................................................... 31 Appendix C Standard Submission Forms ............................................................................................. 37 Appendix D Price Detail Forms ............................................................................................................ 44 Appendix E Project Information Package (PIP) – Mixed Waste Processing (RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035) – January 2010……………………………………………..51 Appendix F Economic Impact Assessment of Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City Owned

Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill (November 2010)…………………………...81 Appendix G Proposal Evaluation Table(s) ........................................................................................ ..109

Page 2 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

1.0 TERMINOLOGY 1.1 References to Labeled Provisions Each reference in this Request for Proposal to a numbered or lettered “section”, ”subsection“, “paragraph, “subparagraph”, “clause” or “subclause” shall, unless otherwise expressly indicated, be taken as a reference to the correspondingly labeled provision of this Request for Proposal (RFP). 1.2 Definitions Throughout this Request for Proposal, unless inconsistent with the subject matter or context, “Agreement” means any written contract between the City and a Proponent or any purchase order issued by the City to the Vendor with respect to the Services contemplated by this RFP, and shall be deemed to include the terms and conditions for the provision of the Services as set out in this RFP. “Anaerobic Digestion (AD)” means the process of biologically degrading materials in the absence of oxygen. This produces a ‘biogas’ which is rich in methane (CH4) and can be used to generate energy for uses such as, electrical power generation. “Biogas conversion opportunities” refers to secondary business opportunities including renewable energy production, methane gas conversion or methane transfer agreement (to area industry) resulting from the methane capture from the primary MBT-AD processing activity of converting residual waste to CLO or stabilized landfill. “City” means the City of Toronto. “Council” means City Council. “Compost-like Output (CLO)” means the range of organic materials produced following mechanical screening and biological treatment, (MBT). Due to the variability of the mixed waste feedstock, and the quality of the materials produced following MBT processing and curing, it is more realistic to consider these materials as CLOs or "B" Compost, rather than regular compost materials. Respondents should anticipate that CLO, end use materials will be characterized and marketed in conjunction with updated regulations that are anticipated, based on Ministry of the Environment (MOE) efforts to update Ontario compost standards { Ref: Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) # 010-6658 – Guideline for Composting Facilities and Compost Use in Ontario (November 2009 – draft for Consultation} “DBO” means design, build and operation of the Facility, following the RFP stage. “D&O” means development and operation of the Facility. “Diversion” means processing technologies that include 1) waste reuse & recycling and 2) source separated composting and anaerobic digestion as shown in The Waste Value Chain Figure in the document entitled Policy Statement on Waste Management Planning; Best Practices for Waste Managers; Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (June 12, 2007). “Facility” means the building in which the Residual MSW processing occurs including equipment in the building and all ancillary structures and equipment that are directly involved in Residual MSW processing or in the treatment of emissions from Residual MSW processing. “General Manager” means the City’s General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services.

Page 3 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

“Green Lane Landfill” means the landfill owned by the City located at RR #7, 38590 3rd Line, St. Thomas, Ontario. “may” and “should” used in this RFP denote permissive (not mandatory). “MFIPPA” means the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. “Ministry of the Environment, MOE” means the provincial regulatory agency responsible for environmental regulations, policies and guidelines and facility design and operating permits in the Province of Ontario, Canada. “Mixed Waste, Mixed Residual Waste, Residual Municipal Solid Waste” or “Residual MSW” mean the portion of Municipal Solid Waste remaining after materials solicited for other City waste management programs, such as the recycling and organic materials diversion programs, have been partially separated at source by the waste generator, and collected by or on behalf of the City. “Municipal Solid Waste” or “MSW” means Municipal Waste as defined in Ontario Regulation 347, under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) General – Waste Management and collected by or on behalf of the City. “must”, “shall” and “will” used in this RFP denote imperative (mandatory), meaning Proposals not satisfying imperative (mandatory) requirements will be deemed to be non compliant and will not be considered for contract award. “P3” refers to the P3 Canada Fund administered by PPP Canada, a federal Crown Corporation and relating to a program for co-funding large public infrastructure projects through public private partnership in co-ordination with PPP Canada P3 program guidelines. “Preferred Proponent” means the Proponent whose Proposal, as determined by City staff through the evaluation analysis described in the RFP, provides the best overall value in meeting the City’s requirements, and may be recommended for award. “Pre-feasibility Study” means a pre-feasibility study concerning lands within First Nation lands in the vicinity of Green Lane landfill and consideration and assessment for siting a biogas/ mixed waste processing facility on Band owned lands within the First Nation community. “Project Manager” means main contact person at the City for all matters relating to the project. Manager of a team of City staff assigned to the project. “Proponent” means a legal entity that submits a Proposal. In the case of a consortium, one member of the consortium must be identified as the Proponent with whom the City may enter into an Agreement. “Proposal” means an offer submitted by a Proponent in response to this RFP, which includes all of the documentation necessary to satisfy the submission requirements of the RFP. “Residual Waste Working Group” or “RWWG” means the citizen group established by Council that provided input, advice and regular feedback to SWMS staff and the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWI) on the implementation of residual waste processing initiatives. “RFI” means the Request for Information No. 9150-10-3047 issued May 7, 2010 – For Mixed Waste Processing Capacity (by Private Sector) and resulting in limited response for private sector processing capacity in the Province of Ontario based on the scope of undertaking described in RFI No. 9150-10-3047.

Page 4 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

“RFP” means this Request for Proposal package in its entirety, inclusive of all Appendices and any bulletins or Addenda that may be issued by the City. “RFPQ” means the Request for Pre-Qualification No. 9150-10-3035 – For Mixed Waste Processing Facility issued January 29, 2010 and resulting in PMMD letter to Successful Respondents letter (dated June 22, 2010) advising of pre-qualification and invitation to subsequent RFP stage, in conjunction with the undertaking for the City owned facility description provided in RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035. “Services” means all services and deliverables to be provided by a Vendor as described in this RFP. “Solid Waste Management Services” or “SWMS” means the City’s division, under the authority of the General Manager responsible for provision of effective and efficient waste management and recovery services to residents, visitors and businesses in the City of Toronto in order to maintain a clean and healthy City and to minimize the impact of waste on the environment. “Solution” means a set of goods and services meeting the City’s requirements, as set out in this RFP. “Stabilized Landfill” means a landfill that accepts waste materials which have been pre-processed, or stabilized, mainly to reduce the readily biodegradable organic fraction of the waste prior to landfilling, so that the potential for landfill gas generation is diminished and leachate strength is reduced. Stabilization of the waste stream occurs through a group of processes known as mechanical biological treatment (MBT), which can include recyclables, shredding, removal of refuse derived fuel (RDF), aerobic or anaerobic composting, and desiccation. “Toronto Public Health” or “TPH” means the Board of Health that determines and sets public health policy and advises City Council on a broad range of health issues. “Transfer Station” means any of the waste transfer stations owned by the City. “tpy” means tonnes per year. “Vendor” means the successful Proponent with whom the City enters into an Agreement. 1.3 Interpretation In this RFP and in the Agreement, unless the context otherwise necessitates, (a) any reference to an officer or representative of the City shall be construed to mean the person

holding that office from time to time, and the designate or deputy of that person, and shall be deemed to include a reference to any person holding a successor office or the designate or deputy of that person;

(b) a reference to any Act, bylaw, rule or regulation or to a provision thereof shall be deemed to

include a reference to any Act, bylaw, rule or regulation or provision enacted in substitution thereof or amendment thereof;

(c) all amounts are expressed in Canadian dollars and are to be secured and payable in Canadian

dollars; (d) all references to time shall be deemed to be references to current time in the City; (e) a word importing only the masculine, feminine or neuter gender includes members of the other

genders; and a word defined in or importing the singular number has the same meaning when used in the plural number, and vice versa;

Page 5 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

(f) any words and abbreviations which have well-known professional, technical or trade meanings,

are used in accordance with such recognized meanings; (g) all accounting terms have the meaning recognized by or ascribed to those terms by the Canadian

Institute of Chartered Accountants; and (h) all index and reference numbers in the RFP or any related City document are given for the

convenience of Proponents and such must be taken only as a general guide to the items referred to. It must not be assumed that such numbering is the only reference to each item. The documents as a whole must be fully read in detail for each item.

1.4 RFP Process Terms and Conditions This RFP process is governed by the terms and conditions in Appendix ‘A’. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this RFP is to select a qualified business and technical services firm or consortium of firms to develop a detailed and comprehensive business case for three approaches to mixed waste, mechanical biological treatment (MBT) – anaerobic digestion (AD) processing under consideration by the City of Toronto. The three primary approaches for mixed waste (MBT-AD) processing facility development and operations (D&O) including:

a) City owned facility and contracted operation, on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill site;

b) contracted private sector processing, and privately owned facility on City owned lands

adjacent to Green Lane Landfill, First Nation lands near Green Lane Landfill or on privately owned lands possessing or being eligible for Provincial environmental compliance approval (ECA) within 250 kilometres driving distance of Green Lane Landfill; and

c) Other public- private partnership (ie. P3), on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane

Landfill site, or on privately owned lands possessing or being eligible for Provincial environmental compliance approval (ECA) within 250 kilometres driving distance of Green Lane Landfill

have been identified as possible approaches for development and operation of a MBT-AD mixed waste processing facility following preliminary procurement efforts completed during 2010-2011, and modified in possible scope in conjunction with solid waste program status updates completed for the 2012 Capital Budget process. For background, the preliminary procurement efforts during 2010-2011 included the following activities:

a) RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035 for City owned and contracted operation for 150,000 tonnes / year mechanical biological treatment (MBT) – anaerobic digestion (AD) to process residual mixed waste and biosolids to produce compost like output (CLO)/ Compost "B" on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane landfill, Township of Southwold, Ontario. Three Consortia/ Contractors were short listed and prequalified from this preliminary bid call in anticipation of a planned RFP (not completed) , for development and operations of a mixed waste facility that was envisaged to achieve eight to ten percent additional diversion for Target 70 program objectives.

Page 6 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

b) RFI No. 9150-10-3047 for private sector processing capacity for 150,000 tpy at a MBT-AD

facility producing CLO/ Compost "B" in the Province of Ontario. There was limited response to this initiative.

c) Following the private sector RFI efforts, SWMS was approached by First Nation Communities in

the area of Green Lane Landfill with interest to develop residual waste processing facilities on their lands. SWMS consulted with City Legal Services and offers were subsequently extended to local Elgin County Municipalities and all First Nations that utilize Green Lane landfill for solid waste disposal to ascertain whether any of the municipalities would be interested to host a mixed waste processing facility for private sector processing for City of Toronto processing needs (following a competitive bid process) for 150,000 tpy of mixed, residual waste and biosolids. Local municipalities were supportive of the benefits of mixed waste processing, in particular an MBT-AD facility, relative to infrastructure and employment opportunities for the area, but declined to pursue being a host for a facility. Interest was expressed by the Band Councils from local First Nation Communities, and pre – feasibility studies were subsequently completed by SWMS and Golder Associates for Munsee Delaware Nation (August 2011) and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (March 2012) for development of a MBT-AD facility on Band owned lands, with a comparable scope to the City owned facility on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane landfill contemplated under RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035.

d) During preparation for the 2012 Capital Budget (July – September 2011) submission,

preliminary status updates on solid waste programs were completed concerning program progress in conjunction with Target 70 diversion objectives. In addition to progress of diversion programs considerations, concerns were raised in SWMS 2012 Capital Budget reporting as to whether publically owned or contracted private sector processing would be a preferred approach for this initiative. Also, concern was raised on proceeding with mixed waste processing (public or private processing facility), without updated compost standards (including "B" compost) having been issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Finally, during the 2012 capital budget reporting, it was identified that a larger mixed waste processing facility (ie., 300,000 tpy – mixed residual waste & biosolids) was required rather than the 150,000 tpy facility that was considered in preliminary procurement efforts (RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035.) to realize diversion objectives. Private sector processing contracted operations and public/ private partnership (ie. P3) options were identified as options that should be assessed more fully as an alternative to the 100% City owned and financed option, particularly in consideration for significantly higher capital expenditure that would be required compared with projections the previously envisaged 150,000 tpy MBT – AD facility.

Each business case must include financial, technical, and analytical dimensions (described in Section 3.0) to demonstrate value/benefit to the City measured by the success criteria (described in Section 2.1), which consist of three pillars: business sense, waste processing & disposal capacity security, and environmental benefits. 2.1 Success Criteria Each business case must answer the question: "What value does the project provide to the City?" and will be measured against three dimensions known as 'The Three Pillars':

1. Business Sense    

a. compelling business case resulting in the most efficient use of public resources and/or new net revenue to the City from existing assets and/or cost avoidance

b. roles for the City and associated benefits to the City 

Page 7 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

c. partnerships and financing models d. economic benefit such as biogas conversion opportunities & royalties to City, Compost

"B" marketing (subject to regulatory amendment & market development) and local Southwold or First Nation employment opportunities (during construction, and subsequently during facility operation). This latter item is more an economic benefit to local Green Lane landfill area communities and goodwill ( to City) relative to local relations, in consideration of the possible MBT-AD D&O scenarios in the Township of Southwold or in First Nation Communities in the vicinity of Green Lane landfill site. 

 2. Waste Processing & Disposal Capacity Security  

a. Processing system results in significant waste diversion and so reduced fill rate at Green Lane landfill 

b. effects noted for (a) (ie. maximized waste diversion and reduced landfill rate), if

regulatory amendments are completed by Province of Ontario. Status update on update compost standards by Ministry of the Environment (MOE) a key factor. 

c. local waste management impacts. Diversion opportunities (at mixed waste processing

facility) and extended waste disposal capacity (for area communities) created through reduced fill rate to Green Lane landfill 

 d. For the option of no compost 'B' standard and consideration of MBT – AD processing

and stabilized landfill, a significantly reduced fill rate is anticipated, in the order of 30 percent, and so additional capacity at the Green landfill would still be realized, but less than would be the case with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) completing the issuance of updated compost standards.

e. compatibility with other City SWMS initiatives  

 3. Environmental Benefits

a. Significant increase in diversion rate, subject to viability of mixed waste processing program (ie. Overall financial assessment and amended compost standards released (by MOE).

b. renewable energy or biogas conversion opportunities, as secondary component of MBT-

AD processing operation  

c. For the option of no compost 'B' standard and consideration of MBT- AD processing facility and stabilized landfill, the potential for reduced landfill gas generation, odour effects and diminished leachate strength is an anticipated benefit

 2.2 Background The City has a goal to divert 70% of its residential MSW from landfill, employing a range of initiatives to reach this goal as follows: Promoting the source separated diversion (SSD) and re-use of waste; Increasing recycling performance from single and multi-family dwellings and with municipal agency,

board, commission and division (ABCD) customers through enhanced SSD programs;

Page 8 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Developing new infrastructure and securing contracted services to process single stream recyclables

and treat source segregated organics arising from curbside collections; and Developing new infrastructure to process and treat a portion of the remaining Residual MSW. The current and projected diversion performance is summarized as follows: 2011 diversion (actual) 49 % 2012 diversion (projected) 50 %

As such, the City identified the need to develop new processing and treatment capacity to divert additional volumes of source segregated and Residual MSW from landfill. In respect of the residual MSW element, this was initially identified during the mixed waste planning study (2009) and preliminary procurement (RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035), as requiring diversion of a minimum 75,000 tonnes per year from landfill , to achieve an additional 8 to 10 % diversion rate. During preliminary procurement an MBT-AD facility processing 120,000 tpy residual waste and up to 30,000 tpy biosolids throughput was specified to achieve 75,000 tpy diversion. A larger processing facility is now projected to be require, based on recent trends, to achieve planned diversion objectives. Diversion rates have not increased at the rate originally predicted and diversion of approximately 120,000 to 140,000 tpy from landfill was identified in the 2012 Capital Budget and SWMS program updates as being required to achieve Target 70 objectives. This diversion rate corresponds to a facility with an intake of approximately 240,000 tonnes/ year of mixed residual waste During the mixed waste planning study (GAL, May 2009 & August 2009), seven potential residual MSW diversion technologies and twelve sites were considered and evaluated as potential options to process the residual waste. Screening criteria were established to evaluate the waste processing technologies and candidate sites. The options were considered by SWMS, in association with RWWG and TPH, through a health impact assessment (HIA) screening assessment, life cycle assessment (LCA) and finally on an economic affordability basis. Based on the evaluation, the technology and site combination that presented most positively in the assessment efforts was MBT with AD, on City owned lands adjacent to the Green Lane landfill. The quantity of material specified for processing during preliminary procurement efforts (RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035) at the City owned MBT-AD facility on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane landfill in the Township of Southwold was as follows (tonnes per year): Residual MSW 120,000 (minimum) Bio-solids 30,000 (maximum) Total 150,000

For the 2012 Capital Budget, SWMS program status updates, and for purposes of this RFP, the City is considering the following residual waste inputs (tonnes per year) requiring processing in an MBT-AD facility for each of the business case and D&O approaches described above Residual MSW 240,000 Since the preliminary procurement efforts, various initiatives by Toronto Water and updates in regulations related to biosolids have improved their ability to manage materials produced, so biosolids are not a contributing quantity to the mixed waste throughput and program and the business case assessments to be completed for this RFP. Details on the assessments and findings for the mixed waste processing study concerning the selected processing technology and candidate sites for the processing facility, may be found in documents

Page 9 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

completed for the study (Work Package 1&2 (Golder, May 2009) and Work Package 3 (Golder, August 2009) which are posted at:

http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/mwp/reports.htm

Further information regarding the MBT – AD facility under consideration during preliminary procurement efforts (RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035) was outlined in Project Information Packages (PIP) prepared for Bidders during the preliminary procurement efforts, and it has been reproduced in Appendix E of this RFP document, to assist current Bidders understand the general scope of the MBT-AD facility development and operations that would anticipated under the various options that to be assessed for this RFP. To assist with understanding possible waste composition to be processed with an MBT-AD facility, Appendix C (PIP) – Section 3 (of RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035) [see Appendix E – this RFP] included a summary of historic and projected waste data as follows:

Actual waste generation (2006-2008) quantities from primary contribution sources (i.e. City of Toronto single/ multi family & ABCDs);

Residual waste quantity projections (2010 to 2021); and Waste composition information (actual and projected).

Additional waste characterization efforts have been completed since the preliminary procurement efforts including single and multi family audit updates (2010) to earlier audit programs (2007-2008), and this information will be made available to the successful Bidder. During the preliminary procurement efforts (spring 2010), an economic impact assessment of the proposed 150,000 tpy City owned MBT-AD facility located on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane landfill was being undertaken as a concluding item to various planning and assessment efforts completed for the mixed waste planning study (2009) and in response to local (Township of Southwold) public consultation efforts (2010). The economic impact assessment was completed during November 2010. A copy of this document is included in Appendix F of this RFP for information to Bidders. Finally, in the event that updated compost standards are not available, SWMS has noted there could be environmental and landfill capacity optimization benefits realized in pursuing an MBT – AD processing operation along with modification of approach to landfillling at Green Lane landfill to that of a stabilized landfill. Additional investigation on stabilized landfill during early efforts in the residual waste study may be found at: http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/rwwg/pdf/2008-04-14_mas_study_of_stabilized_landfill.pdf It is expected that MOE will issue updated compost standards, so the business case assessments completed for this RFP will focus on the maximum diversion opportunities (ie. Compost "B" opportunities available, supported by updated compost standards), but bidders should also include allowance for presenting information on options/ scenarios that include potential MBT-AD facility development and operation, followed by stabilized land filling. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK The Vendor shall develop a detailed analysis and comprehensive business case for each of the three approaches for mixed waste MBT-AD facility development (land and facility) and operations including, but not limited to each of the following three approaches:

a) City owned facility and contracted operation, on lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill site;

Page 10 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

b) contracted private sector processing, and privately owned facility on City owned lands

adjacent to Green Lane Landfill site, First Nation lands near Green Lane Landfill or on privately owned lands possessing, or being eligible for Provincial environmental compliance approval (ECA) within 250 kilometres driving distance of Green Lane Landfill; and,

c) other public- private partnership (i.e. P3), on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane

Landfill site, or on privately owned lands possessing or being eligible for Provincial environmental compliance approval (ECA) within 250 kilometres driving distance of Green Lane Landfill.

SWMS will make available a summary of submissions considered acceptable during preliminary procurement efforts (RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035 and RFI No. 9150-10-3047) during 2010 and the associated contact information, to allow the Vendor to ascertain whether the previous bidders would have interest and capabilities to implement facilities in conjunction with modified MBT-AD development and operations approaches described above (ie. 3.0 a), 3.0 b) & 3.0 c)). This should permit the successful bidder to have improved confidence that their modeled business cases for this RFP reflects realistic D&O approaches that could potentially happen in the current market place. In addition to the primary D&O approaches described above, the Vendor shall assess three sensitivity scenarios that include different levels of City of Toronto capital investment for D&O approaches 3.0 a) and 3.0 c) above, specifically 100%, 50% and 0% City capital expenditure, while the private sector partnership will take up the balance of the facility development cost. It is expected that a 10 year operating term would be associated with 100 % City capital investment, while Vendors would specify longer operating terms, in conjunction with higher private sector investment (ie. 50 and 100%) scenarios. Facility development cost would include land purchase and permitting, for sites located elsewhere, that are not the City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill site. Under 3.0 c), the potential for P3 funding (rather than City capital investment) is to be examined. Each business case must include financial, technical, strategic, and analytical dimensions, as described below to demonstrate value/benefit to the City measured by the success criteria (described in Section 2.1): 3.1 Technical – Waste Compostion Assessment

a. Base case considering historical waste projection information included in recent preliminary procurement (RFPQ No. 9150-10-3035 and RFI No.9150-10-3047) and 240,000 tonnes/ year residual mixed waste.

b. Sensitivity summary comments on base case waste composition projection in consideration of

potential changing markets (ie. Materials available in mixed residual waste stream) and recent audit results (ie. Subsequent to preliminary procurement efforts).

3.2 Technical – Mixed Waste Processing – Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) –

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) system conceptual design (base concept)

a. MBT-AD system conceptual design & build-out plan for just-in-time capital deployment i. City owned/ private contract operator and base case waste throughput (ie. 240K tpy),

on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill ii. Private sector processing option. City tendered base quantity residual waste-

thoughput (i.e 240 Ktpy), plus estimated additional capacity (ie. from other Ontario customers) projected for a prospective private sector developer, on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill, on willing host First Nation lands near Green Lane Landfill, or on privately owned lands possessing, or being eligible for provincial environmental compliance approval (ECA) within 250 kilometres driving

Page 11 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

distance of Green Lane Landfill. Under the latter scenario, haulage of residual waste for processing would be undertaken by private sector, originating at Disco Road transfer station, with residual haulage and disposal at Green Lane Landfill (by private sector)

iii. Other public/ private partnership (ie. P3) option and base quantity residual waste throughput (ie. 240K tpy), on City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill or on lands possessing, or being eligible for provincial environmental compliance approval (ECA) within 250 kilometres driving distance of Green Lane Landfill. Under the latter scenario, haulage of residual waste for processing at the facility would be by private sector, originating at Disco Road transfer station, with residual haulage and disposal at Green Lane Landfill (by private sector)

b. Land space requirements with full MBT-AD processing (ie. Compost "B" standards in-place)

and implications (ie. Smaller facility area) with MBT-AD processing and stabilized landfill. c. Business/ design concept for secondary benefits including, renewable energy, biofuel

conversion or local business (ie. greenhouse operations) support opportunity for each D&O assessment/ modelling effort.

d. End product (ie. "B" Compost) marketing strategy overview, including regulatory status/

constraints, existing/ potential marketing opportunities, and revenue / marketing cost estimates.

e. Processed residual management strategy, including haulage overview and co-ordination

aspects (ie. Quantity projection and cost factors) with Green Lane Landfill operations and business plan. Include provision for minimum residual disposal (ie. with Compost ''B" standard in-place) and higher residual disposal under MBT-AD/ stabilized landfill scenario (ie. No Compost "B" standard).

f. Supporting infrastructure assessment and upgrade requirements. Road, electrical, water and

sanitary requirements and upgrade requirements (ie. Scope and budgetary cost) to support the processing facilities under the three primary approaches to D&O of MBT-AD (full diversion (Compost "B") or stabilized landfill, and the sensitivity scenarios (ie. Varied levels of capital investment).

The Vendor shall summarize major variations to the three conceptual design approaches to address the sensitivity scenarios under consideration for City of Toronto capital investment (ie. 100%, 50% and 0% City capital expenditure), or provide alternate financial model scenarios relative to primary D&O approaches 3.0 a) and 3.0 c) with the varied levels of City capital investment.. As noted, it is expected that a 10 year operating term would be associated with 100 % City capital investment, while Vendors would specify longer operating terms, in conjunction with higher private sector investment (ie. 50 and 100%) scenarios. Facility development cost would include land purchase and permitting, for sites located elsewhere, that are not the City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill. For D&O approach 3.0 c), statements on the potential for P3 funding (to replace City investment) should be included.

3.3 Financial

a. Develop a Financial Model showing Capital and annual operating cost profiles for each of the

three primary development approaches described under 3.0 a) to 3.0 c) above. b. Revenue & Expense Projections: As input to the financial model, provide a detailed

summary on projected operational processing cost per tonne, projected energy, biogas conversion or other beneficial biogas use revenue ($/ tonne), processed material revenue

Page 12 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

and/or finishing cost ($/ tonne) and process residual haulage and disposal costs ($/tonne). Also as input to the financial model, provide a detailed summary on regulatory/ permitting costs, preliminary/ detailed engineering and development costs, taxes and area royalty agreement (existing or projected) considerations ($/ tonne).

c. Processed material marketing opportunities: Provide summary on immediate opportunities,

in the short term with updated compost standards (ie.. "B" Compost a real option), and projected opportunities and required market development/ servicing, to achieve the projected opportunities.

d. Risk Assessment, Sensitivity analysis, and Mitigation e. Scenarios forecasting (i.e. high/medium/low) relative to long term behaviour of key inputs

(i.e. conventional residual disposal rates, market conditions/ pressures (re: revenue) for selected converted biogas conversion process, processed material markets/ revenue, inflation, interest rates).

f. Ownership and Operating Model for the various combination of ownership of land and

facility and its operations as outlined above. g. Investment and Financing Options, including reserve funding (if available), or debt that is

recoverable through adjustment to volume base rated fees (ie. funding mechanism for SWMS programs).

h. Financial and partnership models with third parties (private sector (City land) or First Nation

developers, P3, etc..) i. Hosting Agreements: Local Community and First nation Trust Funds implications in

conjunction with options described under 3.0 a) and 3.0 c) and development and operation on City owned lands.

j. Operations contract overview/ summary: Provide a summary on operating contract

considerations (ie. > 10 years) and implications to financial model. Shorter term contract terms (ie. 7 to 10 years) were a consideration in preliminary procurement efforts and may be possible for D&O approach 3.0 a) with full City capital investment, but considerably longer (ie. 15-20 years), could be necessary for D&O approaches 3.0 a) and 3.0 c) with lower levels of City capital investment.

The Vendor shall include sensitivity financial modeling scenarios to the three primary D&O scenarios (for 3.0 a) and 3.0 b)) to address the sensitivity scenarios under consideration for varied City of Toronto capital investment (ie. 100%, 50% and 0% City capital expenditure). As noted, it is expected that a 10 year operating term might be associated with 100 % City capital investment, while Vendors would specify longer operating terms, in conjunction with higher private sector investment (ie. 50 and 100%) scenarios. Facility development cost would include land purchase and permitting, for sites located elsewhere, that are not the City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill. For D&O approach 3.0 c), statements on the potential for P3 funding (to replace City investment) should be included.

3.4 Strategic

a. Policy options, strategies, and implementation plan i. increase certainty and reduce business & investment risk, including factors:

a. Updated compost standards b. Support of other City divisions in utilizing processed material to assist with

Page 13 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

establishing end use markets.

c. Continued favourable consideration for the approach to MBT-AD residual processing by Toronto Public Health (TPH), and local Elgin County public health departments

b. Regulatory considerations (municipal, provincial, and federal), including local development

approvals/ zoning, updated compost standards (Ministry of the Environment) and permitting aspects (re: approach 3.0 a) & 3.0 c)) and federally (re: approach 3.0 c)) – P3 consideration or EA approval and permitting relating to First Nation development, approach 3.0 b) .

c. Biogas utilization/ conversion opportunities – status of end user regulations/ updates and

potential for development. The Vendor shall include strategic assessment considerations and summary comments in conjunction with the above objectives, and relative to the sensitivity assessments to the primary development approaches that considers alternate levels of City of Toronto capital investment (for the facility development approaches 3.0 a) and 3.0 c), specifically 100%, 50% and 0% City capital investment, while the private sector partnership takes up the balance of the facility development cost. As noted, it is expected that a 10 year operating term would be associated with 100 % City capital investment, while Vendors would specify longer operating terms, in conjunction with higher private sector investment (ie. 50 and 100%) scenarios. Facility development cost would include land purchase and permitting, for sites located elsewhere, that are not the City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill. Under 3.0 c), the potential for P3 funding (rather than City capital investment) is to be examined.

3.5 Analytical

a. Value to the City relative to the success criteria b. 30 year net present value (NPV) vs. Business-As-Usual (ie. Existing Target 70 diversion

programs and full residual disposal at Green Lane Landfill) c. Roles for the City and associated benefits d. Conclusions and Recommendations

The scope of work must include a review, analysis, and recommendations with respect to the regulatory landscape and the potential roles of City of Toronto Solid Waste Management Services (SWMS) as sole owner/ manager (approach 3.0 a), primary owner/ manager (approach 3.0 c) or contracted services manager (approach 3.0 b), along with third parties such as the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), Enbridge Gas Distribution (EGD), or local Township of Southwold business (re: biogas utilization or conversions), MBT – AD Contractor/ developers, Federal Government Departments (ie. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada),investors and others stakeholders/allies. The Vendor shall include analytical assessment considerations and a summary in conjunction with the above objectives, and relative to the sensitivity assessments to the primary development approaches that considers alternate levels of City of Toronto capital investment (for the facility development approaches 3.0 a) and 3.0 c) , specifically 100%, 50% and 0% City capital investment, while the private sector partnership takes up the balance of the facility development cost. As noted, it is expected that a 10 year operating term would be associated with 100 % City capital investment, while Vendors would specify longer operating terms, in conjunction with higher private sector investment (ie. 50 and 100%) scenarios. Facility development cost would include land purchase and permitting, for sites located elsewhere, that are not the City owned lands adjacent to Green Lane Landfill. Under 3.0 c), the potential for P3 funding (rather than City capital investment) is to be examined.

Page 14 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

3.6 Deliverables

The Vendor shall provide the report(s) which will address in detail the requirements outlined in Section 3.0, items 3.1 to 3.5; namely:

a. A stand alone business case report for each of the three primary D&O approaches (including sensitivity assessment elements related to approaches 3.0 a) & 3.0 c). A PowerPoint presentation for each approach summarizing the key findings.

All project deliverables, above including drafts, will be submitted in both electronic and hard copy formats. Documents must be provided in PDF and Microsoft Office electronic file formats (i.e. Word, Excel, PowerPoint). The City reserves the right to suggest changes to final documents, as required.

3.7 Meetings

The Vendor will be required to take part in at least the following:

One day project initiation meeting Bi-weekly progress review with Solid Waste Management Services (SWMS) staff (2 hours

each meeting) Two update meetings with project review team Approximately 20 one-hour interviews with City staff and staff of external organizations

(questions and interviewees to be identified jointly by SWMS staff and Vendor) Presentation of draft and final reports to SWMS for each of the three priority options (2

hours each) At least two presentations of the final reports to City staff committees (1 hour each) Miscellaneous phone calls and in-person meetings as required by the City

3.8 Timeline The preparation of the business cases will commence upon execution of legal agreement and should be completed by August 31, 2012. The Proponent will be required to commit the resources required to undertake the scope of work within the tight timelines to prepare the business cases. 4.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS 4.1 Selection Committee All Proposals will be evaluated through a comprehensive review and analysis by a Selection Committee, which will include members from Solid Waste Management Services and Corporate Finance. The Selection Committee may at its sole discretion retain additional committee members or advisors. The aim of the Selection Committee will be to select one or more Proposals which in its opinion meet(s) the City's requirements under this RFP and provides the best overall value to the City, but the Proposal(s) selected, if any, will not necessarily be the one offering the lowest fees or cost (pricing). Pricing is one of the components in determining the total score or ranking.

Page 15 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

By responding to this RFP, Proponents will be deemed to have agreed that the decision of the Selection Committee will be final and binding. 4.2 Selection Criteria The Selection Committee will score the Proposals using the evaluation table in Appendix G. 4.3 Selection Process The Selection Committee will score the Proposals using the evaluation table in Appendix G. Stage 1 Mandatory Requirements (pass or fail) Stage 2 Evaluation of Technical Proposal Stage 3 Interviews (if applicable – please refer to Section 4.6) Stage 4 Proponent's Fees (for Proponents who have achieved or met the minimum technical threshold (75% or 60 points) required in order to have their cost of services evaluated. If the submission fails any mandatory requirements, the Proposal will be rejected. The Proposal that achieves the highest Total Score will be ranked first. In the event of a tie Total Score, the Proponent achieving the highest score for its Technical Proposal will be ranked first overall. 4.4 Schedule of Events May 29, 2012 Request for Proposal (RFP) Issued June 7, 2012 Deadline for Proponent Questions June 11, 2012 Last Day for Issuing an Addendum (if required) June 15, 2012 RFP Closing Date Week of June 25, 2012 Evaluation of Proposals Week of July 3, 2012 Selection of Preferred Proponent This schedule is subject to change and appropriate written notice of any changes will be provided where feasible.

4.5 Clarifications As part of the evaluation process, the Selection Committee may make requests for further information with respect to the content of any Proposal in order to clarify the understanding of the Proponent’s response. The clarification process shall not be used to obtain required information that was not submitted at time of close or to promote the Proponent’s company. The Selection Committee may request this further information from one or more Proponents and not from others. 4.6 Interviews or Demonstrations A Proponent whose written Proposal has met or exceeded the minimum technical score of 75% (60 points out of 80 points) may be invited to an interview with the Selection Committee, the results of which will be used by the Committee as a mechanism to revisit, revise, confirm and finalize the score and select the recommended Proponent(s). The City reserves the right to interview up to a maximum of five (5) top ranked Proponents. The Proponent representatives designated by the Selection Committee in its invitation to the Proponent must attend any interview scheduled as part of this evaluation process.

Page 16 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

The representative of a Proponent at any interview scheduled is expected to be thoroughly versed and knowledgeable with respect to the requirements of this RFP and the contents of its Proposal, and must have the authority to make decisions and commitments with respect to matters discussed at the interview, which may be included in any resulting Agreement. Where the staff team proposed by the Proponent is an important element in the selection criteria, the staff team proposed shall be present for the interviews. No Proponent will be entitled to be present during, or otherwise receive, any information regarding any interview with any other Proponent. The Selection Committee may interview any Proponent(s) without interviewing others, and the City will be under no obligation to advise those not receiving an invitation until completion of the evaluation and selection process. 4.7 Evaluation Results Upon conclusion of the evaluation process, a final recommendation will be made by the Selection Committee to the appropriate City staff member and/or City Council. Proposal evaluation results shall be the property of the City and are subject to MFIPPA. Evaluation results may be subject to public release pursuant to MFIPPA. Proponents should be aware that Council and individual Councilors have the right to view the responses provided that their requests have been made in accordance with the City’s procedure. 4.8 Negotiations and Agreement The award of any Agreement will be at the absolute discretion of the City. The selection of a Preferred Proponent will not oblige the City to negotiate or execute an Agreement with that Preferred Proponent. Any award of an Agreement resulting from this RFP will be in accordance with the bylaws, policies and procedures of the City. The City shall have the right to negotiate on such matter(s) as it chooses with the Preferred Proponent without obligation to communicate, negotiate, or review similar modifications with other Proponents. The City shall incur no liability to any other Proponent as a result of such negotiation or alternative arrangements. During negotiations, the scope of the services may be refined, issues may be prioritized, responsibilities among the Proponent, all staff and sub-consultants provided by it and the City may be settled and the issues concerning implementation may be clarified. Any Agreement must contain terms and conditions in the interests of the City and be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor. If the Agreement requires City Council approval, then the final Agreement must contain terms and conditions substantially as set out in the Council report authorizing the Agreement. Any Agreement will incorporate as schedules or appendices such part of the RFP (including addenda) and the Proposal submitted in response thereto as are relevant to the provision of the goods and/or services. The terms and conditions set out in Appendix ‘B’ shall be incorporated in any Agreement entered into with the recommended Proponent. These terms and conditions are mandatory and are not negotiable.

Page 17 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

If any Agreement cannot be negotiated within thirty (30) business days of notification to the Preferred Proponent, the City may, at its sole discretion, terminate negotiations with that Proponent and negotiate an Agreement with another Proponent or abort the RFP process and not enter into any Agreement with any of the Proponents. 5.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 5.1 General Overview The City has formulated the procedures set out in this RFP to ensure that it receives Proposals through an open, competitive process, and that Proponents receive fair and equitable treatment in the solicitation, receipt and evaluation of their Proposals. The City may reject the Proposal of any Proponent who fails to comply with any such procedures. Proposals should address the RFP content requirements as outlined herein, should be well ordered, detailed and comprehensive. Clarity of language, adherence to suggested structuring, and adequate accessible documentation is essential to the City’s ability to conduct a thorough evaluation. The City is interested in Proposals that demonstrate efficiency and value for money. General marketing and promotional material will not be reviewed or considered. 5.2 Proposal Documentation and Delivery The documentation for each Proposal:

a) Must be submitted in a sealed envelope or container (submissions made by fax, telephone, electronic message or telegram will not be accepted) displaying a full and correct return address.

b) Should be limited to preferably 20 pages, double sided, minimum 11 point font, single spaced, with unlimited appendices.

c) Must consist of one (1) original (clearly marked as such on its first page) and at least six (6) full photocopies of:

(i) A Main Proposal Document as described in the section below titled Proposal Content, including all attachments and appendices as required.

(ii) Form 1 (Proposal Submission Form) completed and signed by an authorized official of the Proponent. (Mandatory)

(iii) Form 2 (Policy to Exclude Bids from External Parties involved in the Preparation or Development of a Specific Call/Request) completed as indicated (Mandatory)

(iv) Form 3 (Restrictions on the Hiring and use of Former City of Toronto Management Employees for City Contracts) completed as indicated, if applicable.

(v) Form 4 (Environmentally Responsible Procurement Statement) completed as indicated, if applicable.

(vi) Appendix D1a & b , D2 a & b and D3a & b (Price Forms and Project Team Task and Time Forms) completed as indicated. (Mandatory)

Note: Forms 1 to 4 are provided in Appendix C.

d) Must be delivered no later than the Closing Deadline to:

Chief Purchasing Official Purchasing and Materials Management Division 18th Floor, West Tower, City Hall Toronto, ON, M5H 2N2

Page 18 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Delays caused by any delivery service (including Canada Post and courier) shall not be grounds

for any extension of the Deadline, and Proposals that arrive after the Deadline will not be accepted.

5.3 Proponent Team Accreditation Mandatory Requirements A Mandatory Requirement is a minimum need that must be met by the Proponent. Failure to meet mandatory requirements is grounds for a Proposal to be declared non compliant and not considered in the evaluation process. The City will eliminate from the evaluation process any Proponent not fulfilling the mandatory requirements. 1. At least one senior member of the Proponent team must be a Professional Engineer licensed in the

Province of Ontario and have a copy of the Certificate of Authorization from the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO);

2. At least one senior member of the Proponent team must have financial accreditation(s) (i.e. CFA, CA, CMA).

3. At least one senior member of the Proponent team must have policy and/or organizational accreditations (i.e. MCIP, LEED AP, CEM, MBA)

4. The City prefers that proof of above accreditations be provided with the Proposal. If not included with the Proposal, then the Proponent shall provide proof of the above accreditations within five (5) business days of request by the City.

5.4 Proposal Content The Proposal should contain the following items: Letter of Introduction – Introducing the Proponent and signed by the person(s) authorized to sign on behalf of and to bind the Proponent to statements made in response to this RFP. This should contain the same signature as the person signing the submission forms. Table of Contents – Include page numbers and identify all included materials in the Proposal submission. Section 1 – Executive Summary The Proponent should provide a summary of the key features of the Proposal. Section 2 – Proponent Profile Proponents should have the staff, organization, culture, financial resources, market share and an operational base adequate to ensure their ongoing ability to deliver the business cases within the stated time period of the contract. The broad scope of work and tight timeline will require the focused commitment of an interdisciplinary team which is able to address the technical, financial, policy and organizational requirements of the business cases. 1. To permit the Proponent to be evaluated fully as a viable and sound enterprise, include the

following information with respect to the Proponent, and if the submission is a joint Proposal, for each consortium member.

(a) A profile and summary of corporate history including:

Page 19 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

date company started; products and/or services offered; total number of employees; major clients; business partners and the products/services they offer, and; membership in industry associations related to the technical, financial, policy and

organizational requirements of the business cases (b) A profile and summary of corporate history of any parents or subsidiaries and

affiliates and the nature of the Proponent’s relationship to them (i.e., research, financing and so on).

2. If the Proposal is being presented by a consortium, provide a description of the relationships between consortium members.

Section 3 – Experience and Qualifications of the Proponent 1. It is important that the Work be undertaken by a Proponent who can demonstrate specific mixed

waste processing and business assessment knowledge of, and experience in projects of comparable nature, size and scope. In particular, the Proponent should demonstrate the following in its Proposal:

(a) Necessary skills, experience and expertise in mixed waste processing planning/ procurement

and/or large scale public works capital planning work as it relates to this RFP.

(b) Preferably provide a minimum of three (3) references strictly related to mixed waste processing planning/ procurement and/ or large scale public works capital/ financial planning and or modelling work for the purpose of evaluating the Proponent’s experience and track record of success. Note that the City prefers references for experience and qualifications that are specific to mixed waste processing, with aspects of capital estimating and business assessment reporting Each reference should include:

the identity of the reference client organization; a contact name and title, address and telephone number; the size and nature of the client’s business; the number of years dealing with the client; a description of the project; the timing and duration of the Proponent’s involvement in the project; the specific services that were provided by the Proponent (i.e. project management); date of the project; details regarding the scale of the project; and client’s URL address.

Please note that Proposals being presented by consortiums that do not include the information requested for each consortium member will not be awarded full marks during the evaluation process. In providing references, Proponents agree that the City can contact the individuals provided as part of the evaluation process. The City will make its own arrangements in contacting the references. Substitution of references will not be permitted after the close of the RFP.

Page 20 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Section 4 – Proposed Staff Team and Resources

1. It is important that the Work be undertaken by a staff team who can demonstrate specific knowledge of, and experience in performing similar work for projects of comparable nature, size and scope. The proponent should demonstrate its team's capacity to address the business cases from each of the perspectives described in Sections 2.1 and 3.0 (Success Criteria and Scope of Work) and considering the desired outcomes. In particular, the Proponent should provide the following in its Proposal:

a) A list of key staff that the Proponent would propose to use for this work, including the Team

Manager, together with their professional qualifications, related technical, financial, policy and organizational project experience and an indication of their duties and responsibilities on this particular project.

b) Include strategies and individuals that can fulfill the roles and responsibilities for any

unforeseen events requiring replacement of team members.

c) Resumes for proposed individuals are to be included as an Appendix to the Proposal.

d) Provide a statement of any conflict of interest, if applicable. Refer to Appendix A – RFP Process Terms and Conditions for information relating to conflicts of interest.

 e) Identify and describe projects where team members have worked together in the past.

Note: The Proponent should submit signed consent forms authorizing the disclosure of personal information to the City, or its designated agent(s), for any resumes that are submitted, however, the Proponent will accept all liability if not disclosed to the City. It is important that key project individuals (i.e. major areas of responsibility) be named, with accompanying indication of guaranteed availability. Continuity of key personnel will be required, with a contractual obligation for substitutions only with full written approval of the City. Section 5 – Workplan and Methodology

1. Provide a statement of the Proponent’s understanding of the goals and objectives of the project.

2. Provide a detailed description of how the Proponent intends to achieve the goals and objectives of the project including:

a brief description outlining why the specific Approach has been recommended; any changes, deletions or additions to the elements outlined in the Scope of Work, and why

these changes, deletions or additions are recommended; the deliverables/outcomes that will be provided as part of the project; and a summary of risks/problems/issues associated with the work and how they will be mitigated.

3. Provide detailed gantt chart with breakdown of tasks, subtasks, and staff allocation 4. Provide an estimated overall timeline of the project, including an indication of how soon the work

will commence .  

5. Key dates for major deliverables should be clearly defined in the Proponent's detailed work plan.

6. State assumptions regarding roles and involvement of City staff and the estimated amount of their time involvement.

Page 21 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Section 6 – Cost of Services A. Core Pricing Each Proposal must set forth an all inclusive total fixed flat rate (lump sum) price for full professional Services for all components required for the preparation of a business case (entire Scope of Services) on the Price Detail Forms located in Appendix D. The Proponent must complete and submit the Price Detail Forms and Project Team Task and Time Forms located in Appendix D1, D2 and D3 – Supplementary Submission Forms. In order to be considered for award, the Proponents must provide a breakdown of the Total Lump Sum pricing as per the table format provided and should itemize this list further based on the items listed on the work plan as per Section 5.4 – Proposal Content (subsection 5 – Work Plan and Methodology) in the Price Detail Form. The total price quoted must include all labour, profit, other overhead, materials, equipment, licences, analysis, travel, accommodations, communication, transportation and delivery costs (courier, long distance charges, and so on), staff time, City/Vendor meetings (as and where deemed required by the City), disbursements and any/all other operational costs and fees associated with the Services, excluding all applicable taxes. The City shall not be responsible for any additional costs. Include all disbursements for the duration of the project, including but not limited to typing, printing, faxing, courier services, long-distance phone calls, travel expenses, etc. Include the costs of all insurance required by the City as identified in this Request for Proposal. Notes to Pricing: In the event of mathematical errors found in the pricing pages, the unit prices quoted shall prevail. Extensions and totals will be corrected accordingly by City staff and adjustments resulting from the correction will be applied to the Total Lump Sum Price quoted. Prices submitted in a Proposal are to be firm for the duration of the RFP process and the term of any resulting Agreement. All prices must be stated in Canadian currency. The Proponent shall assume all currency risk. The City shall not be responsible for any additional costs. The Proponent shall be solely responsible for all costs including but not limited to, wages, salaries, statutory deductions and any other expenses and liabilities related to its own personnel, and subcontractors and suppliers and their respective personnel. The Proponent shall be solely responsible for any and all payments and/or deductions required to be made including, but not limited to, those required for the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, Workplace Safety and Insurance, and Income Tax. All invoices must clearly show HST as a separate value and HST "registrant" number. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the Proponent acknowledges that, if it is a non-resident person, payments to the Proponent, as a non-resident person, may be subject to withholding taxes under the Income Tax Act (Canada). Further, unless the Proponent, as a non-resident person, provides the City

Page 22 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

with an official letter from Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency waiving the withholding requirements, the City will withhold the taxes it determines are required under the Income Tax Act (Canada). B. Taxes Harmonized Sale Tax (HST) is to be applied to the prices submitted as specified in the relevant sections of the call document or in the Price Schedule provided in the call. HST for the supply and delivery of materials/goods is to be shown as additional/separate line items on the Price Schedule and any subsequent invoices. C. Payment Terms and Discount Schedule 1. Propose payment terms for Core Pricing. The City’s standard payment terms are 60 days from the

receipt of the invoice. The final payment terms may be subject to further negotiation. 2. Propose any prompt payment discount terms. If all the correct billing information has been indicated on the invoice, and no acceptable discount for early payment has been offered, the City will endeavour to pay within the vendor's terms from the receipt date of the invoice in Corporate Accounts Payable Unit - Metro Hall, 55 John Street, 14th floor. Payment terms should be clearly indicated on the invoice including early payment terms. The City will consider offers of early payment discount terms. Discounts will only be taken when early payment discount terms are met from the receipt date of the invoice in the Corporate Accounts Payable unit. Note: Discount terms for early payment cannot be earlier than 15 days from the receipt date of the invoice by the City of Toronto, Accounting Services Division, and Corporate Accounts Payable unit. City of Toronto offers secure electronic deposit payments directly to your bank account through our “Direct Deposit” program. For more information and/or to enroll for this payment option, please email us at FASPDD@toronto.ca or contact our AP Customer Service Desk at APHelp@toronto.ca or 416-397-5235. To support an electronic payable environment, the City of Toronto Corporate Accounts Payable unit will accept electronic vendor invoices submitted via email at APinvoices@toronto.ca . Note: Electronic invoices submitted must be in a PDF format as an attachment. If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact our AP Customer Service Desk at APHelp@toronto.ca or 416-397-5235 D. City of Toronto - Invoice/Billing Requirements To help us pay you promptly, it is essential that all required billing information is provided on the invoice submitted to the City of Toronto. Any missing billing information on an invoice will result in a payment delay and the invoice may be returned to you without payment. 1) All original vendor invoices must be addressed and be sent DIRECTLY to: City of Toronto Accounting Services Division Corporate Accounts Payable

Page 23 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

55 John Street 14 Floor, Metro Hall Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 2) Invoice/s submitted to the City of Toronto must have complete ship to information including:

I. Name of City Division, II. The City Division’s contact name and phone number (the person ordering or picking up

the goods and/or services), III. Delivery location of goods and/or services (excluding pick-up order), IV. Purchasing document information on the invoice (blanket contract number, contract

release order number (CRO) purchase order (PO) or Divisional Purchase Order (DPO) must be clearly indicated on the invoice. (*This purchasing number should be provided by City staff at the time of order*)

Invoices that do not contain the required billing information may be returned without payment to the vendor for correction. 3) City purchases with the use of a credit card/Pcard, are NOT to be sent to Corporate Accounts

Payable. These invoices are considered paid. E. Invoice Exceptions The above standard billing requirement for invoices must be followed excluding exceptions for vendor invoices related to approved capital projects subject to construction lien holdbacks. Billing requirement direction will be provided by the contract custodian or city divisional designate. For any further vendor invoicing information, please contact Corporate Accounts Payable at APHelp@toronto.ca or 416-397-5235. Section 7 – Cost Control 1. Submit a proposed methodology for Proponent’s resource planning, cost estimation, cost budgeting,

and cost control measures. The Proponent shall clearly demonstrate the cost control measures that it will implement to ensure that the Lump Sum or Upset Limit of the Services will not be exceeded.

Page 24 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

RFP PROCESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Proponent’s Responsibility ............................................................................................... 26

2. Prime Proponent ............................................................................................................... 26 3. Questions .......................................................................................................................... 26 4. Addenda ............................................................................................................................ 26 5. Exceptions ......................................................................................................................... 27 6. Omissions, Discrepancies and Interpretations .................................................................. 27 7. Incurred Costs ................................................................................................................... 27 8. Post-Submission Adjustments and Withdrawal of Proposals ........................................... 27 9. No Collusion ..................................................................................................................... 27 10. Prohibition Against Gratuities .......................................................................................... 28 11. Acceptance of Proposals ................................................................................................... 28 12. Verification ....................................................................................................................... 28 13. Unbalanced Bids ............................................................................................................... 28 14. Conflicts of Interest .......................................................................................................... 28 15. Ownership and Confidentiality of City-Provided Data ..................................................... 29 16. Ownership and Disclosure of Proposal Documentation ................................................... 29 17. Intellectual Property Rights .............................................................................................. 29 18. Failure or Default of Proponent ........................................................................................ 30 19. Publicity ............................................................................................................................ 30 20. Governing Law ................................................................................................................. 30

Page 25 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

1. Proponent’s Responsibility

It shall be the responsibility of each Proponent: (a) to examine all the components of this RFP, including all appendices, forms and addenda; (b) to acquire a clear and comprehensive knowledge of the required services before submitting a

Proposal; (c) to become familiar, and (if it becomes a successful Proponent) comply, with all of the City’s

Policies and Legislation set out on the City of Toronto website at www.toronto.ca/tenders/index.htm

The failure of any Proponent to receive or examine any document, form, addendum, Agreement, policy shall not relieve the Proponent of any obligation with respect to its Proposal or any Agreement entered into or Purchase Order issued based on the Proponent’s Proposal.

2. Prime Proponent

A joint Proposal by a consortium of two or more Proponents having no formal corporate links may be submitted, but one person or company must be shown as the prime Proponent and be prepared to repre-sent the consortium to the City by executing the Agreement, acting as the primary contact, and taking overall responsibility for performance of the Agreement.

Where a proposal is made by a prime Proponent with associate firms working with or under the prime Proponent in either a sub-contracting or consortium relationship, it is required that those associate firms be named in the Proposal.

3. Questions

All questions concerning this RFP should be directed in writing to the City employee(s) designated as “City Contacts” in the Notice to Potential Proponents.

No City representative, whether an official, agent or employee, other than those identified “City Contacts” are authorized to speak for the City with respect to this RFP, and any Proponent who uses any information, clarification or interpretation from any other representative does so entirely at the Proponent’s own risk.

Not only shall the City not be bound by any representation made by an unauthorized person, but any attempt by a Proponent to bypass the RFP process may be grounds for rejection of its Proposal.

4. Addenda

If it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, the revisions will be by Addendum posted electronically in Adobe PDF format on the City’s website at www.toronto.ca/calldocuments. Proponents and prospective Proponents SHOULD MONITOR THAT SITE as frequently as they deem appropriate until the day of the Deadline. Only answers to issues of substance will be posted. The City reserves the right to revise this RFP up to the Closing Deadline. When an Addendum is issued the date for submitting Proposals may be revised by the City if, in its opinion, determines more time is necessary to enable Proponents to revise their Proposals. All Proponents must acknowledge receipt of all Addenda in the space provided on the Proposal Submission Form. The City’s Purchasing and Materials Management Division will make reasonable efforts to issue the final Addendum (if any) no later than two (2) days prior to the Deadline.

Page 26 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

5. Exceptions

If a Proponent wishes to suggest a change to any mandatory term or condition set forth in any part of this RFP, it should notify the City in writing not later than three days before the Closing Deadline. The Proponent must clearly identify any such term or condition, the proposed change and the reason for it. If the City wishes to accept the proposed change, the City will issue an Addendum as described in the article above titled Addenda. The decision of the City shall be final and binding, from which there is no appeal. Changes to mandatory terms and conditions that have not been accepted by the City by the issuance of an Addendum are not permitted and any Proposal that takes exception to or does not comply with the mandatory terms and conditions of this RFP will be rejected.

6. Omissions, Discrepancies and Interpretations

A Proponent who finds omissions, discrepancies, ambiguities or conflicts in any of the RFP documentation or who is in doubt as to the meaning of any part of the RFP should notify the City in writing not later than three days before the Closing Deadline. If the City considers that a correction, explanation or interpretation is necessary or desirable, the City will issue an Addendum as described in the article above titled Addenda. The decision and interpretation of the City shall be final and binding, from which there is no appeal. No oral explanation or interpretation shall modify any of the requirements or provisions of the RFP documents.

7. Incurred Costs

The City will not be liable for, nor reimburse, any potential Proponent or Proponent, as the case may be, for costs incurred in the preparation, submission or presentation of any Proposal, for interviews or any other activity that may be requested as part of the evaluation process or the process for the negotiation or execution of an Agreement with the City, as the case may be.

The rejection or non-acceptance of any or all Proposals shall not render the City liable for any costs or damages to any firm that submits a Proposal.

8. Post-Submission Adjustments and Withdrawal of Proposals

No unilateral adjustments by Proponents to submitted Proposals will be permitted.

A Proponent may withdraw its Proposal prior to the Deadline any time by notifying the City Buyer designated in this RFP in writing.

A Proponent who has withdrawn a Proposal may submit a new Proposal, but only in accordance with the terms of this RFP.

After the Deadline each submitted Proposal shall be irrevocable and binding on Proponents for a period of 120 days.

If the City makes a request to a Proponent for clarification of its Proposal, the Proponent will provide a written response accordingly, which shall then form part of the Proposal.

9. No Collusion

No Proponent may discuss or communicate about, directly or indirectly, the preparation or content of its Proposal with any other Proponent or the agent or representative of any other Proponent or prospective Proponent. If the City discovers there has been a breach at any time, the City reserves the right to disqualify the Proposal or terminate any ensuing Agreement.

Page 27 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

10. Prohibition against Gratuities

No Proponent and no employee, agent or representative of the Proponent, may offer or give any gratuity in the form of entertainment, participation in social events, gifts or otherwise to any officer, director, agent, appointee or employee of the City in connection with or arising from this RFP, whether for the pur-pose of securing an Agreement or seeking favourable treatment in respect to the award or amendment of the Agreement or influencing the performance of the Agreement, including without restriction enforcement of performance standards, or expressing appreciation, or providing compensation, for the award of an Agreement or for performance of the City's obligations thereunder or for conferring favours or being lenient, or in any other manner whatsoever.

If the City determines that this article has been breached by or with respect to a Proponent, the City may exclude its Proposal from consideration, or if an Agreement has already been entered into, may terminate it without incurring any liability.

11. Acceptance of Proposals

The City shall not be obliged to accept any Proposal in response to this RFP.

The City may, without incurring any liability or cost to any Proponent: a) accept or reject any or all Proposal(s) at any time; b) waive immaterial defects and minor irregularities in any Proposals; c) modify and/or cancel this RFP prior to accepting any Proposal; d) award a contract in whole or in part.

The City is relying on the experience and expertise of the Proponent. The City reserves the right to disqualify any Proponent who has given inaccurate, incomplete, false or misleading information in the sole opinion of the City.

12. Verification

The City reserves the right to verify with any Proponent or with any other person any information provided in its Proposal but shall be under no obligation to receive further information.

If, in the opinion of the City, any Proponent has clearly misinterpreted the services or underestimated the hours or value of the services to be performed as reflected in its Proposal content and submitted price/fees, or all or any or any combination of them, then the City may reject its Proposal as not representative of the scope of the services).

13. Unbalanced Bids

The City may reject a bid if it determines, in its sole discretion, that the bid is materially imbalanced.

A bid is materially imbalanced when:

(1) it is based on prices which are significantly less than cost for some items of work and prices which are significantly overstated in relation to cost for other items of work; and

(2) the City had determined that the proposal may not result in the lowest overall cost to the City even though it may be the lowest submitted bid; or

(3) it is so unbalanced as to be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

14. Conflicts of Interest

In its Proposal, the Proponent must disclose to the City any potential conflict of interest that might compromise the performance of the Work. If such a conflict of interest does exist, the City may, at its discretion, refuse to consider the Proposal.

Page 28 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

The Proponent must also disclose whether it is aware of any City employee, Council member or member of a City agency, board or commission or employee thereof having a financial interest in the Proponent and the nature of that interest. If such an interest exists or arises during the evaluation process or the negotiation of the Agreement, the City may, at its discretion, refuse to consider the Proposal or withhold the awarding of any Agreement to the Proponent until the matter is resolved to the City’s sole satisfaction.

If, during the Proposal evaluation process or the negotiation of the Agreement, the Proponent is retained by another client giving rise to a potential conflict of interest, then the Proponent will so inform the City. If the City requests, then the Proponent will refuse the new assignment or will take such steps as are necessary to remove the conflict of interest concerned.

Proponents are cautioned that the acceptance of their Proposal may preclude them from participating as a Proponent in subsequent projects where a conflict of interest may arise. The successful Proponent for this project may participate in subsequent/other City projects provided the successful Proponent has satisfied pre-qualification requirements of the City, if any, and in the opinion of the City, no conflict of interest would adversely affect the performance and successful completion of an Agreement by the successful Proponent.

15. Ownership and Confidentiality of City-Provided Data

All correspondence, documentation and information provided by City staff to any Proponent or prospec-tive Proponent in connection with, or arising out of this RFP, the Services or the acceptance of any Proposal:

a) is and shall remain the property of the City; b) must be treated by Proponents and prospective Proponents as confidential; c) must not be used for any purpose other than for replying to this RFP, and for fulfillment of any

related subsequent Agreement.

16. Ownership and Disclosure of Proposal Documentation

The documentation comprising any Proposal submitted in response to this RFP, along with all correspondence, documentation and information provided to the City by any Proponent in connection with, or arising out of this RFP, once received by the City:

a) shall become the property of the City and may be appended to the Agreement and/or Purchase Order with the successful Proponent;

b) shall become subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ("MFIPPA"), and may be released, pursuant to that Act.

Because of MFIPPA, prospective Proponents are advised to identify in their Proposal material any scientific, technical, commercial, proprietary or similar confidential information, the disclosure of which could cause them injury.

Each Proponent’s name at a minimum shall be made public. Proposals will be made available to members of City Council provided that their requests have been made in accordance with the City’s procedure and may be released to members of the public pursuant to MFIPPA.

17. Intellectual Property Rights

Each Proponent warrants that the information contained in its Proposal does not infringe any intellectual property right of any third party and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, its staff and its consultants, if any, against all claims, actions, suits and proceedings, including all costs incurred by the City brought by any person in respect of the infringement or alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property right in connection with their Proposal.

Page 29 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

18. Failure or Default of Proponent

If the Proponent, for any reason, fails or defaults in respect of any matter or thing which is an obligation of the Proponent under the terms of the RFP, the City may disqualify the Proponent from the RFP and/or from competing for future tenders or RFP issued by the City for a period of one year. In addition, the City may at its option either:

a) Consider that the Proponent has withdrawn any offer made, or abandoned the Agreement if the offer has been accepted, whereupon the acceptance, if any, of the City shall be null and void; or

b) Require the Proponent to pay the City the difference between its Proposal and any other Proposal which the City accepts, if the latter is for a greater amount and, in addition, to pay the City any cost which the City may incur by reason of the Proponent’s failure or default, and further the Proponent will indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents from all loss, damage, liability, cost, charge and expense whatever which it, they or any of them may suffer, incur or be put to by reason of such default or failure of the Proponent.

19. Publicity

The Proponent and its affiliates, associates, third-party service providers, and subcontractors shall not release for publication any information in connection with this RFP or any Agreement without prior written permission of the City.

20. Governing Law

This RFP and any Proposal submitted in response to it and the process contemplated by this RFP including any ensuing Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario. Any dispute arising out of this RFP or this RFP process will be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Province of Ontario.

Page 30 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX B

AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Compliance with Laws ..................................................................................................... 32 2. Non-Exclusivity ................................................................................................................ 32 3. Confidentiality .................................................................................................................. 32 4. Indemnities........................................................................................................................ 32 5. Intellectual Property Indemnity ........................................................................................ 32 6. No Assignment ................................................................................................................. 32 7. Sub-Contractors ................................................................................................................ 32 8. Personnel and Performance............................................................................................... 32 9. Independent Contractor ..................................................................................................... 33 10. Insurance ........................................................................................................................... 33 11. Warranties and Covenants ................................................................................................ 33 12. Third Party Software ......................................................................................................... 34 13. Ownership of Project Documentation ............................................................................... 34 14. Payment Schedule ............................................................................................................. 34 15. Termination Provisions ..................................................................................................... 35 16. Right to Audit ................................................................................................................... 35 17. Occupational Health and Safety ........................................................................................ 35 18. Workplace Safety and Insurance Act ................................................................................ 36 19. Accessibility Standards for Customer Service Training Requirements ............................ 36

Note to Appendix: The terms set out in this Appendix shall be incorporated in any Agreement entered into with the recommended Proponent substantially in the form as presented in the Appendix. These terms are mandatory and are not negotiable. Any Proponent wishing to request that the City consider any changes to the terms and conditions set out in Appendix "B" must follow the process outlined in section 5 of Appendix "A".

Page 31 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

1. Compliance with Laws

The Vendor will be required to comply with all federal, provincial and municipal laws and regulations in performing any Services including, without limitation, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, or any successor legislation, as applicable, and to provide to the City, upon request, periodic reports confirming such compliance.

2. Non-Exclusivity

The awarding of an Agreement to a Vendor shall not be a guarantee of exclusivity.

3. Confidentiality

The Vendor shall treat as confidential all information of any kind which comes to the attention of the Vendor in the course of carrying out the Services and shall not disseminate such information for any reason without the express written permission of the City. The Vendor may be required to enter into a detailed confidentiality agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

4. Indemnities

The Vendor shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto, its Mayor, Members of Council, officers, employees, and agents from and against any losses, liens, charges, claims, demands, suits, proceedings, recoveries and judgments (including legal fees and costs) arising from or related to the Vendor's performance or non-performance of its obligations, including payment obligations to its approved subcontractors and suppliers and others, and including breach of any confidentiality obligations under this Agreement.

Upon assuming the defence of any action covered under this section the Vendor shall keep City of Toronto reasonably informed of the status of the matter, and the Vendor shall make no admission of liability or fault on City of Toronto's part without City of Toronto's written permission.

5. Intellectual Property Indemnity

The Vendor shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto, its Mayor, Members of Council, officers, employees, and agents from and against any losses, liens, charges, claims, demands, suits, proceedings, recoveries and judgments (including legal fees and costs) arising from infringement, actual or alleged, by the Proposal, its use or misuse, or by any of the deliverables developed or provided or supplied under or used in connection with the Services (including the provision of the Services themselves), of any Canadian, American or other copyright, moral right, trade-mark, patent, trade secret or other thing with respect to which a right in the nature of intellectual/industrial property exists.

6. No Assignment

The Vendor shall not assign any part of the project which may be awarded to it under the Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. However, such written consent shall not under any circumstances relieve the Vendor of its liabilities and obligations under this RFP and the Agreement.

7. Sub-contractors

The Vendor shall be solely responsible for the payment of every sub-contractor employed, engaged, or retained by it for the purpose of assisting it in the performance of its obligations under the Agreement. The Vendor shall coordinate the services of its sub-contractors in a manner acceptable to the City, and ensure that they comply with all the relevant requirements of the Agreement.

The Vendor shall be liable to the City for all costs or damages arising from acts, omissions, negligence or wilful misconduct of its sub-contractors.

8. Personnel and Performance

The Vendor must make available appropriately skilled workers, consultants or subcontractors, as appropriate, and must be able to provide the necessary materials, tools, machinery and supplies to carry out the project.

Page 32 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

The Vendor shall be responsible for its own staff resources and for the staff resources of any subcontractors and third-party service providers.

The Vendor will ensure that its personnel (including those of approved sub-contractors), when using any City buildings, premises, equipment, hardware or software shall comply with all security policies, regulations or directives relating to those buildings, premises, equipment, hardware or software.

Personnel assigned by the Vendor to perform or produce the Services or any part of it, (including those of approved subcontractors) may, in the sole discretion of the City, be required to sign non-disclosure Agreement(s) satisfactory to the City before being permitted to perform such services.

9. Independent Contractor

The relationship of the City and the Vendor is one of owner and independent contractor and not one of employer-employee. Neither is there any intention to create a partnership, joint venture or joint enterprise between the Vendor and the City.

10. Insurance

The Vendor shall be required to purchase and maintain in force, at its own expense (including the payment of all deductibles) and for the duration of this Agreement, the following policies of insurance, which policies shall be in a form and with an insurer acceptable to the City. A certificate of these policies originally signed by the insurer or an authorized agent of the insurer must be delivered to the City prior to the commencement of the Vendor’s services:

(A) Professional Liability (errors and omissions coverage) for the performance of Services by the Vendor providing that the policy is:

(i) in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000); (ii) extend to infringement of copyright and other intellectual property, including

misuse of trade secrets; (iii) not to be construed as a limit of the liability of the Vendor in the performance by

the Vendor of the Services under this Agreement; (iv) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, kept in

full force and effect for a period of time ending no sooner than two years after the termination or expiry of this Agreement, as the case may be.

(B) Comprehensive General Liability, provided that the policy:

(i) is in the amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), per

occurrence; (ii) adds the City of Toronto as additional insured;

(iii) has provisions for cross-liability and severability of interest as between the Vendor and the City of Toronto, broad form contractual liability, owner's/contractor's protective liability, contingent employer's liability, employers liability, products and completed operations liability; non owned automobile liability and personal injury liability;

(iv) provides for thirty (30) days' prior written notice of cancellation or material change.

At the expiry date of the policy, the Vendor shall provide original signed Certificates evidencing renewals or replacements to the City prior to the expiration date of the original policies, without notice or request by the City.

11. Warranties and Covenants

The Vendor represents, warrants and covenants to the City (and acknowledges that the City is relying thereon) that any deliverable resulting from or to be supplied or developed under the Agreement will be in accordance with the City’s functional and technical requirements (as set out in the RFP) and, if applicable, will function or otherwise perform in accordance with such requirements.

Page 33 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

12. Third Party Software

Where the City is in possession of software containing or constituting confidential proprietary information belonging to third parties, the Vendor shall not, except in the usual incidental manner genuinely necessary for the intended use of such software on the equipment of the City, (a) analyze, copy, decompile, disassemble, translate, convert, reverse engineer or duplicate any physical

embodiment or part thereof, or permit any person to do so; or (b) divulge to any unauthorized person the ideas, concepts or techniques, or make any other improper use,

of such software.

The Vendor shall fully defend, save harmless and indemnify the City from and against any loss or damages suffered by the City as a result of any failure by the Vendor, its officers, directors, partners, contract personnel, agents and employees or any of them to comply with the provisions hereof.

Should the Vendor include third party components within the Solution, the Vendor must secure the rights to use and repackage third party components and pass on those rights to the City without additional charges.

The City will own all intellectual property rights, including (without limitation) copyright, in and to all deliverables provided by the Vendor and its subcontractors.

13. Ownership of Project Documentation

All information, data, plans, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, photographs and all other documentation prepared by the Vendor in the performance of the Services under the Agreement, whether they be in draft or final format, shall be the property of the City.

14. Payment Schedule

A payment schedule satisfactory to the City shall form part of the Agreement.

No fees or reimbursable expenses shall become payable to the Vendor pursuant to the Agreement other than pursuant to one or more signed schedules.

The Vendor shall submit invoices in such detail as may be required by the City, and the City reserves the right to require further proof or documentation from the Vendor in respect of services performed or expenses incurred by the Vendor and the Vendor shall provide, without delay, such further proof or documentation.

If the City does not approve of the Services which are the subject of the invoice, the City shall advise the Vendor in writing of the reasons for non-approval and the Vendor shall remedy the problem at no additional cost to the City before the City shall be obliged to pay the invoice or any part of it, as the case may be.

The Vendor shall be solely responsible for the payment of all personnel costs including statutory and otherwise (including without limitation subcontractors and suppliers and their respective personnel) made available by it and used for performance of any of the Services.

15. Termination Provisions

Upon giving the Vendor not less than 30 days’ prior written notice, the City may, at any time and without cause, cancel the Agreement, in whole or in part. In the event of such cancellation, the City shall not incur any liability to the Vendor apart from the payment for the goods, material, articles, equipment, work or services that have been satisfactorily delivered or performed by the Vendor at the time of cancellation.

Failure of the Vendor to perform its obligations under the Agreement shall entitle the City to terminate the Agreement upon ten (10) calendar days’ written notice to the Vendor if a breach which is remediable is not rectified in that time. In the event of such termination, the City shall not incur any liability to the

Page 34 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Vendor apart from the payment for the goods, material, articles, equipment, work or services that have been satisfactorily delivered or performed by the Vendor at the time of termination.

All rights and remedies of the City for any breach of the Vendor's obligations under the Agreement shall be cumulative and not exclusive or mutually exclusive alternatives and may be exercised singularly, jointly or in combination and shall not be deemed to be in exclusion of any other rights or remedies available to the City under the Agreement or otherwise at law.

No delay or omission by the City in exercising any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver of them or of any other right or remedy, and no single or partial exercise of a right or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise of them or the exercise of any other right or remedy.

Upon termination, all originals and copies of data, plans, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, photographs, and other documents that have been accumulated and/or prepared by the Vendor in performance of the Agreement shall be delivered to the City in a clean and readable format.

16. Right to Audit

The City may audit all financial and related records associated with the terms of the contract including timesheets, reimbursable out of pocket expenses, materials, goods, and equipment claimed by the Contractor. The Contractor shall at all times during the term of the contract, and for a period of 2 years following completion of the contract, keep and maintain records of the work performed pursuant to this contract. This shall include proper records of invoices, vouchers, timesheets, and other documents that support actions taken by the Contractor. The Contractor shall at his own expense make such records available for inspection and audit by the City at all reasonable times. 17. Occupational Health and Safety a. The Vendor shall comply with all federal, provincial or municipal occupational health and safety

legislative requirements, including, and without limitation, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O., 1990 c.0.1 and all regulations there under, as amended from time to time (collectively the "OHSA").

b. Nothing in this section shall be construed as making the City the "employer" (as defined in the

OHSA) of any workers employed or engaged by the Vendor for the Services, either instead of or jointly with the Vendor.

c. The Vendor agrees that it will ensure that all subcontractors engaged by it are qualified to perform the

services and that the employees of subcontractors are trained in the health and safety hazards expected to be encountered in the Services.

d. The Vendor acknowledges and represents that:

i. The workers employed to carry out the Services have been provided with training in the hazards of the Services to be performed and possess the knowledge and skills to allow them to work safely;

ii. The Vendor has provided, and will provide during the course of the agreement, all necessary

personal protective equipment for the protection of workers;

iii. The Vendor’s supervisory employees are competent, as defined in the OHSA, and will carry out their duties in a diligent and responsible manner with due consideration for the health and safety of workers;

iv. The Vendor has in place an occupational health and safety policy in accordance with the OHSA; and

Page 35 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

v. The Vendor has a process in place to ensure that health and safety issues are identified and

addressed and a process in place for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses. e. The Vendor shall provide, at the request of the Executive Director or his designate, the following as

proof of the representations made in paragraph d(i) and d(iv):

i. documentation regarding the training programs provided or to be provided during the Services (i.e. types of training, frequency of training and re-training); and

ii. the occupational health and safety policy.

f. The Vendor shall immediately advise the Executive Director or his designate in the event of any of

the following:

i. A critical injury that arises out of Services that is the subject of this agreement;

ii. An order(s) is issued to the Vendor by the Ministry of Labour arising out of the Services that is the subject of this agreement;

iii. A charge is laid or a conviction is entered arising out of the Services that is the subject of this agreement, including but not limited to a charge or conviction under the OHSA, the Criminal Code, R.S.C 1985, c. C-46, as amended and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A, as amended.

g. The Vendor shall be responsible for any delay in the progress of the Services as a result of any

violation or alleged violation of any federal, provincial or municipal health and safety requirement by the Vendor, it being understood that no such delay shall be a force majeure or uncontrollable circumstance for the purposes of extending the time for performance of the Services or entitling the Vendor to additional compensation, and the Vendor shall take all necessary steps to avoid delay in the final completion of the Services without additional cost to the City.

h. The parties acknowledge and agree that employees of the City, including senior officers, have no authority to direct, and will not direct, how employees, workers or other persons employed or engaged by the Vendor do work or perform a task that is the subject of this agreement.

18. Workplace Safety and Insurance Act The Vendor shall be in good standing with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) throughout the term of this agreement. If requested by the Executive Director or his designate, the Vendor shall produce certificates issued by the WSIB to the effect that they have paid in full their assessment based on a true statement of the amount of payrolls. If the Vendor is considered by WSIB to be an independent operator without coverage, the Vendor shall provide a letter to that effect from the WSIB. 19. Accessibility Standards for Customer Service Training Requirements The Vendor shall require all applicable personnel (including those of its subcontractors) to fulfill the training requirements set out in the City's policy on Accessible Customer Service Training Requirements for Contractors, Consultants and other Services Providers.

Page 36 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX C

STANDARD SUBMISSION FORMS

FORM 1: Proposal Submission Form – Mandatory

FORM 2: Policy to Exclude Bids From External Parties Involved in the Preparation or Development of a Specific Call/Request - Mandatory

FORM 3: Restrictions on the Hiring and Use of Former City of Toronto Management

Employees for City Contracts – If Applicable

FORM 4: Environmentally Responsible Procurement – If Applicable

FORM 5: Notice of No Submission – If Applicable FORM 6: City of Toronto Customer Service Training Requirements: Contractors,

Consultants and other Service Providers – If Applicable

Page 37 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

FORM 1

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 9119-12-3061 MIXED WASTE PROCESSING STUDY UPDATE AND PROCESSING FACILITY DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION BUSINESS CASE ASSESSMENT CLOSING: 12:00 NOON (Local Toronto Time) June 15, 2012

SUBMITTED BY: _________________________________________________________________________________________ (PROPONENT'S FULL LEGAL NAME)

ADDRESS: _______________________________TELEPHONE NO. ___________________________

_______________________________FAX NO. ___________________________________

_______________________________EMAIL: ____________________________________ _______________________________ DATE: _____________________________________

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SIGNING OFFICER

_______________________________________________________________________________________ PRINTED NAME OF SIGNING OFFICER

THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR PROPOSAL OR YOUR PROPOSALWILL BE DECLARED INFORMAL.

I/WE HEREBY SUBMIT MY/OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE PROVISION OF THE GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT FOR THE ABOVE NAMED PROJECT. I/WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS AND HAVE A CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE SUBMITTED ALL RELEVANT DATA. I/WE AGREE, IF SELECTED TO PROVIDE THOSE GOODS AND/OR SERVICES TO THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT AND OUR SUBMISSION. I/WE AGREE THAT THIS SUBMISSION IS BEING MADE WITHOUT ANY COLLUSION OR FRAUD.

ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDA BY NUMBER AND ISSUE DATE:

ADDENDUM NO. ________ DATED _________________________

ADDENDUM NO. ________ DATED _________________________

ADDENDUM NO. ________ DATED _________________________

ADDENDUM NO. ________ DATED _________________________

Page 38 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

FORM 2

POLICY TO EXCLUDE BIDS FROM EXTERNAL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC CALL/REQUEST

To ensure Fair and Equal Treatment in its competitive procurements, the City of Toronto will undertake to:

disallow bidders/proponent from submitting a bid to any Tender, Quotation, or Proposal call in which the bidders/proponent has participated in the preparation of the call document; and

a bidder/proponent who fails to comply will result in disqualification of their response to the call/request.

Did you, the proponent, assist the City of Toronto in the preparation of this Request for Proposal call? Specify: Yes _______ No _________

Page 39 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

FORM 3

RESTRICTIONS ON THE HIRING AND USE OF FORMER CITY OF TORONTO

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES FOR CITY CONTRACTS

The purpose of this Policy to ensure that former City of Toronto management employees who took part in a separation program or received a retirement package, are prohibited from participating in contracts directly or indirectly related to the City of Toronto or its special purpose bodies for a period of two years starting from an employee’s separation date.

Former employees covered by this policy are prohibited from participating in contracts directly or indirectly related to the City of Toronto or its special purpose bodies for a period of two years starting from the employee’s separation date. This would include, but not be limited to, for example, the following roles:

As an independent contractor/consultant; As a contractor/consultant on City project Work for a company/firm (but, the firm may compete); or As a contractor/consultant on City project Work for a company/firm that has been sub-contracted by

another company/firm.

Former City of Toronto management employees who took part in a separation program or received a retirement incentive are prohibited from participating in contracts directly or indirectly related to the City of Toronto and its special purpose bodies for a period of two years starting from an employee’s termination date.

Notes: (1) Adopted by Council at its meeting of February 4, 5, & 6, 1998, Report No. 2, Clause No. 2 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and

(2) Revised by City Council at its meeting of November 26, 27, 28, 2002, Report No. 14, Clause No. 6, Administration Committee.

Respondents are to state the name(s) of any former City of Toronto management employee(s) hired/used by your firm, if any, who have left the employ of the City or its special purpose bodies within the last two years.

Specify: .

This policy will be considered in the evaluation of all submissions received by the City of Toronto.

For further information contact:

Manager, Corporate Purchasing, Policy & Quality Assurance 18th

Floor, West Tower, City Hall, (416) 392-0387

Page 40 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

FORM 4 ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE PROCUREMENT STATEMENT

The City of Toronto Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy encourages bidders to also offer products/services that are environmentally preferred.

Environmentally preferred products/services offered must be competitive in cost, conform to specifications, performance requirements and, be suitable for the intended application as determined by the using department(s)

Environmentally preferred products/services are those such as durable products, reusable products, energy efficient products, low pollution products/services, products (including those used in services) containing maximum levels of post-consumer waste and/or recyclable content, and products which provide minimal impact to the environment.

An environmentally preferred product is one that is less harmful to the environment than the next best alternative having characteristics including, but not limited to the following:

1. Reduce waste and make efficient use of resources: An Environmentally Preferred Product would be a product that is more energy, fuel, or water efficient, or that uses less paper, ink, or other resources. For example, energy-efficient lighting, and photocopiers capable of double-sided photocopying.

2. Are reusable or contain reusable parts: These products such as rechargeable batteries, reusable building partitions, and laser printers with refillable toner cartridges.

3. Are recyclable: A product will be considered to be an Environmentally Preferred Product if local facilities exist capable of recycling the product at the end of its useful life.

4. Contain recycled materials: An Environmentally Preferred Product contains post-consumer recycled content. An example is paper products made from recycled post-consumer fibre.

5. Produce fewer polluting by-products and/or safety hazards during manufacture, use or disposal: An EPP product would be a non-hazardous product that replaces a hazardous product.

6. Have a long service-life and/or can be economically and effectively repaired to upgrade.

Bidders shall if requested, provide written verification of any environmental claims made in their bid/Proposal satisfactory to the City of Toronto within five (5) working days of request at no cost to the City. Verification may include, but not be limited to, certification to recognized environmental program (e.g., Environmental Choice Program [ECP]), independent laboratory tests or manufacturer's certified tests, Only proven environmentally preferred products/services shall be offered. Experimental or prototype products/services will not be considered.

For a copy of the City of Toronto Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy, visit the website at http://www.toronto.ca/calldocuments/pdf/environment_procurement.pdf

State if environmentally preferred products/service is being offered: YES______ NO______

State briefly the environmental benefit of the product/service offered:

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Page 41 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ THIS It is important to the City of Toronto to receive a reply from all invited Proponents. There is no obligation to submit a Proposal; however, should you choose not to submit, completion of this form will assist the City in determining the type of services you are interested in submitting a Proposal in the future. INSTRUCTIONS: If you are unable, or do not wish to submit a Proposal on this Request for Proposals, please complete the following portions of this form. State your reason for not submitting a Proposal by checking applicable box(es) or by explaining briefly in the space provided. It is not necessary to return any other Request for Proposals documents. 1. We do not offer this service. Other reasons or additional comments. 2. We do not offer services to these requirements. 3. Unable to offer services competitively. 4. Cannot handle due to present commitments. 5. Quantity/project too large. 6. Cannot meet delivery/completion requirements. 7. Licensing restrictions. Do you wish to participate in Request for Proposals for services in the future? YES ____ NO ____

For City’s use only - Do not write in this space. Company Name:

Address:

Signature of Company Representative:

Position:

Date: Tel. No.: Fax No.:

Fax: 416-392-8411

FORM 5

NOTICE OF “NO SUBMISSION”

RFP # : 9119-12-3061

CLOSING DATE: June 15, 2012

Page 42 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

FORM 6

City of Toronto Accessible Customer Service Training Requirements: Contractors, Consultants and other Service Providers

(Accessibility Standard for Customer Service, O. Reg. 429/07, AODA 2005) The City of Toronto supports the goals of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005 and is committed to providing equal treatment and equitable benefits of City services, programs and facilities in a manner that respects the dignity and independence of people with disabilities. Under section 6 of the Accessibility Standard for Customer Service, O. Reg. 429/07 (Appendix A), established by the AODA, the City of Toronto must ensure that employees, volunteers and all other personnel, including third party contractors, who deal with members of the public or other third parties on behalf of the City or, who participate in developing City policies, practices or procedures on the provision of goods and services receive training on accessible customer service. All personnel must complete training that meets the requirements of the Accessible Customer Service regulation and includes:

An overview of the AODA Understanding the requirements of the Regulation How to interact and communicate with persons with various types of disabilities; How to interact with persons with disabilities who use an assistive device or require the

assistance of a guide dog or other service animal or the assistance of a support; How to use equipment or devices available on the provider’s premises or otherwise provided by

the provider to people with disabilities to access goods or services; and What to do if a person with a particular type of disability is having difficulty accessing the

provider’s goods or services. Third party contractors and other service providers are to ensure that training records are maintained, including dates when training is provided, the number of personnel who received training and individual training records. Contractors are required to ensure that this information is available, if requested by the City of Toronto. Access an e-learning course: The training requirements can be fulfilled by completing the e-Learning course “Serve-ability: Transforming Ontario’s Customer Service”, which can be found on the Ministry of Community and Social Services website: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/serve-ability/splash.html For more information: How to comply with the Accessible Customer Service Standard at: www.accessON.ca/compliance Requirements of the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service (Ontario Regulation 429/07): www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2007/elaws_src_regs_r07429_e.htm

Page 43 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX D

PRICE FORMS

1. Appendix D1a - Price Detail Form / Summary Table (City Owned Facility) 2. Appendix D1b – Project Team Task and Time Form (City Owned Facility)

 3. Appendix D2a – Price Detail Form / Summary Table (Private Sector Processing) 4. Appendix D2b – Project Team Task and Time Form (Private Sector Processing)

 5. Appendix D3a – Price Detail Form / Summary Table (Public Private Partnerships)

 6. Appendix D3b – Project Team Task and Time Form (Public Private Partnerships) APPENDIX D MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH YOUR PROPOSAL OR YOUR PROPOSAL WILL BE DECLARED NON COMPLIANT

Page 44 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX D1a

PRICE DETAIL FORM / SUMMARY TABLE

Proponents must provide an all-inclusive cost for the preparation of a Business Case including all components as per the requirements of the RFP and must also show the breakdown of pricing for the proposed elements of the Proponent’s approach as per Section 3.0 a) – CITY OWNED FACILTIY Pricing for each task must exclude applicable taxes. The Price Detail Form must be submitted in the format as below and must contain the following information at minimum:

Item Description Cost 1. Task 1 Technical – Waste Composition per One (1) Business Case Approach As

per Section 3.0 , D&O Approach a), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #1, indicate in Appendix D1b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

2. Task 2 Technical – MBT-AD system conceptual design per One (1) Business Case

Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O Approach a), including sensitivity scenarios

$___________

For Item #2, indicate in Appendix D1b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

3. Task 3 Financial per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach a), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #3, indicate in Appendix D1b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

4. Task 4 Strategic per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach a), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #4, indicate in Appendix D1b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

5. Task 5 Analytical per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach a), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #5, indicate in Appendix D1b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

6. Sub-Total (1+2+ 3+4+5) $___________

7. HST (13%) $___________

8. GRAND TOTAL (6+7) $___________

This form must be returned with the submission.

Page 45 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX D1b

Project Team Task And Time Form

ITEM

(Note 1)

TEAM MEMBERS AND HOURS ASSIGNED (Note 2)

Project Leader Other Other Other Total Item

Cost (Note 3) 1. Technical – Waste

Compostion

$

2. Technical – MBT-AD conceptual design

$

3. Financial $

4. Strategic $

5. Analytical

$

6. Per Diem Rate Each Team Member

$

$

$

$

7. TOTAL HOURS Each Team Member EACH MEMBER

8. HOURLY RATE Each Team Member

$

$

$

$

9. TOTAL COST Each Team Member (7. x 8.)

$

$

$

$

Note 1) Associated sub tasks may be listed below each primary work plan items (above), should the bidder elect to do

so. Use separate sheet(s) and maintain the team member breakdown (for primary items & sub tasks) Note 2) Include separate sheet(s) if additional "other" team members required for Item completion. Note 3) Total Item cost = Total team member hours * listed hourly rates. Total Item cost transferred to Appendix D1a.

This form must be returned with the submission.

Page 46 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX D2a

PRICE DETAIL FORM / SUMMARY TABLE

Proponents must provide an all-inclusive cost for the preparation of a Business Case including all components as per the requirements of the RFP and must also show the breakdown of pricing for the proposed elements of the Proponent’s approach as per Section 3.0 b) – PRIVATE SECTOR PROCESSING Pricing for each task must exclude applicable taxes. The Price Detail Form must be submitted in the format as below and must contain the following information at minimum:

Item Description Cost 1. Task 1 Technical – Waste Composition per One (1) Business Case Approach As

per Section 3.0 , D&O Approach b), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #1, indicate in Appendix D2b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

2. Task 2 Technical – MBT-AD system conceptual design per One (1) Business Case

Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O Approach b), including sensitivity scenarios

$___________

For Item #2, indicate in Appendix D2b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

3. Task 3 Financial per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach b), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #3, indicate in Appendix D2b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

4. Task 4 Strategic per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach b), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #4, indicate in Appendix D2b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

5. Task 5 Analytical per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach b), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #5, indicate in Appendix D2b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

6. Sub-Total (1+2+ 3+4+5) $___________

7. HST (13%) $___________

8. GRAND TOTAL (6+7) $___________

This form must be returned with the submission.

Page 47 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX D2b Project Team Task And Time Form

ITEM

(Note 1)

TEAM MEMBERS AND HOURS ASSIGNED (Note 2)

Project Leader Other Other Other Total Item

Cost (Note 3) 1. Technical – Waste

Compostion

$

2. Technical – MBT-AD conceptual design

$

3. Financial $

4. Strategic $

5. Analytical

$

6. Per Diem Rate Each Team Member

$

$

$

$

7. TOTAL HOURS

Each Team Member

8. HOURLY RATE

Each Team Member

$

$

$

$

9. TOTAL COST Each Team Member (7. x 8.)

$

$

$

$

Note 1) Associated sub tasks may be listed below each primary work plan items (above), should the bidder elect to do

so. Use separate sheet(s) and maintain the team member breakdown (for primary items & sub tasks) Note 2) Include separate sheet(s) if additional "other" team members required for Item completion. Note 3) Total Item cost = Total team member hours * listed hourly rates. Total Item cost transferred to Appendix D2a.

This form must be returned with the submission.

Page 48 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX D3a PRICE DETAIL FORM / SUMMARY TABLE

Proponents must provide an all-inclusive cost for the preparation of a Business Case including all components as per the requirements of the RFP and must also show the breakdown of pricing for the proposed elements of the Proponent’s approach as per Section 3.0 c) – OTHER PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS. Pricing for each task must exclude applicable taxes. The Price Detail Form must be submitted in the format as below and must contain the following information at minimum:

Item Description Cost 1. Task 1 Technical – Waste Composition per One (1) Business Case Approach As

per Section 3.0 , D&O Approach c), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #1, indicate in Appendix D3b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

2. Task 2 Technical – MBT-AD system conceptual design per One (1) Business Case

Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O Approach c), including sensitivity scenarios

$___________

For Item #2, indicate in Appendix D3b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

3. Task 3 Financial per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach c), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #3, indicate in Appendix D3b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

4. Task 4 Strategic per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach c), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #4, indicate in Appendix D3b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

5. Task 5 Analytical per One (1) Business Case Approach as per Section 3.0, D&O

Approach c), including sensitivity scenarios $___________

For Item #5, indicate in Appendix D3b the team members, hours assigned and corresponding hourly rates included in this total cost.

6. Sub-Total (1+2+ 3+4+5) $___________

7. HST (13%) $___________

8. GRAND TOTAL (6+7) $___________

This form must be returned with the submission.

Page 49 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX D3b Project Team Task And Time Form

ITEM

(Note 1)

TEAM MEMBERS AND HOURS ASSIGNED (Note 2)

Project Leader Other Other Other Total Item

Cost (Note 3) 1. Technical – Waste

Compostion

$

2. Technical – MBT-AD conceptual design

$

3. Financial $

4. Strategic $

5. Analytical

$

6. Per Diem Rate Each Team Member

$

$

$

$

7. TOTAL HOURS

Each Team Member

8. HOURLY RATE

Each Team Member

$

$

$

$

9.TOTAL COST Each Team Member (7. x 8.)

$

$

$

$

Note 1) Associated sub tasks may be listed below each primary work plan items (above), should the bidder elect to do so. Use separate sheet(s) and maintain the team member breakdown (for primary items & sub tasks)

Note 2) Include separate sheet(s) if additional "other" team members required for Item completion. Note 3) Total Item cost = Total team member hours * listed hourly rates. Total Item cost transferred to Appendix D3a.

This form must be returned with the submission.

Page 50 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX E

Request for Information No. 9150-10-3035

For: Mixed Waste Processing Facility

Project Information Package

Page 51 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 1

Current Solid Waste Management Services │ 1

1.1 Introduction

The City of Toronto (City) has a goal to divert 70% of the City’s residential municipal solid waste from landfill by the year 2010. Although the City has implemented numerous waste diversion programs, and plans to enhance waste diversion opportunities, it is believed that in order to achieve the 70% diversion goal, the City will need to develop a treatment facility to further capture recoverables from the residual waste stream.

1.2 Profile of Toronto

The City of Toronto, with a population of 2.48 million people (5.5 million in the Greater Toronto Area), is heralded as one of the most multicultural cities in the world and is ranked as the safest large metropolitan area in North America by Places Rated Almanac. Over 140 languages and dialects are spoken in the City and just over 30 percent of Toronto residents speak a language other than English or French (the two official national languages) at home. In 2006, the City of Toronto was home to 8 percent of Canada's population.

Toronto is located on the northwest shore of Lake Ontario (the world’s eighth largest fresh water lake) on a broad sloping plateau cut by numerous river valleys, (see Figure 1-1 below). Toronto covers 641 km2 and stretches 43 km from east to west and 21 km from north to south at its longest points. The perimeter length is approximately 180 km. At the waterfront the elevation is approximately 76.5 meters above sea level (m asl), and the highest point in the city is 209 m asl. There are 307 km of rivers and creeks that run through the city and all flow into Lake Ontario as part of the Atlantic Ocean Drainage Basin.

Figure 1-1: Map, City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Page 52 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

2 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Prior to amalgamation in 1998, the City Metropolitan Toronto was comprised of five City/ Districts being Etobicoke, East York Toronto, North York and and Scarborough as shown in Figure 1-2 below.

Figure 1-2: District Map, City of Toronto

The Mixed Waste Processing Study includes residual wastes arising from each of

these former districts within the amalgamated City of Toronto. .

A map of the amalgamated City of Toronto and waste collection areas is shown in

Figure 1-3. Additional discussion on the solid waste facilities and collection areas

within Toronto is discussed below in Section 1.5.

Figure 1-3: Amalgamated City of Toronto

Page 53 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 3

1.3 Profile of Toronto City Council

Toronto City Council is the main governing and legislative body of the City of Toronto, being composed of the Mayor and forty four Councillors. The Mayor is the only member of Council who is elected by voters from across the City. The Mayor has one vote on Council and is a voting member, by right of his office, at all standing committees of Council. Each councillor represents one of Toronto's forty four municipal wards. The term of office for the Mayor and Council is four years.

Toronto City Council has direct responsibility for the City's services. Council also indirectly oversees other major services (such as police, transit, public health, libraries, public housing) through the appointment of Council members to the boards of directors of the City Council's agencies, boards, commissions and corporations. See Figure 1-4 for the Toronto City Council organizational chart.

Figure 1-4: Toronto City Council Organizational Chart

1.1 Decision Making in the City of Toronto

As a first step in the decision-making process, City staff prepare reports for the Executive Committee or one of the seven Standing Committees of Council or a Community Council (see Figure 1-4 above). Reports are dealt with at the standing committees by either being:

Approved as is or amended (only at Community Council); Recommended, as is or amended, for final approval by the City Council; Referred back to staff or another committee for more information; Deferred to a set date or indefinitely; or

Page 54 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

4 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Received for information only.

If the majority of committee members approve a report, it then goes to City Council (Community Councils can make final decisions on some local issues).

When a report reaches City Council, it is considered along with other business items including contracts, budgets, policies, correspondence, agreements, and legal issues requiring Council's attention. When Council deals with an item it can approve, refer, defer, receive, or amend. All approved items are confirmed by by-law. The Toronto Public Service is responsible for implementing the by-laws. Decisions, minutes and the records of Council decisions are kept by the City Clerks Office. Council and committee meetings are open to the public. The City of Toronto commenced operation under The City of Toronto Act, 2006 , based on legislation passed by the Province of Ontario (Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act, 2005)

See Figure 1-5 below for more information on the Council’s decision making process.

Figure 1-5: City of Toronto, Decision-making Process

1.5 Solid Waste Management Services

Solid Waste Management Services (reports to Public Works and Infrastructure (PWI) Committee) is responsible for operational services: namely collecting, transporting, processing, composting and disposing of municipal solid waste and recyclables for approximately 1 million residential households. The collection services are provided to approximately 480,000 single family dwelling and approximately 520,000 multi-family dwellings within privately and publically owned high-rise buildings across the City.

In March, 2005, a Multi-Year Solid Waste Business Plan was presented to Council. The Plan provided a ten year strategy (2004-2014) to achieve the City’s diversion goals which included a broad range of new waste diversion initiatives, many of which are part of the Getting to 70% diversion by 2010 and financing plan report recently approved by Council (June 2007). The Business Plan estimated that the cost of implementing the new initiatives would result in a 7% annual increase in the Solid Waste Operating Budget over the planning term and significant Capital requirements over the corporate targets.

Page 55 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 5

As part of the 2007 budget process, it was recommended that Solid Waste Management Services, in conjunction with the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, report back to the Budget Committee by June 2007 on a strategy to accommodate funding for the City’s Diversion initiatives. Council at it’s meeting on June 19, 20 and 22, 2007 approved a plan based on the report “Proposed Initiatives and Financing Model to Getting to 70% Diversion by 2010” A copy of this report is available at the following link: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-3799.pdf Following Council approval of the Getting to 70% solid waste diversion report (June 2007), SWMS began the process of transferring its service costs off the local tax base onto a utility platform (with water billing) on the basis of billing for residual waste collection through a variable rate volume based system. Residual waste collection would be a paid service, but recyclable collection would be no charge and so residents would have incentive to reduce their residual waste output. Efforts continued on the system conversion through 2007 and in early 2008 By Law No. 506-2008 (27 May 2008) was enacted by Council to establish fees and charges with respect to the implementation of the new volume based solid waste rate levy and to make amendments to Water Supply By Laws, to permit combined utility billing.

Solid Waste Management Services comprises the following four sections:

Solid Waste Management Policy and Planning; Solid Waste Collection; and Transfer and Disposal Operations. New Infrastructure Development and Contracted Services

Together, these sections manage thirteen maintenance and operating yards, two composting facilities, seven transfer stations and household hazardous waste depots, two materials recovery facilities, an operational landfill as well as closed former landfill sites.

Solid Waste Management Policy and Planning

Solid Waste Management Policy and Planning is responsible for monitoring trends in the solid waste industry and providing advice on new programs, program enhancements and new technologies to the operating Sections and the Council. Solid Waste Management Policy and Planning also undertakes the following activities:

Technically reviewing and commenting on internal and external regulations, legislation and statutes;

Researching, designing and drafting harmonized policies, eligibility criteria and by-laws in support of operations and design; and

Executing Request for Proposals and Tenders for services and capital projects.

Solid Waste Collections

Page 56 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

6 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

The Solid Waste Collections Sections provide curbside garbage, recycling, organics, yard waste and white goods collection services to single family, multi-family, the City's Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Departments (ABC&Ds), institutions and small commercial establishments.

These sections also provide litter cleaning operations throughout the City along with the collection (emptying) of litter receptacles throughout the City.

Multi-Family Collections is responsible for containerized collection of waste, and recyclable materials collected under contract by a private company. This contract also includes townhouses, agencies, boards, commissions, departments, schools

Transfer and Disposal Operations

Transfer and Disposal Operations is responsible for the management and the transfer of all waste and organics, tires, dry wall, scrap metal and white goods) from the City's curbside and multi-family residential collection programs, ABC&Ds, industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) materials, and from citizens of the City of Toronto. This material is transferred to various landfills and processing facilities. The City's transfer station network consists of seven facilities located strategically across the City to allow efficient management of materials.

The City ceased its own disposal operations on 31 December 2002 when the Keele Valley Landfill site stopped receiving waste. Since then the disposal of waste has been provided under contract to Republic Services' Carleton Farms Landfill located in Michigan, USA. The City has subsequently acquired Green Lane Landfill (effective from 2 April 2007) to secure the City’s long term disposal requirements and currently delivers a portion of its waste there. The City will ultimately dispose of all of its waste to Green Lane Landfill from 2011 when its contract to dispose of waste in Michigan comes to an end.

The City also has the responsibility of maintaining all its closed landfills in perpetuity. This includes the maintenance of engineered systems and monitoring and reporting on surface water, groundwater and landfill gas.

New Infrastructure Development and Contracted Services (NID&CS).

Following Council approval of the Getting to 70% Diversion program and conversion of SWMS to the volume based rate system, New Infrastructure Development & Contracted Services was formed to address the need to implement the planned recycling facility infrastructure (2009-2013) and to address the various private sector processing contracts that were nearing completion (2010-2013).

Contracted Services (Planning and Operations) is responsible for the management of all recyclable and organic materials delivered to the City’s recycling plants and transfer stations and currently manages over 460,000 tonnes of various materials.

Contracted Services (Planning and Operations) is also responsible for the marketing and sales of these materials and continues to work on new materials market development.

Page 57 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 7

Finally, New Infrastructure Development (Planning and Operations) is responsible for the development of new infrastructure for approved waste diversion programs. This is accomplished by carrying out technology assessment studies, site selection and the development and management of the contracts associated with these new facilities.

Figure 1-6: Map of Toronto Waste Management Facilities

1.6 Getting To 70% Diversion From Landfill

The City has a goal to divert 70% of the City’s residential solid waste from landfill. The proposed reduction, reuse, recycling and residual waste processing initiatives to increase the residential waste diversion rate to this level are summarized below:

Source Reduction Initiatives such as: promotion and education aimed at changing individuals behaviour; an in-store packaging working group to review possible voluntary measures to reduce in-store packaging; a review of powers under the City of Toronto Act to tax, ban or otherwise regulate in-store packaging; a review of possible products that could be subjected to take-back or stewardship programs; and lobbying of federal and provincial governments to improve packaging and stewardship regulations including the possible modification of the Stewardship Ontario funding model to encourage source reduction;

Development of Reuse Centres for the reuse, disassembly and recycling of electronics and other durable goods along with a program for the curbside collection of bulky items and consideration of possible partnerships or grant programs for reuse organizations;

Replacement of Blue Boxes with Blue Recycling Carts to increase recycling container capacity for households;

Page 58 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

8 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Addition of New Materials such as plastic film and polystyrene to the Blue Cart Recycling program;

Additional single stream recycling process capacity; Implementation of source separated organics (i.e. Green Bin) collection in

multiunit residences; Provision of in-unit and on-floor recycling systems to increase the recovery of

recyclable material in multi-unit residences; Implementation of door-to-door, curbside collection, Blue Cart Recycling and

Green Bin program for townhouses including the purchase of smaller collection vehicles to service these customers;

Education and enforcement of the City’s Diversion By-law; Introduction of a volume-based rate structure for residential solid waste services

to provide waste generators with a financial incentive to reduce the amount of waste they dispose of;

Investigation and, where appropriate, implementation of emerging source separation techniques, including initiatives such as the possible recycling of residential construction and demolition waste; and

Development of a Residual Waste Processing Facilities to recover resources from mixed residual waste and reduce the amount of material to be landfilled.

Many of the initiatives described above and detailed in the Getting to 70% Diversion Report (May 2007) are interdependent. For example, Green Bin organics collection in apartments will not likely be successful without a volume-based solid waste rate structure and the recovery of new materials such as plastic film and polystyrene will not be feasible unless a new container system with sufficient capacity is implemented. Many of the initiatives will include promotion and education components and some will require meaningful public consultation. The promotion, education and consultation efforts will be developed as the initiatives are developed.

In order to achieve the target 70% diversion from Landfill (i.e. approximately 650,000 tonnes in 2012), the City will need to divert approximately 75,000 tonnes of residual waste from landfill per year.

The City has approved the procurement of an appropriate residual waste treatment facility and this Project Information Pack forms part of the prequalification stage of the Residual Waste Treatment Project.

1.7 Residual Waste Treatment Project Technology Evaluation

The City recently commissioned a study to evaluate the residual waste treatment options available to the City to divert 75,000 tpy of residual waste from landfill. This study considered six potential treatment options, against a ‘do nothing’ landfill baseline, as set out below:

Mechanical Separation for Material Recovery; Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) with Biostabilization; Mechanical Separation with Energy Product Production; MBT with Biodrying; Thermal Treatment with Energy Production; and Steam Classification Process.

Page 59 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 9

These options are further illustrated in Figure 1-7 below.

Figure 1-7: Waste Treatment Options Flowchart

These treatment options were subject to a series of screening criteria that, if not satisfied, excluded that technology from further evaluation.

The criteria established to evaluate the technologies are repeated as follows:

Ability to divert 75,000 tpy of residual (municipal) solid waste from landfill; Ability to conform to Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s Policy Statement; Realistic ability to market recovered materials; Ability for recovered materials/markets to meet Ontario Environmental Standards; Ability to dispose of any residual waste to the City’s Green Lane Landfill; and Technology to have a proven operating history.

Based on the set criteria, the technology that best satisfied the initial screening requirements was MBT and energy recovery where appropriate.

This broad treatment option was then subject to further evaluation, leading to the identification of a preferred technology solution being front end mechanical sorting followed by anaerobic digestion (dry or wet) with biogas utilisation to generate electricity/heat and the resulting digestate being biostabilized to produce a Compost Like Output suitable for diversion from landfill.

Page 60 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

10 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

1.8 Residual Waste Treatment Project: Site Evaluation

The same evaluation study also considered twelve City-owned sites as potential locations on which to develop a residual waste treatment facility.

This long-list of sites was also subject to a series of exclusory screening criteria (size, site allocation, current development plans, topography, surrounding land use, accessibility and access to services), from which the most suitable site was determined to be a plot land adjacent to the City’s existing Green Lane Landfill Site. This plot (the Site) has extensive space (>15 ha) available on which to develop a waste treatment facility.

Notwithstanding the findings of this study, the City is open to consideration of other options, should alternative sites be identified by interested parties.

Page 61 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 11

Service Requirements │ 2

2.1 Objectives

The City wishes to contract for the design, construction and operation of a MBT facility (the Facility) that will be capable of diverting mixed residual waste (Contract Waste) from landfill whilst maximizing the recovery of recyclable materials and deriving energy from the feedstock wastes (the Service).

Key objectives required of the Service are as follows:

The design and construction of a Facility to divert a minimum of 75,000 tpy of Contract Waste from landfill to assist the City in meeting its ‘Getting to 70% Diversion’ target;

Operation of the Facility for a minimum 5 years (and potential 2 year extension period) with a Planned Service Commencement Date of 1 April 2013 to receive and treat residential residual waste;

Manage operations, process losses and emissions to not cause nuisance or harm to the environment;

Secure and manage outlets for all process products; and The disposal of process residues to the City’s Green Lane Landfill Site, public

sewer or an appropriate disposal facility.

The Service is primarily intended to treat Contract Waste. However, this does not exclude the possibility of accepting third party waste (Non-Contract Waste) providing this could deliver the City added value for money, subject to treatment of the City’s waste taking priority, considerations of sustainability and certain reasonable rights of approval by the City.

2.2 Overall Service Requirements

The diversion of Contract Waste from landfill in a safe, efficient, economic and environmentally sustainable manner will form the key Contract Target.

All process mass flows (waste import and product export) shall be recorded via a weighbridge system located at the Site and reported to the City for auditing and payment purposes.

Specifically, the operational phase of the Service shall include:

The initial receipt of the following waste feedstocks delivered by the City and/or City sub-contractors at the Facility:

o 120,000 tpy of Contract Waste (mixed residual MSW); and o 30,000 tpy of biosolids from Toronto Water.

The mechanical and biological treatment of the above feedstocks to: o Maximize the production of process products; o Maximize the generation of biogas and its efficient utilisation to generate

electricity and heat; o Minimize the production of process residues and rejects to be disposed of

to an appropriate facility; The cost-effective utilisation of spare capacity through third part contracts;

Page 62 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

12 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

The transport and disposal of process residue and rejects to the City’s Green Lane Landfill Site;

The export and sale of surplus electricity to the distribution network; Securing long term and economic outlets for all process products to well

established markets; Training City operatives in how to operate and maintain the Facility prior to

Contract Completion; and The hand back of a fully operational Facility at Contract Completion.

Before the operational phase the Contractor shall:

Determine the suitability of the site used whether City-owned or privately owned; Assist the City in securing all necessary approvals for the Facility in a timely

manner (one year or less); Be responsible for the design, construction and commissioning of the Facility and

associated infrastructure including weighbridge(s) and connection to the electricity distribution grid;

Base the treatment element of the Facility on proven technology with at least one year’s successful operating history processing a similar waste feedstock at a similar scale;

Provide a Facility with sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in composition of the Contracted Waste during the contract term. Where reasonable and, subject to contract change, the Facility shall also be extended/adapted to treat more waste or recover alternative/additional process products (such as RDF); and

Design the Facility for a 25 year service life.

Page 63 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 13

Waste Data │ 3

3.1 Historic Waste Generation

The City’s historic residual waste generation for the last 3 years are summarized in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1: Historic Waste Tonnages (2006, 2007, 2008)

These tonnages of waste generated by single family households, multi-family units, commercial, Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Departments (A,B,C,D) and schools.

In 2006, the City undertook curbside waste audits to determine the volume of waste generated from single and multi-family dwellings. The single-family data is based on waste audits that took place in Etobicoke (Spring 2006) and North York (Fall 2006). Both these audits were conducted over a period of four consecutive weeks, based on eighty single-family households. The multi-family audits were based on curbside seasonal waste audits conducted through Stewardship Ontario's 2005 and 2006 Waste Audit Program in Toronto (downtown) and Scarborough. The audits adhered to the Stewardship Ontario protocol, and excluded white goods, leaf and yard waste, bulky waste items and material directly delivered to transfer stations. Process residue from material recovery facilities and organic processing facilities were also not factored into waste volume calculations. The audits concluded the following:

There is a 28% green bin diversion rate for single-family households; There is a 33% recyclables diversion rate for single-family households; The total curbside diversion rate for single-family households is 61%; The total curbside diversion rate for multi-family units is 15%; and The overall residential diversion rate for the City of Toronto is 42.3%1

1 Waste Diversion Ontario 2006 Residential GAP Diversion Rates by Municipality.

Generator 2006 2007 2008 Single-Family Residential Households 183,098 166,744 159,830 Multi-Family Residential Units 202,945 198,709 199,970 Commercial 18,918 19,561 19,239 A,B,C,D and Schools 30,760 28,773 29,766 Total Residual Waste Tonnage 435,721 413,787 408,805

Page 64 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

14 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Waste Growth Assumptions

Based on recorded residual waste tonnages for 2006 and 2007, and the 2006 waste audits, the City has formulated residual waste generation projections for the period 2008 to 2021. These projections are based on population projections contained in the report “Toronto Plan, Flash Forward: Projected Population and Employment to 2031 in Mature Urban Areas, June 2002”, issued by the Toronto Urban Development Services, and on the phased implementation of 70% Waste Diversion Initiatives. The diversion initiatives and projection assumptions used are as follows:

Separate collection and processing of the Durable Goods Material Stream, with the removal of 60,000 tonnes of durable goods for both single-family and multi-family units;

Provision of blue recycling carts from June 2008;

Addition of polystyrene and plastic film to the recycling stream from November 2008. From the waste audits it is estimated that 50% of plastic film and polystyrene generated would be recyclable materials with an estimated 70% recovery rate;

Commencement of the collection of SSO and Source Separated Recyclables (SSR) in 30,000 townhouses from 1 November 2008, rolled out over 6 months. Expected recovery rates are 200 kg per household per year of SSO and 150 kg per household per year of SSR;

Commencement of a volume-based rate structure for multi-family units from 1 July 2008, and single family households from 1 November 2008;

Enforcement of a diversion by-law from 1 November 2008, with education and public communication from 1 October 2008;

Implementation of a multi-family SSO collection program, phased in over an 18 month period commencing 1 November 2008. For waste projections a multi-family unit SSO generation rate of 52 kg per household per year is assumed;

Providing on-floor recycling containers to multi-family units, commencing on November 1, 2008 and phased in over a 12 month period;

Based on the single-family and multi-family unit waste audit results, it is assumed that 70% of recoverable SSR material is recovered as a result of the 70% diversion initiatives;

SSO collection will be implemented in all A,B,C,Ds and schools over a one-year period beginning in September 2010.

No population increases are assumed for commercial and A,B,C,D generators.

Based on the foregoing initiatives and assumptions, the City’s annual residual waste generation projections (unwarranted) for 2010 to 2021 are shown in Table 3-2.

Page 65 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 15

Generator 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 Single-Family Residential

165,475 168,355 169,880 171,405 172,732 174,001 174,635

Multi-Family Residential

151,329 153,039 153,888 154,737 155,492 156,221 156,586

Commercial 19,239 19,239 19,239 19,239 19,239 19,239 19,239 A,B,C,D & Schools

20,265 17,970 17,970 17,970 17,970 17,970 17,970

Total Residual 356,310 358,604 360,978 363,351 365,434 367,432 368,431

Table 3-2: Annual Residual Waste Projections (2010 to 2021)

From January 2011, all of this material will be delivered to Green Lane Landfill Site.

As such, the City will guarantee to deliver to the Facility 120,000 tpy of Contract Waste throughout the Service period.

3.2 Waste Composition

Based on the City’s Curbside Residential Waste Audit results (2006), the forecast 2010 residual waste compositions for single-family and multi-family dwellings are set out in the following Table 3-3.

Fraction Single-Family(%)

Multi-Family(%)

Combined(%)

Moisture Content

(%) Paper 15.38 15.56 15.48 5.00 Plastic 18.02 9.00 12.99 2.00 Metals 4.35 2.68 3.42 2.00 Glass 2.77 3.51 3.19 3.00 Household Special Waste

1.81 0.54 1.10 0.00

Organics 30.26 44.98 38.47 70.00 Other Materials 27.41 23.73 25.36 5.44

Table 3-3: Estimated Residual Waste Composition (2010)

The combined residential waste composition forecast for 2010 is further illustrated in Figure 3-1.

More detailed compositional analysis will be made available to successful Respondents at the next procurement stage.

As detailed in Section 2 above, the Residual Waste Treatment Project is the City’s final initiative to deliver its 70% residential waste diversion target. Other diversion initiatives based on source segregation should be fully operation before the Residual Waste Treatment Project’s anticipated Service Commencement Date.

The City is unable to guarantee the composition of Contract Waste either used for design purposes or that delivered to the Service. Accordingly, Respondents will be

Page 66 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

16 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

asked to propose proven treatment processes able to treat a waste feedstock that may vary in composition throughout the Service period.

Figure 3-1: Combined Residual Waste Composition (2010)

15.48

12.99

3.42

3.19

1.1

38.47

25.36

Paper

Plastic

Metals

Glass

Household Special Waste

Organics

Other Materials

Page 67 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 17

Project Team and Governance │ 4

4.1 Project Governance

For details on the City Council see Section 1.2 above.

At project level the governance will be as per Figure 4-1 below.

4.2 Project Team

The City is fully aware that a major procurement process such as this requires a knowledgeable, experienced and dedicated team with a range of specialist skills.

Figure 4-1: Project Team Organization

4.3 External Advisors

The City has commissioned support from a number of external advisors since the inception of the Mixed Waste Processing Facility Project.

Golder has drawn together a project team with extensive experience in the disciplines required to complete this exercise. The team members have all been involved in the City’s Mixed Waste Processing Study and therefore understand the process and the City’s objectives.

In particular, the project team brings the following assets to this project:

Hands-on experience with mixed waste processing;

Page 68 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

18 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Direct planning and design expertise with MBT;

Specific procurement expertise with MBT facilities;

Direct municipal experience; and

Global waste management experience.

Page 69 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 19

Sites, Planning and Design │ 5

5.1 Environmental Legislation

Ontario’s environmental legislation relates to the planning of projects and regulates the release of emissions to the atmosphere, discharge of contaminants to ground and surface water, management of potable water supplies, and the storage, transport, processing and disposal of waste.

In Ontario, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has developed a permitting process for environmentally significant projects that is administered by the Environmental Assessment and Approval Branch (“EAAB”), with input from the public and other departments of the provincial government. In order to receive approval to carry out a proposed undertaking, subject proponents must document that the project can meet the requirements of all applicable environmental legislation, including but not limited to the following Acts and their corresponding regulations:

Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), R.S.O. 1990; Environmental Protection Act (EPA), R.S.O. 1990; Pesticides Act, R.S.O. 1990; Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), R.S.O. 1990; and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 2002.

Part of the evaluation process includes an opportunity for public participation in the decision making process. The Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), 1993 establishes minimum levels of public participation that must be met for different types of environmentally significant proposals, and explains how Ontario residents may participate in the decision-making process. Typically, notice of an application for an undertaking is placed on the EBR Registry.

Proponents should be aware that approvals and permits may be required under multiple pieces of legislation administered by the MOE, in addition to those required by other Ontario ministries and other levels of government (i.e. federal or municipal).

5.2 Certificate of Approval

There are two parts of the EPA with particular relevance to the establishment of the MBT Facility. These are:

Part II that regulates emissions to the natural environment and, in particular, the air; and

Part V that regulates the establishment and operation of all waste management facilities in the Province of Ontario.

Part II, Section 9 of the EPA requires that a Certificate of Approval (CofA) (Air and Noise) must be obtained before installation or modification of all atmospheric emission sources. The procedure for obtaining approval for contaminant emissions to air or for modifications to such emissions, is to obtain a CofA (Air and Noise) for the equipment by submitting an application to the MOE in accordance with Section 9 of the EPA. The MOE’s guideline document, “Guide to Applying for Approval (Air &

Page 70 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

20 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Noise)” (PIBS 4174e, November 2005), describes the expectations and procedures related to Section 9 approval applications under the EPA.

Regardless of compliance with Section 9, every facility is also required to meet the air quality standards, as stated in Ontario Regulation 419/05 (“O.Reg.419/05”). This regulation was promulgated in November 2005 and includes new atmospheric dispersion models and air quality standards, as compared to its predecessor Ontario Regulation 346/90 (“O.Reg.346/90”). In recognition of the impact that this new regulation will have on industry, the MOE has set forth a three tier phase-in process. Facilities are grouped within one of the three phases based on the nature of their primary operations, as defined by their North American Industrial Classification System (“NAICS”) code.

In addition to establishing compliance with the air standards, facilities are also required to demonstrate compliance with the MOE’s noise guidelines. The MOE has developed various Noise Screening Processes (2005 and 2008), in which the nature of the facility and/or the equipment present on-site, and separation distance to sensitive Point(s) of Reception (POR(s)) determines the necessity of a detailed acoustic assessment of the facility (i.e., preparation of an Acoustic Assessment Report (AAR).

Part V of the Ontario’s EPA regulates the establishment and operation of all waste management facilities in Ontario. More specifically, section 27 of the EPA requires that a Certificate of Approval (CofA) be obtained prior to using, operating, establishing, altering or extending a waste management system, or a waste disposal site. To receive a CofA for a Waste Disposal Site under the EPA, the submission of an application as outlined in the MOE “Guide for Applying for Approval of Waste Disposal Sites” (PIBS 4183e, June 2009), is required. The accompanying application package for the CofA consists of supporting documentation, including the preparation of technical studies that assess the impact of the proposed project on environmental components. Depending on the type and design of the proposed undertaking, supporting technical documentation may include drainage studies, hydrogeological assessments, a design and operations report, and financial assurance calculations.

In addition to requirements under the EPA, the subject waste management facility may be subject to permitting requirements under the OWRA. The OWRA provides for the protection of Ontario’s water resources considering impacts on the supply and flow of the surface and groundwater, and impacts resulting in the impairment of the resource. Section 53, OWRA approval is required if there is a discharge to surface water. Tasks that may be carried out in order to obtain the required OWRA s.53 CofA (Industrial Sewage Works) may include, but are not limited to the completion of a Stormwater Management Plan (“SWM Plan”) that will provide stormwater management guidelines and order of magnitude estimates of water quality and quantity measures required to comply with environmental legislation.

The SWM plan includes a site-specific hydrological study that estimates volumes and flow rates based on local rainfall intensity data, a drainage plan and a physical description of the storm water management system.

The City of Toronto will be responsible for obtaining the necessary CofAs for the Facility located at the Green Lane Landfill Site. Respondents will be responsible for

Page 71 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 21

providing information, during the procurement process, at a conceptual level of detail on all aspects of their proposed Facility and its potential impacts. The level of detail on the waste management technology may include, but will not be limited to, emission sources and pollution control devices must be sufficient to readily confirm the feasibility of the proposed design, and may include scaled site plans, scaled conceptual design drawings, emissions estimations, equipment specifications, process descriptions, capacity calculations, truck traffic date, descriptions of monitoring and nuisance control programs, emergency response planning and contingency planning.

Should the Respondent wish to locate the Facility at an alternative site the Respondent/Contractor will be responsible for obtaining all necessary CofAs in a timely manner.

Should the Respondent offer an existing privately-owned facility at an alternative site the Respondent/Contractor will provide the City with evidence that all necessary CofAs have been secured.

5.3 Environmental Assessment

In March 2007, Ontario enacted a new regulation under the EAA that fundamentally changed the way the Act is applied to waste management projects. Under Ontario Regulation 101/07 Waste Management Projects, environmentally significant waste management projects (i.e. the establishment of a landfill site > 100,000 m3) require individual environmental assessments, while various other waste management projects are exempted from meeting the requirements of the EAA if the proponent completes an Environmental Screening Process. Furthermore, some waste management projects are not designated at all by the EAA.

According to Regulation 101/07 under the EAA, the establishment of a new waste disposal site at which waste is handled, treated or processed is exempt from an individual environmental assessment. However, such an undertaking remains to be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Screening Process if, on an annual basis, an average of more than 1,000 tonnes per day of waste is transferred from the site for final disposal. Assuming total inputs at the Facility of 150,000 tonnes per year and an estimated waste diversion rate of 67%, the subject Facility will not meet the criteria for requiring an Environmental Screening Process under the EAA, and is not designated under the EAA. However, it should be noted that the public can still request that the Minister of the Environment make the site subject to a full Environmental Assessment.

The City will be responsible for managing the Environmental Assessment process. In the event that the site becomes subject to an Environmental Assessment, Respondents will be responsible for providing information, during the procurement process, on all aspects of their proposed Facility and its potential impacts.

Page 72 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

22 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

5.4 Ontario Compost Framework

The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is working to update Ontario’s compost framework to provide improved guidance for compost operators and a wider range of composting opportunities. This would be done through revisions to the ministry’s compost guidelines (the proposed Guideline for Composting Facilities and Compost Use in Ontario) and supporting regulatory amendments.

New Compost Categories

To support the composting of more organic materials, the proposed Guideline would establish three new categories for finished compost (AA, A and B):

Category AA – Ontario’s current compost standard, which is the highest quality compost product, and the strictest standard in Canada.

Category A – Category A would be the same as AA in almost all regards, except it would allow slightly elevated levels of zinc and copper in the finished compost and would allow biosolids that meet the feedstock metal standards to be used as feedstock.

Category B – Category B would allow higher levels of metal in the finished compost than Category A, and would also allow biosolids that meet the feedstock metal standards to be used as feedstock.

The proposed Guideline would set out quality standards (metals, pathogens, maturity and foreign matter) for each category of compost, as well as restrictions for the use of each category commensurate with the quality of the product and the risks associated with its application, to ensure protection of the environment and human health. Amendments to Regulation 347 under the EPA

Currently, composted material that meets the ministry’s existing compost standards is exempted from being considered a “waste” through a compost facility’s Certificate of Approval. The proposed regulatory framework would end this practice with an amendment to Regulation 347 under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) to establish an exemption from the definition of “waste” for certain compost that meets the standards and requirements in the revised Guideline for Composting Facilities and Compost Use in Ontario.

The proposed amendments to Regulation 347 would give legal effect to the proposed new compost quality standards and application restrictions set out in the Guidelines by providing the following exemptions from the ministry’s approval requirements:

Exempt Category AA compost that meets the quality standards set out in the proposed Guideline from the definition of “waste”, which would exempt Category AA compost from the ministry’s approval requirements for use and transport.

Page 73 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 23

Exempt Category A compost that meets both the quality standards and labelling requirements set out in the proposed Guideline from the definition of “waste”, which would exempt Category A compost from the ministry’s approval requirements for use and transport. Labelling requirements would ensure that generators inform end-users about proper compost application to prevent excessive levels of metal in the soil.

Category B compost would continue to be a “waste” under the EPA, which is subject to all of the ministry approval requirements for transportation, use and disposal. However, Category B compost may be put to beneficial use through a variety of regulated uses, such as on agricultural land as a ‘nutrient’ pursuant to O. Reg. 267/03 under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 (NMA), or as a soil conditioner on non-agricultural land (e.g., for land reclamation, mining rehabilitation, reforestation, etc.), pursuant to an organic soil conditioning site Certificate of Approval. The ministry also proposes to exclude compost from the retail exemption in s. 3(2)1 of Regulation 347. Currently, any compost that is “offered for retail sale to meet a realistic market demand” is exempt from the requirements under Part V of the EPA and Regulation 347.

Amendments to O. Reg. 267/03 under the NMA

The following complementary amendments to O. Reg. 267/03 under the NMA are proposed to ensure consistency with the proposed Compost Guideline and the proposed amendments to Regulation 347 under the EPA:

Amend the definition of “Compost Guidelines” in O. Reg. 267/03 to reflect the revised name of the guidelines – Guideline for Composting Facilities and Compost Use in Ontario.

Amend the definitions of “non-agricultural source material“ (NASM) and “agricultural source material“ (ASM) in O. Reg. 267/03 to exclude compost that meets the “Category AA” or “Category A” quality criteria set out in the revised Compost Guideline. Currently, the definitions of “NASM” and “ASM” exclude any “compost that meets the Compost Guidelines”. These definitions need to be amended to reflect the new expanded categories of compost. As compost would be strictly regulated under the compost framework, and as both Category AA and A compost would be required to meet stringent metal, pathogen, maturity and foreign matter content requirements under the compost regulatory regime, these materials would be excluded from the testing requirements and application restrictions under the NMA.

List “Category B Compost” as a “Category 3” material in O. Reg. 267/03. Under the NASM framework, all materials that contain sewage biosolids or human body waste, or that are likely to have higher pathogens, are listed as a “Category 3” material. Although compost that meets the Category B quality standards in the Compost Guidelines would have low pathogen levels, as Category B compost is likely to contain sewage biosolids, Category B compost would be listed as a “Category 3” NASM.

Page 74 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

24 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Exempt Category B compost from the additional pathogen testing requirements set out in O. Reg. 267/03. Under the NASM framework, Category 3 materials must be tested in order to demonstrate that they have low pathogen levels. However, under the proposed compost framework, all compost (AA, A and B) would already be required to meet strict pathogen treatment and testing requirements, which meet the low pathogen requirements (“CP1”) under the NASM framework. Therefore, compost would not need to be tested for pathogens again.

List Category B Compost under the NASM table for odour categories as an “OC1”, which represents materials with the lowest level of odour. All compost that meets the maturity requirements set out in the Compost Guideline would be a low-odour material.

5.5 Green Lane Landfill Site

The City considered twelve City-owned sites as potential locations on which to develop a residual waste treatment facility.

These sites were subject to a series of exclusory screening criteria (size, site allocation, current development plans, topography, surrounding land use, accessibility and access to services), from which the preferred site was determined to be a plot adjacent to the City’s operational Green Lane Landfill.

This plot (the Site) is greater than 15 ha in plan area on which the Facility can be developed. To support the Residual Waste Treatment Project approval process the City has prepared the following plans and illustration to help ascertain the likely footprint of the Facility and suitability of the Site.

5.6 Design Issues

The City is committed to good quality design and recognizes that this Project will present an opportunity to provide a building of the highest standards both visually and operationally.

Maintenance and lifecycle costs will be expected to be integrated into the design and need to be sufficient to ensure the efficient operation of the facility throughout the Contract period and for a further 15 years after expiry (a 25 year design life) without the need for major refurbishment.

Respondents will be required to demonstrate how they intend to achieve standards for design. The standards for design and design quality indicators, will form part of the evaluation criteria and will include:

Quality standards – a requirement to comply with Canadian Standards and codes of practice or equivalents;

Sustainability – a requirement to meet the Government’s carbon emission challenge, both at completion and in use, e.g. a requirement to use sustainable materials and comply with emission standards; and

Workmanship – a requirement that all persons employed in connection with the works will be skilled and experienced in their professions/trades.

Page 75 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package | 25

5.7 Sustainability

The City is committed to ensuring that all new waste management development is designed to minimize its impact on the environment. This commitment is embodied in the Toronto Green Standard, which is available at:

www.toronto.ca/planning/greendevelopment.htm

The City’s approach to design reflects the central principles of sustainable development which are:

The need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as well as other forms of pollution;

Reduce levels of energy and water consumption; To minimize waste during construction and operation; and To reuse or recycle materials.

This can be achieved by a variety of means, for example by:

Renewable energy technology; Orientation and layout of buildings to maximize solar and other natural benefits; Energy management systems; Grey water recycling systems; Sustainable drainage systems; Energy efficient appliances; Avoidance of air conditioning; and Use of non-toxic, recycled or recyclable building materials.

Page 76 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

26 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Figure 5-1: Indicative Site Plan

Page 77 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

City of Toronto Residual Waste Treatment Contract | Project Information Pack | 27

Figure 5-2: Illustration of an Indicative Facility

Page 78 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

28 | City of Toronto Mixed Waste Processing Facility | Project Information Package

Figure 5-3: Illustration of the Indicative Facility and the Green Lane Landfill Site

Page 79 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Stakeholder Communication │ 6

6.1 Identification and Analysis of Stakeholder Issues

6.1.2 Public Consultation (Green Lane Landfill area)

The City of Toronto has made presentations to Southwold Township Council, First Nations Liaison Committee, Green Lane PLC and conducted Open Houses in St. Thomas on September 29 & 30, 2009. The September 29, 2009 Open House at Green Lane Landfill attracted over 65 attendees. The September 30, 2009 Open House in St. Thomas was advertised in local newspapers and attracted over 60 attendees, including local media and MPP staff. In total, 28 submissions/comments were received. The key issues that were identified by the public included:

- Odour, leachate and traffic concerns; - Anaerobic preferable to aerobic composting; - Community benefits; and - Increase area of property value protection plan.

6.2 Communications Strategy

The City is developing a communication strategy for the procurement stage of the Residual Waste Treatment Project. This strategy will be made available to Respondents when finalized.

During the procurement process all communications with stakeholders, including the public, will be managed by the City. Respondents are requested to seek approval from the City before consulting any stakeholder (e.g. regulatory bodies) and failure to do so may impact on the delivery of the project.

The Preferred Respondent will work with the City to develop a communication strategy during the design, construction and operation of the Service. This strategy may include deliverables such as the provision of a customer helpdesk, a website and a community education program.

6.3 Market Dialogue

The City has entered into dialogue with the market throughout the initial stages of the procurement process.

Particular elements of the project where dialogue has been undertaken are:

During the appraisal of available technologies; and Market testing of the proposed technological solution for diverting residential waste from

landfill and the key objectives of the Service.

This feedback has been used to inform this procurement process.

Page 80 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

November 2010

City of Toronto

Final Report:

An Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on

City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Submitted By:

PSTG Consulting Inc. 84 Avenue Road Toronto, ON, M5R 2H2 Tel: 416.593.0000

APPENDIX F

Page 81 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 4

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5

1) Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2) Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Identification and Assessment of the Future Business Model ......................... 6

3) Identification of the Future Business Model ................................................................................... 6 4) Assessment of the Future Business Model .................................................................................... 7

Identification of Economic Impacts .................................................................. 8

5) Local Direct Economic Impacts ....................................................................................................... 8

a) Employment ................................................................................................................................. 9 b) Royalties .................................................................................................................................... 10 c) Taxes.......................................................................................................................................... 10 d) Property values .......................................................................................................................... 11 e) Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 11

6) Indirect Economic Impacts ............................................................................................................ 11 a) Single Occurrence Employment Impact................................................................................... 11

7) Induced Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................... 12 8) Incidental Findings for City of Toronto Revenues ........................................................................ 12

a) Biogas ........................................................................................................................................ 12

b) Compost-Like Output (CLO) ..................................................................................................... 13 c) Dry Recyclables ......................................................................................................................... 14

Assessment of Impacts Relative to Other Comparable Mixed Solid Waste Facilities .........................................................................................................15

9) Edmonton Integrated Waste Management Facility ...................................................................... 15

10) Delaware County Composting Facility – Conporec, Delaware, New York, USA ....................... 15

Economic Impact Summary ...........................................................................17

Conclusions ....................................................................................................20

Appendices ....................................................................................................21

Appendix A – Impact of Increasing Amount of MSW Processed at Proposed Facility 22

Economic Impact Summary – Alternative Scenario ......................................24

Appendix B – Sources ...................................................................................27

Appendix C - References ...............................................................................28

APPENDIX F

Page 82 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 3

APPENDIX F

Page 83 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 4

Executive Summary The Solid Waste Management Services Division engaged PSTG Consulting to perform an Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed Mixed Solid Waste (MSW) facility on the City-owned lands adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill.

The scope of the economic impact assessment was to identify and assess the:

� future business model;

� direct, indirect and induced economic impacts of the facility and the associated royalty payments;

� impacts for the local community, e.g., job creation, services, infrastructure, etc.;

� impacts for the local first nations community, e.g., job creation, services, infrastructure, etc.;

� impacts to transportation and other operations locally or in Toronto as a result of the mixed solid waste operations; and

� impacts relative to other comparable mixed solid waste facilities, e.g., Edmonton. The results of the assessment suggest that the proposed facility can have a significant economic impact on local communities within approximately 10 km of the facility, including the Township of Southwold, the Chippewas First Nation of the Thames and the Oneida Nation of the Thames. From our analysis, we estimate that the annual impact on these communities could be in the region of $5.5 million, from royalties, taxes, direct impacts (e.g., operations labour) and induced impacts (i.e., the multiplier effect). An additional impact of approximately $54 million could also be anticipated in the broader southwest Ontario community during the construction phase of the new facility. Incidental to our research and assessment regarding the Economic Impacts to the communities in the area local to the Green Lane Landfill, PSTG Consulting uncovered some details about revenue generation possibilities for the City of Toronto. We have included some information here with recommendations about further areas of consideration and investigation that may be useful for the City, as the opportunities for the City of Toronto to sell a variety of outputs, including bio-gas, dry recyclables and compost like output (CLO), could generate annual revenues of almost $1.9 million.

APPENDIX F

Page 84 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 5

Introduction The City of Toronto has a goal to divert 70% of the City’s residential solid waste from landfill. The City has implemented numerous waste diversion initiatives over the last few years, including organics collection in multi-residential buildings, expanded bluebox materials, and electronics waste collection. In order to meet the 70% goal, the City believes that it must add a mixed solid waste processing facility to extract and divert more from the waste stream. The City has had a study prepared to assess the potential technologies available for this facility, as well as identifying and assessing the options for locating the facility. The result of the study was 1) a preferred option for the technology and 2) a preferred location – that being adjacent to the Green Lane landfill site.

1) Objectives The objective of this economic impact assessment is to identify and quantify the expected economic impacts as a result of the development of the new facility and its ongoing operations. This economic impact study addresses direct, indirect and induced impacts on stakeholders, with a primary focus on those from the local community.

2) Methodology PSTG Consulting has developed an economic impact assessment to identify and assess the potential economic impacts on the area community, industry (local and others potentially impacted) and other stakeholders as a result of the mixed solid waste processing facility being proposed for construction at the Green Lane Landfill in the Township of Southwold, Ontario.

The scope of the economic impact assessment was to identify and assess the:

� future business model;

� direct, indirect and induced economic impacts of the facility and the associated royalty payments;

� impacts for the local community, e.g., job creation, services, infrastructure, etc.;

� impacts for the local first nations community, e.g., job creation, services, infrastructure, etc.;

� impacts to transportation and other operations locally or in Toronto as a result of the mixed solid waste operations; and

� impacts relative to other comparable mixed solid waste facilities, e.g., Edmonton. The assessment can assist in:

� making a more informed decision by the City; � identifying areas of economic impacts – positive and negative; � providing a better understanding of interdependencies; � providing information for potential public consultations; and � potentially identifying mitigating areas or actions if required.

APPENDIX F

Page 85 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 6

The methodology used for this study included:

1. Development and confirmation of the business model A future state business model for the MSW facility was developed, linking the various inputs and outputs.

2. Consultations Consultations were held with local government bodies in the area directly surrounding and impacted by the Green Lane Landfill including the Township of Southwold, Elgin County and Middlesex County. In addition, two First Nations communities were consulted: the Chippewas First Nation of the Thames and the Oneida Nation of the Thames. The purpose of these consultations was to hear any concerns these communities may have had regarding economic factors that may impact them.

3. Research Comparable facilities in Edmonton and New York were also consulted to gather more information regarding development costs, operational staffing and markets for outputs.

Information gathered from consultations was compared to a review of the literature, which scanned facilities in Europe and the UK, to develop a holistic understanding of where this facility fits in relation to other existing models of MSW processing. A multiplier has been developed for the local area and has been used to assist in identifying the roll out (or spin-off) effect of the direct impacts. These can be applied to jobs created, earnings, etc. A baseline economic activity was estimated to provide a basis for the analysis. The direct impacts were then identified. These are the short term or immediate effects caused by the development of the new facility and its ongoing operations. As a result of the direct impacts there are indirect impacts that were identified. These are changes as a result of the initial activity(s). Ultimately there may be induced impacts. These are the impacts that are incurred as a result of the various direct and indirect impacts. The induced impacts typically include the change in household and/or consumer spending in the affected jurisdictions. The total impacts are derived from adding up the direct, indirect and induced impacts.

Identification and Assessment of the Future Business Model

3) Identification of the Future Business Model The City of Toronto intends to stream waste collected from multi-family households and from single family residential curbside collection to the proposed facility adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill. At the facility, the mixed waste will be both mechanically and manually sorted, to separate dry recyclables and bio-degradable materials from the waste that will be landfilled. Dry recyclables, including dense plastic, mixed glass, paper, etc., will be sold on the open market for recycling. The bio-degradable material will be sent to an anaerobic digestor on site where it will be “mixed” with bio-solids from Toronto Water facilities. Microbes will break down the material in the absence of oxygen producing “bio-gas” and “de-watered digestate”. The bio-gas, which is largely methane, is extracted and will be used to supply energy to the anaerobic digestion (AD) process (if required) or sold to a proposed co-generation facility (currently

APPENDIX F

Page 86 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 7

being investigated by Toronto Hydro and Ontario Plant Propagation). In the event that the bio-gas is not sold, then it will be flared (as is the current practice with gas generated by the Green Lane Landfill). The de-watered digestate will be transferred to a composting facility where, over the course of several months, it will be converted into Compost Like Output (CLO), intended to most likely conform to the proposed Ministry of Environment rating B for compost. The City intends to sell the CLO on the market or use it for land remediation. An overview of the future business model is outlined below.

Note: For the purposes of the Economic Impact assessment, activities up to, and including the transportation of the mixed waste to the proposed facility, have been excluded from our analysis. These activities are not impacted as a result of implementation of the mixed solid waste facility.

4) Assessment of the Future Business Model While the future business model for the proposed MSW facility at Green Lane is relatively straight-forward, and reflects the inputs, outputs and markets that have been successfully integrated in Canada (e.g., Edmonton) and in Europe, there are some particular challenges facing the City of Toronto’s initiative that must be recognized. These challenges include:

1. Managing the impact of potential contaminants on dry recyclables, when attempting to separate the mixed waste stream;

2. Producing compost like output that can be sold to a broad market requires changes to Ministry of Environment Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost in Ontario. Changes were proposed to the guidelines in November 2009, as yet these have not been approved. The proposed changes designate new Category B compost that contains human bio-solids (as will the CLO from the Green Lane Facility). Additionally, Category B compost qualifies as a “waste” under the

Multi-family

HouseholdsCollection

Transfer

Station

Transport to

Mixed Waste Facility

Transport to

Landfill

Mechanical

Separation

Transport to

Recycler

Dry Recyclables

Sold

Transport to

Landfill

Waste

Landfilled

Compost Like Output

Used or Sold

Bio-gas

Flared or Sold

Bio-solids

Transported from

Toronto Water

Manual

Separation

Anaerobic

Digestion

APPENDIX F

Page 87 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 8

Environmental Protection Act and is governed by regulations defining transportation, use and disposal restrictions.

3. Finding a market for the bio-gas produced by AD, as plans for an electricity co-generation facility between Toronto Hydro and Ontario Plants Propagation Ltd have not been finalized.

These factors should be taken into account when considering the potential future revenue streams arising from the proposed facility.

Identification of Economic Impacts

5) Local Direct Economic Impacts In considering the economic impacts that the proposed MSW facility will have on local communities the focus of the study was on communities within 10km of the facility. The communities that fall within this target area include the Township of Southwold, the Chippewas First Nation of the Thames, the Munsee Delaware Nation and the Oneida Nation of the Thames, (see map below). However, as an upper-tier municipality that includes the Township of Southwold, the County of Elgin will also likely be directly impacted by the operations of the new facility. Throughout this review, the local communities impacted by the new facility have been limited to those mentioned above.

Direct economic impacts are the initial, immediate economic activities, including local jobs and income that will be generated by the proposed new MSW facility at the city-owned lands adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill. Direct economic impacts will also include local taxes and royalties payable by the MSW facility. Direct impacts associated with the facility coincide with the first round of spending in the economy. In order to determine the direct impacts that will result from the development of the proposed facility, we have used economic data supplied by the current Green Lane Landfill operations and information supplied by similar operations in Edmonton, New York and Europe.

APPENDIX F

Page 88 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 9

a) Employment

The impacts of the proposed MSW facility on employment within local communities was a key interest of all of the communities consulted. There will likely be both a one-time impact on local employment (during the development and construction phase) as well as an ongoing impact, once the facility commences operations; both of these components are considered in our analysis.

i) Ongoing Employment Impact Estimates for ongoing labour needs were developed based on similar existing facilities’ models. Facilities handling close to the same volume of material place estimates for operational staff between 60-100 people. Where within this range the Green Lane MSW facility will fall largely depends on the number of conveyer-line sorters who are manually pulling apart the single-stream waste before and after it enters the mechanical sorting process. The number of people required will likely depend on the technology chosen during the development of the facility. A review of staff at similar facilities suggests that they will fall into a variety of classifications including sorters (performing the manual separation of dry-recyclables and non-biomass material), equipment operators (within the composting and sorting facilities), shift supervisors, an overall operations manager, a marketing manager (to drive usage and sales of the CLO) and clerks. Educated estimates by the Solid Waste Management Division suggest that the most likely scenario is one where there will be two shifts of 30 sorters and five equipment operators, two shift supervisors, two clerical staff, one operations manager and one marketing manager. This brings the most likely total operational staff to 75-80 people, a staffing complement that is aligned with similar facilities in Canada, the US and Europe For the estimated workforce, given the current wage and salary structures at the Green Lane Landfill, the potential total employment costs of the MSW facility would be nearly $2.5M annually, not including benefits, (please see table below).

Note: benefits, which could run as high as an additional 30% to the cost of wages and salaries, have been excluded from this review, as they typically do not have an impact on local spending patterns. During the operational phase of the facility, it is likely that the majority of the operations jobs will come from Southwold, Elgin County including St. Thomas, and London. (Note: The current facility is managed under contract by a third party, should a similar arrangement be entered into for the proposed facility, management positions may be recruited internally within the contractor’s work force.)

Labour Type Number Hours Shifts FTE Weeks Rate / Hr Salary Total

Sorters 30 7.5 2 60 52 15.00$ 1,755,000$

Equipment Operators 5 7.5 2 10 52 19.00$ 370,500$

Shift Supervisors 1 7.5 2 2 52 27.00$ 105,300$

Operations Manager 1 1 1 75,000$ 75,000$

Marketing Manager 1 1 1 75,000$ 75,000$

Clerks 1 2 2 40,000$ 80,000$

76 2,460,800$

APPENDIX F

Page 89 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 10

Statistics show, in 2001, 47.3% of the people working in Southwold were coming from London and 22.2% were coming from St. Thomas. Only 6.8% of people working in Southwold were from Southwold 1. Conversely, people living in Southwold work in St. Thomas, London and Central Elgin. In 2001, 12.5% of people living in Southwold worked in Southwold. In 2001, almost 72% of people working in Southwold Township (2,695 people) worked in manufacturing. Close to 10,450 people working in Elgin County (32.2 %) worked in manufacturing, and 34,805 people in London (12.5%) worked in the manufacturing industry. The high levels of people in manufacturing, transportation and warehousing suggest a trained labour workforce well suited to staffing and operating equipment in a MSW facility. These statistics are dated and reflect the importance of the Ford Motor Company of Canada assembly plant located in St. Thomas; as this facility is slated for closure in 2011 with the loss of approximately 1,400 jobs, there should be opportunity to fill the staffing needs for the proposed MSW facility locally.

b) Royalties

The City of Toronto has negotiated trust fund agreements (e.g., The Green Lane Community Trust Fund) with several local communities so that royalties are currently paid on each tonne of waste that enters the Green Lane Landfill facility. Agreements have been negotiated with the Township of Southwold, the Chippewas First Nation of the Thames and the Oneida Nation of the Thames. (Note: Another First Nations’ community, the Munsee Delaware Nation is also local to the proposed facility; however no trust fund or royalty agreements have been negotiated with this community as yet). New trust fund agreements have been signed with both Southwold and the First Nations outlining the royalties that will be paid for waste that will be processed by the MSW facility. For the Township of Southwold the royalty for the new facility will be $4.80 / te, an increase of $2.30 / te for waste being processed by the MSW facility rather than being transported directly to the landfill. When the MSW facility reaches its full capability (150,000 te of solid and bio-waste per year), this represents an incremental royalty stream of $351,000 annually to the Township. For the First Nations communities, the royalty for the new facility will be $4.00 / te, an increase of $2.00 / te for waste being processed by the MSW facility rather than being transported directly to the landfill. When the MSW facility reaches its full capability (150,000 te of solid and bio-waste per year), this represents an incremental royalty stream of $300,000 annually to the First Nations’ communities. Note: the above calculations assume that the 30,000 te / year of bio-solids would be taken to the landfill if the MSW facility was not constructed, i.e., bio-solids will be not be net new waste at Green Lane.

c) Taxes In 2010, taxes paid to the Township of Southwold relating to the Green Lane Landfill were just over $1.043 million and in 2011 that will rise to $1.574 million. MPAC and the City of Toronto have recently reached an agreement on an increase in the Current Market Value Assessment of the landfill site such that it is now assessed at over $60 million, (a significant increase from the former $39 million). At the same time, both parties have agreed to phase in the increase over four years, in 2012, the projected taxes on the landfill site paid to Southwold are projected to be approximately $1.9 million.

APPENDIX F

Page 90 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 11

The addition of an MSW facility on the property would increase the taxes. If Toronto is assessed for the 50% of the full capital cost of $115 million for the proposed MSW facility (allowing for depreciation and other factors, a valuation approach that reflects estimates made by other jurisdictions, e.g., Region of Durham2), the increase in property taxes would be approximately $1.6 million annually, assuming the same commercial tax rate is applied on the new facility.

d) Property values Toronto is currently building a buffer zone around the Green Lane facilities by purchasing all residences within a 2 km radius and all vacant land within 1 km. Residents within a 2 km radius of the facility have the option to sell their properties to the City for a fair market value. If and when property becomes available within a 1 km radius, the City purchases it to add to the buffer zones. A process for establishing fair market values for property and residences has been created and can include engaging an independent arbitrator if required.

Toronto has assured property owners in the region that their property values will not be impacted by the ongoing operations at the Green Lane Landfill or by any operations at the proposed facility.

e) Infrastructure

The City of Toronto recently made investments to improve the local infrastructure, including roads, to handle the increased traffic expected to and from the Green Lane Landfill beginning in January 2011. The increase of traffic is due to the waste that was previously being trucked to Michigan is now to disposed of at Green Lane, which will require the landfill to manage just under 800,000 tonnes in 2011. There will be very little increased traffic to the area as a result of the proposed MSW facility, as a portion of the waste currently being put directly in the landfill will be diverted to the facility instead. The improvements already made in infrastructure are expected to be able to handle any incremental traffic that would be due to the MSW facility.

6) Indirect Economic Impacts Indirect economic impacts relate to production, employment and income changes occurring in other businesses/industries/agencies in the community that supply inputs to the proposed facility or its operations. There may be some indirect economic impacts as a result of the construction of the facility, but there are likely to be negligible indirect impacts as a result of the operations.

a) Single Occurrence Employment Impact Conversations with comparable facilities revealed that the majority of the construction and development work can likely be performed by local skilled trades-people. The expectation is that a significant amount of contractor work will be performed by trades operating within a 50-100 km radius, which easily includes St. Thomas, London and could reach as far as Brantford. A feasibility study conducted in British Columbia in 2008 suggested that labour costs comprise around 51% of the total costs attributable to the construction of an anaerobic digestion facility3. However, in Europe similar studies have found labour costs to be in the range of 25% - 35%4 If the mean of these

APPENDIX F

Page 91 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 12

estimates is assumed, then the potential spend on labour on the construction of the Mixed Waste Facility at Green Lane would be approximately $46 million, (i.e., 40% of $115 million). Depending on the consortium selected to deliver the MSW facility, it is anticipated that a significant proportion of the labour could be sub-contracted out to contractors within the wider London area. Allowing for the 10% of total labour costs that would be spent on consortium contract (or project) management, the potential spend on local sub-contractors during facility construction is estimated at $41.4 million. The spending with sub-contractors would be spread over the construction phase, which would begin at the earliest in 2012.

7) Induced Economic Impacts Induced economic impacts relate to the effects of spending by the households in the local economy as the result of direct and indirect effects from the development of this proposed mixed waste processing facility. The induced effects arise when employees who are working for the facility spend their new income in the community. From Statistics Canada data5, it is possible to develop an estimate for the amount of family income that is spent locally. From this estimate, it is then possible to determine how many times money is re-circulated through the local community before “leaking” through the purchase of a good or service from outside the community. A multiplier is developed to estimate the recirculation rate. The multiplier is an estimate of how much additional economic activity will result from a new investment in the economy. Within the local communities around the proposed MSW facility, including Southwold, the First Nations and Central Elgin, the multiplier effect was estimated to be 1.31. Using this multiplier, the additional induced economic activity within the local communities on the projected $2.46 million of wages (see page 8), would be around $760,000 annually. An additional induced impact would also be noticed from local earnings during the construction phase. However, given that the construction labour force could come from the immediate local area or from as far away as London or Brantford, it would be difficult to create an accurate estimate of the multiplier effects of wages from the facility development phase, though, with a similar 1.31 multiplier, this could represent an additional spend of almost $13 million in the south western Ontario economy.

8) Incidental Findings for City of Toronto Revenues Incidental to our research and assessment regarding the Economic Impacts to the communities in the area local to the Green Lane Landfill, PSTG Consulting uncovered some details about revenue generation possibilities for the City of Toronto. We have included some information here with recommendations about further areas of consideration and investigation that may be useful for the City.

a) Biogas Southwold, and the area of the province west of London, has very little use for the quantity of biogas being produced at the landfill currently or for the projected increase in biogas at the proposed MSW facility. It is our impression that the cost of piping the gas to London or further east may not be in balance with the losses to the quantity of gas sustained during long-distance piping. The losses in the pipeline during long-distance transport may reduce the market possibilities for the gas “as-is”.

APPENDIX F

Page 92 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 13

A possibility for bio-gas use would be to develop a refinery on-site at the proposed facility in order to convert the biogas to natural gas useable in the City’s truck fleet. However, analysis performed as part of the Disco Road evaluation suggests that this is not an economically viable alternative at this time. Discussions with local industries, such as the Ontario Plants Propagation, and the Ontario Power Authority exploring the potential for bio-gas fuelled generation, have also suggested that there is currently little local need for the bio-gas. If a suitable market could be found for the biogas, there will be a substantial quantity and it is expected to be of high enough quality to generate revenues for the City. Other possibilities involving refining it to natural gas are worth exploring for their revenue generation possibilities. Depending on the quality of the waste stream and the digester, Electrigaz Technology Inc. estimates the amount of bio-gas produced per tonne, can vary anywhere from 20m³/te to 800m³/te6, while the City had estimated a production rate of 130m³/te in documentation provided to Council (Attachment 2 – 014PW). Additionally, the City estimated that the bio-gas would contain 60% methane with a recovery efficiency of 79%. Based on an average production rate of 75M³ per tonne sold at the current Intra-Alberta Gas Methane ISC Par Price (09/10) of $3.12 / GJ, this suggests that the City could have potential revenue of $350,000, before distribution costs, if the digester were operating today at full capacity. However, until a viable market for the gas appears, it will have to be flared, as is the gas produced from the Green Lane Landfill.

b) Compost-Like Output (CLO) Given the current Ministry of Environment standards for compost, the grade of compost that would be produced by the proposed facility has no commercial market. If the MOE grants a change in standards qualifications and enables the use of this grade of compost for restricted activities, the City of Toronto may have the opportunity to sell some or all of the compost produced at the proposed mixed waste processing facility. However, the quantity of compost that will be produced (roughly 50,000 te) may have the effect of flooding the market for low-grade compost. Currently, regular grade compost is sold at approximately $15 per cubic yard (Miller Waste), or approximately $10 per tonne. As a comparator, the Edmonton Waste Management Centre currently produces a variety of grades of compost currently ranging in price from $8 to $16 per tonne. At this time, it is not clear what the market will be for the compost produced at the proposed facility (Grade B), however, the City intends to replicate some of the learnings from Edmonton by having a marketing resource focused on exploring and developing markets for the CLO. As a guide, if Toronto is able to sell half of the CLO produced at $5.00 per tonne, this would generate approximately $130,000 annually for the City. As it may take several years before the proposed facility produces CLO at a consistent quality level, it is likely that the City will only be able to sell its product once a “steady state” has been reached.

APPENDIX F

Page 93 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 14

c) Dry Recyclables The City of Toronto will be able to sell dry recyclables at market value to generate revenue. The City’s ability to sell the product on the market will depend in part on how “clean” the recyclable materials are after they have been sorted, as contaminated materials are not as easy to sell. This risk can be mitigated with more hand-sorting on the conveyor belts to remove hazardous materials. The following table, which is derived from the Golder Report No. 08-1182-0126, shows what the City’s revenue for dry recyclables might be, based on the average monthly Ontario market price (for the six months May to October 2010).7 In order to reflect the impact of contamination from the mixed waste stream, the average market price has been discounted by up to 50%, a figure derived from conversations with similar facilities.

Dry Recyclable

Estimated

Annual te

Collected

Current

Sales Price

/ te

Estimated

Total

Revenue

Paper & Card 1,800 -$ -$

Glass 720 -$ -$

Dense Plastic 2,160 200.00$ 432,000$

Ferrous Metals 2,400 130.33$ 312,800$

Non-ferrous Metals 840 768.42$ 645,470$

7,920 1,390,270$

APPENDIX F

Page 94 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 15

Assessment of Impacts Relative to Other Comparable Mixed Solid Waste Facilities Conversations were held with the Edmonton Integrated Waste Management Facility and the Delaware County Composting Facility to discuss the similarities and differences between these existing operations and the proposed MSW facility at Green Lane. The goal of these interviews was to glean insight into potential roadblocks or challenges, and to develop an understanding of the marketability of the outputs and the local job creation potential of a facility of this kind.

9) Edmonton Integrated Waste Management Facility The Edmonton Integrated Waste Management Facility has some of the components of the proposed MSW facility at Green Lane, but also some key differences. For example, the Edmonton facility uses aerobic composting with bio-filter instead of the proposed anaerobic system at Green Lane.

Capacity

Edmonton has a landfill, aggregate recycling, yard and wood waste processing, bio-solids treatment and energy product, MRF, GEEP metals recycling, leachate treatment plant and self-haul recycling/sorting. A core difference at Edmonton is that the MRF handles only single-stream, pre-sorted, clean recyclables. Green Lane will be operating a “dirty” MRF where the recyclables will be pulled from a mixed stream. The Edmonton facility handles around 250,000 te of waste per year, 50,000 te of which go through the MRF, 150,000 te of which go into composting and the remaining 50,000 + te go through the transfer station. From the 150,000 te that go into the composting digesters, about 50,000 te of that is bio-solids and the useable end product that is produced is around 60,000 te per year.

CLO Market

This compost-like output (CLO) is CCME Category B, although recently the facility had some Category A product as well. Edmonton has a marketing manager who has been able to sell almost all of the CLO to niche markets such as bulk agricultural, industrial absorbent, horticultural/landscape construction, top dressing for sports fields, soil blending, erosion control, bedding for livestock and city agricultural markets. If the product is not sold, it is stockpiled, but sometimes the facility actually runs out of CLO to sell. It’s sold by the tonne and the price varies by market and the services required alongside (e.g. delivery, spreading). However, the fact that they have been able to find a market for the product is an optimistic indicator for the proposed MSW facility at Green Lane.

Staff

Edmonton currently staffs around 60-65 people in their plant, 10 people outside and 60 people in the MRF.

10) Delaware County Composting Facility – Conporec, Delaware, New York, USA The Delaware County Composting Facility in New York state operates a landfill, a recycling centre, a processing facility for construction / demolition debris, and a mixed waste compost facility with aerobic digestion. The technology used is rotating drum digesters with agitated bays from Groupe Conporec Inc.

Capacity

The Delaware County Composting Facility’s feedstock includes municipal solid waste, commercial waste and bio-solids. There is no MRF at this facility, as they have a source separation requirement to remove recyclables before they enter the landfill or compost stream. It is not practical to remove any of the recyclables that are left in the mixed waste stream as the quality of materials is very poor and not marketable.

APPENDIX F

Page 95 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 16

In 2009, the gross inputs to the compost facility were 30,368 te. Of that, 23,300 were MSW, 5,400 were bio-solids and the balance was industrial organics (liquid/solid).

CLO Market

According to US federal regulations (Reg. 503) the facility produces a Class A, pathogen-reduced, exceptional quality (low level of metals) compost that has unrestricted use. New York state has slightly more strict regulations, and as a result of bio-solids being one of their inputs, the facility is barred from using the compost for agricultural application on crops intended for human consumption, or on land used for agricultural production unless the land lies feral for three years. As a result, they do not sell the product to agricultural markets. Sales of the CLO are primarily for commercial landscaping.

Labour

In New York state, it is required that large construction contracts be broken into smaller contracts, and as a result, more than an estimated 90% of the construction jobs during the building phase of the facility went to local labour (defined by the facility as people living in a 100 mile radius). All of the site work, concrete and building were carried out by local labour. The equipment fabrication was not local. The Delaware County facility staffs 24 people total: 12 work at the compost facility where they have 8 operators (4 at each of two shifts), 3 dedicated maintenance workers, and 1 plant manager. The other 12 staff members work at the landfill, the recycling centre and the processing centre.

Economic Opportunities

During conversations with the Director of Solid Waste in Delaware County, it was mentioned that there were further potential economic benefits of a facility of this kind that is able to handle high-organic, low-solid waste streams. The example given was bi-products from producing milk products or protein supplements: liquid waste streams with high biological oxygen demand (BOD). Conventional wastewater treatment plants have difficulty processing this material, but anaerobic digestion is well suited to handle this material. Investigation into companies looking to dispose of this class of materials may be an added economic benefit to the proposed facility at Green Lane.

APPENDIX F

Page 96 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent o

f the

Pro

pose

d M

ixed

Sol

id W

aste

Fac

ility

on

City

-ow

ned

Land

Adj

acen

t to

the

Gre

en L

ane

Land

fill

Pag

e 17

Eco

no

mic

Im

pac

t S

um

ma

ry

Eco

no

mic

Imp

acts

on

Lo

cal C

om

mu

nit

ies

The

var

ious

eco

nom

ic im

pact

s as

soci

ated

with

the

prop

osed

MS

W fa

cilit

y ar

e su

mm

ariz

ed in

the

tabl

e be

low

.

Eco

no

mic

Im

pa

ctD

esc

rip

tio

nSt

ake

ho

lde

r Im

pac

ted

On

e-T

ime

Am

ou

nt

An

nu

al

Am

ou

nt

Ass

um

pti

on

s

Ro

ya

ltie

sIn

cre

me

nta

l ro

yalt

y o

n 1

20,0

00

te

of

MSW

Sou

thw

old

276,

00

0$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alt

y o

f $

2.5

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $

4.8

0 /

te f

or

wa

ste

be

ing

pro

cess

ed

in n

ew

fa

cili

ty

Ro

yal

ty o

f 30

,00

0 t

e o

f B

io-s

oli

ds

Sou

thw

old

75,

00

0$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alt

y o

f $

2.5

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $

4.8

0 /

te f

or

wa

ste

be

ing

pro

cess

ed

in n

ew

fa

cili

ty

351,

00

0$

Incr

em

en

tal

roya

lty

on

120

,00

0 t

e o

f M

SWFi

rst

Na

tio

ns

240,

00

0$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alt

y o

f $

2.0

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $

4.0

0 /

te f

or

wa

ste

be

ing

pro

cess

ed

in n

ew

fa

cili

ty

Ro

yal

ty o

f 30

,00

0 t

e o

f B

io-s

oli

ds

Firs

t N

ati

on

s6

0,0

00

$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alt

y o

f $

2.0

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $

4.0

0 /

te f

or

wa

ste

be

ing

pro

cess

ed

in n

ew

fa

cili

ty

300,

00

0$

Lab

ou

rC

on

stru

ctio

n L

ab

ou

r

Bro

ade

r Lo

cal

Co

mm

un

itie

s4

1,4

00,

00

0$

1. C

on

stru

ctio

n l

ab

ou

r is

40

% o

f o

ve

rall

cap

ita

l co

st

2. 1

0% o

f la

bo

ur

is p

roje

ct m

an

age

me

nt

pe

rfo

rme

d

by

no

n-l

oca

l wo

rke

rs 3

. C

on

stru

ctio

n p

roje

ct w

ill

dra

w f

rom

a b

road

er

lab

ou

r-p

oo

l, e

.g.,

Lo

nd

on

,

Bra

ntf

ord

etc

.

Bro

ade

r Lo

cal

Co

mm

un

itie

s1

2,8

82,

00

0$

M

ult

ipli

er

Eff

ect

of

1.3

1

54,

28

2,0

00

$

Lab

ou

rO

pe

rati

on

al L

abo

ur

Loca

l C

om

mu

nit

ies

2,4

61,

00

0$

See

Pag

e 8

fo

r e

stim

ate

s o

f la

bo

ur

forc

e a

nd

wag

e

rate

s

Loca

l C

om

mu

nit

ies

766,

00

0$

Mu

ltip

lie

r E

ffe

ct o

f 1.

31

3,2

27,

00

0$

Tax

es

Incr

em

en

tal

tax

es

du

e t

o n

ew

fa

cili

tySo

uth

wo

ld1

,64

1,0

00

$

1. U

sin

g C

ost

Ap

pro

ach

to

val

uin

g in

cre

ase

to

ind

ust

ria

l / c

om

me

rcia

l p

rop

ert

y (

i.e

., ~

50

% o

f co

sts

allo

win

g f

or

de

pre

ciat

ion

an

d o

the

r fa

cto

rs)

2.

Use

curr

en

t ra

te o

f 2

.85

4%

TOTA

LT

OT

AL

54,

28

2,0

00

$

5,5

19,

00

0$

APPENDIX F

Page 97 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 18

Based on the assumptions articulated in previous sections (and summarized in the table above), the annual economic impact of the proposed facility on the local communities (i.e., within 10 km of the Green Lane site), could be as high as $7.0 million. An additional impact of just over $54 million could also be noticed during the construction phase of the new facility. It should be noted that, as the source of this spend is labour associated with the construction of the facility, the impact of this spend is likely to be experienced on a larger geographic area as the skills required may be drawn from such communities as London and Brantford. Sensitivities The amount of royalties paid to the local communities is directly connected to the amount of mixed waste that will be processed by the proposed facility. There is likely to be some degree of “ramp-up” in operating the new facility and so it may take a few years before the incremental royalty stream reaches $420,000 and $360,000 for the Township of Southwold and the First Nations communities respectively. The local impact of employee earnings will be dependent on the level of staffing, labour rates and the economic multiplier. While the labour rates used in this analysis reflect current City and contractor rates, the level of staffing is a best estimate reflecting levels at similar facilities in both Europe and Canada. If the mechanical sorting equipment is able to deal with the mixed waste stream more effectively, then this would reduce the requirement for sorters; a 33% reduction in sorters (i.e., to 20 per shift) would reduce the overall economic impact by 24% to almost $2.5 million. The taxes that will be paid by the City for the proposed facility are dependent on the valuation of the facility as assessed by MPAC as well as the assessment rate set by the Township of Southwold – both of which are difficult to estimate. In this analysis, we have taken a (high) assessment based on the cost approach typically used by MPAC for commercial / industrial properties, effectively placing a value of 90% of the capital expenditures as the assessed value.

APPENDIX F

Page 98 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 19

Revenue Streams for City of Toronto From the perspective of the City, there is the potential to generate over $2million of revenue annually from the sale of dry recyclables, bio-gas and compost like output, (see table below).

Sensitivities The market for dry recyclables is quite robust in Ontario, however the estimates in the above analysis have assumed that the impact of potential contamination from the mixed waste stream will be a 50% “hit” on the market price, i.e., the perceived poorer quality of the recyclable will reduce the potential price achieved by 50%. Discussions with industry sources suggest that the impact could be anywhere from 20% to 80%, this would suggest that at the current market prices, the revenue potential for the City would be between $624,000 and $2,500,000. The revenue received from selling bio-gas has been derived from an estimate of 75M³ of bio-gas being produced from each tonne of waste entering the anaerobic digestor. Estimates provided in literature suggest that this might range from 20M³ to 130M³ depending on the “quality” of the waste stream and other process variables.

Economic Impact Description Stakeholder Impacted Annual Amount Assumptions

Dry Recyclables Sales of Dry Recyclables

Paper & Card Toronto -$ Assumed to be un-fit for sale

Glass Toronto -$ Assumed to be un-fit for sale

Dense Plastic Toronto 432,000$

1. Based on recent six-month average of market

price. 2. Adjusted by 50% to allow for impact of

contamination from mixed waste stream 3.

Alterntive scenario adjusted to reflect single-

familiy and multi-family source

Ferrous Metals Toronto 313,000$

1. Based on recent six-month average of market

price. 2. Adjusted by 50% to allow for impact of

contamination from mixed waste stream 3.

Alterntive scenario adjusted to reflect single-

familiy and multi-family source

Non-ferrous Metals Toronto 645,000$

1. Based on recent six-month average of market

price. 2. Adjusted by 50% to allow for impact of

contamination from mixed waste stream 3.

Alterntive scenario adjusted to reflect single-

familiy and multi-family source

1,390,000$

Bio-gas

Revenue received from selling bio-gas

produced by AD Toronto 352,000$

1. Average of 75M³ generated per te of waste 2. Bio-

gas contains 60% methane 3. Gas produced at 70%

efficiency 4. Bio-gas contains 0.0346 GJ/M³ 5.

Methane can be sold at Intra-Alberta Gas Methane

ISC Par Price of $3.12 / GJ

609,694$

Low 352,000$

Compost Like Output

Revenue from the sale of Compost Like

Output Toronto 262,000$

1. 52,434 te of CLO will be produced in Original

Scenario 2. Potential selling price is estimated at

$5 / te - which is 50% of current market price for

"utility compost", approximately 60% of rate of

Edmonton low grade compost 3. Alternative

Scenario produces 145,000 tonnes of CLO, estimate

20% can be sold

131,000$

1. Assume City can sell 50% of CLO output 2. Until

CLO quality reaches a consistent level, it is unlikely

that the City will be able to sell even this amount.

(It could take two years to reach steady state.)

TOTAL TOTAL 1,873,000$

APPENDIX F

Page 99 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 20

This suggests that the revenue potential for the City from the sale of bio-gas ranges from $94,000 to $610,000 annually. The revenues associated with the sale of the compost like output will depend on the size of the market for the CLO and the price that can be achieved. At this time, as the proposed changes to the Ministry of Environment guidelines for compost have not been finalized, it is still unclear what size the market will be in Ontario for Grade B compost. However, even in a case where there would be limited sales capability for the City, there would still be the potential to “avoid costs” associated with any purchases of compost by the City for land re-mediation, i.e., the City may be able to reduce its expenditures by utilizing CLO on City property where appropriate.

Conclusions The proposed Mixed Solid Waste facility at Green Lane can have a significant economic impact on the local communities, including the Township of Southwold, the Chippewas First Nation of the Thames and the Oneida Nation of the Thames. From our analysis, we estimate that the annual impact could be in the region of $5.5 million. An additional impact of almost $54.3 million could also be anticipated in the broader southwest Ontario community over the estimated 2 year construction phase of the new facility.

APPENDIX F

Page 100 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 21

Appendices

APPENDIX F

Page 101 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 22

Appendix A – Impact of Increasing Amount of MSW Processed at Proposed Facility An additional scenario was evaluated, in order to determine the economic impacts if the City were to increase the processing capability of the proposed facility to a total of 320,000 tonnes of mixed solid waste annually. The City has estimated that the capital costs for this facility will increase from $115 million to $238 million8, a figure used in the following analysis. Additionally, in this scenario, it has been assumed that the mixed solid waste will be sourced evenly from both multi-family and single-family households, while the anaerobic digestor will continue to process 30,000 tonnes of bio-solids (as in the previous scenario). Using the results from waste audits conducted in 2008 and 2010 for multi-family households in North York and single-family households in Scarborough respectively, the composition of the 320,000 tonnes of mixed waste is estimated to be:

Mixed Waste Component Tonnes % Paper 33,739 10.54 Plastics 10,385 3.25 Non-Ferrous Metals 2,275 0.71 Ferrous Metals 2,111 0.66 Glass 3,888 1.22 Organics 118,499 37.03 Other 149,101 46.59

Changes to the Economic Impact Assessment due to an increase in MSW processed The increase in mixed solid waste being processed annually at the proposed facility will have an impact on royalties paid to the local communities, the size of the workforce and total wages paid locally as well as the taxes that will be paid to the Township of Southwold. Additionally, as the capital cost of the facility has more than doubled, there will be an impact on the one-time indirect effectives associated with construction as well as the annual taxes paid to the Township. Direct Economic Impacts

i. Royalties The annual royalties paid to the local communities will increase as the royalty is tied directly to the amount of mixed solid waste that will be processed by the facility. In the initial scenario, the Township of Southwold would be paid an additional $420,000 annually while the two First Nations communities would be paid an additional $360,000 annually. In this scenario, these amounts would increase to annual royalties of $880,000 for Southwold and $760,000 for the First Nations.

ii. Employment While it is still anticipated that the proposed facility will operate two shifts, an increase in workforce will be required in order to handle the additional 200,000 tonnes of mixed waste annually. It is unlikely that an increase in the number of management and clerical positions will be required, it is reasonable to assume that additional sorters and operators will be required, some of whom may now perform the role

APPENDIX F

Page 102 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 23

of “lead hand”. Given the increase in mixed solid waste being processed, and the proportion of dry-recyclables being recovered, it is estimated that the required workforce would increase to 122 and assuming the current wage and salary structures at the Green Lane Landfill, the potential total employment costs of the MSW facility would be almost $3.9 million annually, not including benefits, (please see table below).

Note: as mentioned previously, benefits, which could run as high as an additional 30% to the cost of wages and salaries, have been excluded from this review, as they typically do not have an impact on local spending patterns. It is anticipated that the majority of the workforce could be drawn from the labour-pool that resides within 10 km of the facility.

iii. Taxes The capital costs associated with developing the facility envisioned by this scenario have increased by 107% over those of the previous scenario. If we assume the same assessment approach as that discussed above on pages 9 – 10, then the annual tax bill for the proposed facility would increase from $1.6 million to $3.4 million

Indirect Economic Impacts

i. The percentage of capital costs associated with the construction of a mixed waste facility that is spent on labour has been estimated at being between 25% and 51%, please see page 10 above. If the mean of these estimates is assumed, then the potential spend on labour on the construction of the Mixed Waste Facility at Green Lane would be approximately $95 million, (i.e., 40% of $238 million). Again, allowing for the 10% of total labour costs that would be spent on consortium contract (or project) management, the potential spend on sub-contractors during facility construction is estimated at $85.6 million. It is anticipated, given the scale of the construction, that subcontractors will be drawn from the broader south western Ontario geography and not just from the local area.

Induced Economic Impacts

i. Within the local communities around the proposed MSW facility, including Southwold, the First Nations and Central Elgin, the multiplier effect was estimated to be 1.31. Using this multiplier, the additional induced economic activity within the local communities on the projected $4.44 million of wages would be around $1.38 million annually. An additional induced impact would also be noticed from local earnings during the construction phase. However, given that the construction labour force could come from the immediate local area or from as far away as London or Brantford, it would be difficult to create an accurate estimate of the multiplier

Labour Type Number Hours Shifts FTE Weeks Rate / Hr Salary Total

Sorters 50 7.5 2 100 52 15.00$ 2,925,000$

Equipment Operators 8 7.5 2 16 52 19.00$ 592,800$

Shift Supervisors 1 7.5 2 2 52 27.00$ 105,300$

Operations Manager 1 1 1 75,000$ 75,000$

Marketing Manager 1 1 1 75,000$ 75,000$

Clerks 1 2 2 40,000$ 80,000$

122 3,853,100$

APPENDIX F

Page 103 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

Ass

essm

ent o

f the

Pro

pose

d M

ixed

Sol

id W

aste

Fac

ility

on

City

-ow

ned

Land

Adj

acen

t to

the

Gre

en L

ane

Land

fill

Pag

e 24

effe

cts

of w

ages

from

the

faci

lity

deve

lopm

ent p

hase

, tho

ugh,

with

a s

imila

r 1.3

1 m

ultip

lier,

this

cou

ld re

pres

ent a

n ad

ditio

nal s

pend

of a

lmos

t $26

.5 m

illio

n in

the

sout

h w

este

rn O

ntar

io e

cono

my.

E

con

om

ic Im

pac

t S

um

ma

ry –

Alt

ern

ativ

e S

cen

ario

E

con

om

ic Im

pac

ts o

n L

oca

l Co

mm

un

ities

Th

e an

nual

diff

eren

ce e

cono

mic

impa

cts

betw

een

the

two

scen

ario

s am

ount

s to

ove

r $4.

4 m

illio

n, b

esid

es th

e on

e-tim

e im

prov

emen

t of $

58 m

illio

n in

the

bene

fits

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e co

nstru

ctio

n of

the

faci

lity.

The

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

the

scen

ario

s ar

e hi

ghlig

hted

in th

e ta

ble

belo

w.

Eco

no

mic

Imp

act

De

scri

pti

on

Stak

eh

old

er

Imp

acte

dO

ne

-Tim

e A

mo

un

tA

nn

ual

Am

ou

nt

On

e-T

ime

Am

ou

nt

An

nu

al A

mo

un

tA

ssu

mp

tio

ns

Ro

yal

tie

sIn

cre

me

nta

l ro

yalt

y o

n 1

20,0

00 t

e o

f M

SWS

ou

thw

old

276,

000

$

73

6,00

0$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alty

of

$2.5

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $4

.80

/ te

fo

r

was

te b

ein

g p

roce

sse

d i

n n

ew

fa

cili

ty

Ro

yalt

y o

f 3

0,00

0 te

of

Bio

-so

lid

sS

ou

thw

old

75,

000

$

75,

000

$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alty

of

$2.5

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $4

.80

/ te

fo

r

was

te b

ein

g p

roce

sse

d i

n n

ew

fa

cili

ty

351,

000

$

81

1,00

0$

Incr

em

en

tal r

oya

lty

on

120

,000

te

of

MSW

Fir

st N

atio

ns

240,

000

$

64

0,00

0$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alty

of

$2.0

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $4

.00

/ te

fo

r

was

te b

ein

g p

roce

sse

d i

n n

ew

fa

cili

ty

Ro

yalt

y o

f 3

0,00

0 te

of

Bio

-so

lid

sF

irst

Nat

ion

s6

0,00

0$

6

0,00

0$

Cu

rre

nt

roy

alty

of

$2.0

0 /

te b

eco

me

s $4

.00

/ te

fo

r

was

te b

ein

g p

roce

sse

d i

n n

ew

fa

cili

ty

300,

000

$

70

0,00

0$

Lab

ou

rC

on

stru

ctio

n L

ab

ou

r

Bro

ad

er

Loca

l

Co

mm

un

itie

s4

1,40

0,0

00$

85

,68

0,00

0$

1. C

on

stru

ctio

n l

abo

ur

is 4

0% o

f o

ve

rall

ca

pit

al c

ost

2. 1

0% o

f la

bo

ur

is p

roje

ct m

an

age

me

nt

pe

rfo

rme

d

by

no

n-l

oca

l w

ork

ers

3.

Co

nst

ruct

ion

pro

ject

wil

l

dra

w f

rom

a b

road

er

lab

ou

r-p

oo

l, e

.g.,

Lo

nd

on

,

Bra

ntf

ord

etc

.

Bro

ad

er

Loca

l

Co

mm

un

itie

s1

2,88

2,0

00$

26

,66

0,00

0$

M

ult

ipli

er

Effe

ct o

f 1.

31

54,

282

,000

$

112

,34

0,00

0$

Lab

ou

rO

pe

rati

on

al L

abo

ur

Loca

l Co

mm

un

itie

s2,

461,

000

$

3,85

3,00

0$

See

Pag

e 8

fo

r e

stim

ate

s o

f la

bo

ur

forc

e a

nd

wa

ge

rate

s

Loca

l Co

mm

un

itie

s76

6,00

0$

1,19

9,00

0$

M

ult

ipli

er

Effe

ct o

f 1.

31

3,22

7,00

0$

5,

052,

000

$

Taxe

sIn

cre

me

nta

l tax

es

du

e t

o n

ew

fac

ilit

yS

ou

thw

old

1,64

1,00

0$

3,

396,

000

$

1. U

sin

g C

ost

Ap

pro

ach

to

val

uin

g in

cre

ase

to

ind

ust

rial

/ c

om

me

rcia

l p

rop

ert

y (

i.e

., ~

50%

of

cost

s

allo

win

g fo

r d

ep

reci

atio

n a

nd

oth

er

fact

ors

) 2

. Use

curr

en

t ra

te o

f 2.

854

%

TOT

AL

TO

TAL

54,

282

,000

$

5,51

9,00

0$

1

12,3

40,

000

$

9,95

9,00

0$

Ori

gin

al S

cen

ario

Ale

rtn

ati

ve S

cen

ari

o

APPENDIX F

Page 104 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 25

Changes to the potential Toronto revenue streams due to the increase in mixed waste processing As the alternative scenario has assumed that the source of the mixed waste stream will be evenly split between single-family and multi-family households, the relative composition of the dry-recyclables collected through mechanical and manual means at the proposed facility will be different than in the original scenario. This is due to the fact that single-family households have access to and greater participation in City-wide recycling programs, e.g., Green Bin (for organics) and Blue Bin (for recyclables). Two recent wastes audits conducted by the City provide insight into this, for example for multi-family households 14.6% of the residual waste was found to contain recyclable paper, while for single-family households it was 6.5%. The importance of the source of the mixed waste on the recyclable components, is shown in the following table.

Recyclable Component Single-Family Household % of Residual Waste

Multi-Family Household % of Residual Waste

Paper 6.46% 14.62% Plastics 2.49% 4.00% Non-Ferrous Metals 0.78% 0.64% Ferrous Metals 0.4% 0.91% Glass 0.66% 1.77% Organics 29.91% 44.15% Other 59.29% 33.89% The change in composition of the mixed waste source impacts the amount and type of outputs that will be generated, and therefore the associated revenue streams. The differences in outputs generated, and associated revenues, between the two scenarios is highlighted in the table on the following page. From this table, the increase in potential revenues annually is estimated at just over $840,000 million, so while the amount of mixed waste processed has increased by 167%, i.e., from 120,000 tonnes to 320,000, the potential revenues have only increased by 45%, due to the changes in mix of recyclables. It should also be noted that at this point the City would be generating some 145,000 tonnes of Compost Like Output and we have assumed that there would be only a 20% market for this product, as it is still unclear what market there will be for this product given the over 700,000 tonnes of compost currently being produced for sale in Ontario9. As in the original scenario, it is likely that it will take some time for a consistent quality output to be achieved, and so the City may not be able to find a market for its CLO for several years.

APPENDIX F

Page 105 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 26

Economic Impact Description Stakeholder Impacted Annual Amount Annual Amount Assumptions

Dry Recyclables Sales of Dry Recyclables

Paper & Card Toronto -$ -$ Assumed to be un-fit for sale

Glass Toronto -$ -$ Assumed to be un-fit for sale

Dense Plastic Toronto 432,000$ 454,942$

1. Based on recent six-month average of market

price. 2. Adjusted by 50% to allow for impact of

contamination from mixed waste stream 3.

Alterntive scenario adjusted to reflect single-

familiy and multi-family source

Ferrous Metals Toronto 313,000$ 275,070$

1. Based on recent six-month average of market

price. 2. Adjusted by 50% to allow for impact of

contamination from mixed waste stream 3.

Alterntive scenario adjusted to reflect single-

familiy and multi-family source

Non-ferrous Metals Toronto 645,000$ 1,045,767$

1. Based on recent six-month average of market

price. 2. Adjusted by 50% to allow for impact of

contamination from mixed waste stream 3.

Alterntive scenario adjusted to reflect single-

familiy and multi-family source

1,390,000$ 1,776,000$

Bio-gas

Revenue received from selling bio-gas

produced by AD Toronto 352,000$ 795,000$

1. Average of 75M³ generated per te of waste 2. Bio-

gas contains 60% methane 3. Gas produced at 70%

efficiency 4. Bio-gas contains 0.0346 GJ/M³ 5.

Methane can be sold at Intra-Alberta Gas Methane

ISC Par Price of $3.12 / GJ

609,694$

Low 352,000$ 795,000$

Compost Like Output

Revenue from the sale of Compost Like

Output Toronto 262,000$ 727,000$

1. 52,434 te of CLO will be produced in Original

Scenario 2. Potential selling price is estimated at

$5 / te - which is 50% of current market price for

"utility compost", approximately 60% of rate of

Edmonton low grade compost 3. Alternative

Scenario produces 145,000 tonnes of CLO, estimate

20% can be sold

131,000$ 145,000$

1. Original Scenario - assume City can sell 50% of

CLO output 2. Alternative Scenario - assume City

can sell 20% of CLO output 3. Until CLO quality

reaches a consistent level, it is unlikely that the

City will be able to sell even this amount. (It could

take two years to reach steady state.)

TOTAL TOTAL 1,873,000$ 2,716,000$

Original Scenario Alternative Scenario

APPENDIX F

Page 106 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 27

Appendix B – Sources The following stakeholders and industry experts provided valuable insight during this assessment.

Name Organization Title Donna Ethier Township of Southwold Chief Administrative Officer Suzanna Dieleman Township of Southwold Treasurer Alan Smith Elgin County Economic Development Manager Michelle Smiebert Middlesex County Chief Administrative Officer Michael Bernier Middlesex County Economic Development Kenneth Doxtator Oneida Nation of the Thames Councillor Darlene Whitecalf Chippewas First Nation of the

Thames Councillor

Allan Yee Edmonton Integrated Waste Management Facility, Alberta

Senior Operations Engineer

Susan McIntyre Delaware County Composting Facility, New York

Director of Solid Waste, Delaware County

George South City of Toronto, Solid Waste Management

Director, Transfer and Disposal Operations

Anne Hiscock City of Toronto, Solid Waste Management

Environmental Manager

Vincent Sferrazza City of Toronto, Solid Waste Management

Director, Policy and Planning

Bob Kearse City of Toronto, Solid Waste Management

Senior Engineer, Business Analysis

Michael Cant Golder Associates Practice Lead Pamela Russell Golder Associates Consultant

APPENDIX F

Page 107 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Mixed Solid Waste Facility on City-owned Land Adjacent to the Green Lane Landfill

Page 28

Appendix C - References 1 Township of Southwold New Official Plan: Employment Land Needs Report, January 2009 2 Durham Region Energy from Waste (EFW) Project: Detailed Business Case and Request for Proposals – May 2008 3 Feasibility Study – Biogas upgrading and grid injection in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia – Electrigaz Technology Inc 2008 4 Assessment of the Options to improve the Management of Bio-Waste in the European Union – Annex E – Eunomia 2009 5 2005 Canadian median family total income in Ontario, Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table 111-0009 6 Electrigaz website www.electrigaz.com/faq_eng.htm November 2010 7 The Price Sheet – StewardEdge – October 2010 8 Technical Memorandum 3.3 – City of Toronto Planning Study for Assessment of Mixed Waste Processing Technology and Siting Options, May 19 2009, Golder Associates 9 Composting Council of Canada – Composting Survey (figures from 2005)

APPENDIX F

Page 108 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT

APPENDIX G

PROPOSAL EVALUATION TABLE

EVALUATION CRITERIA AVAILABLE

POINTS TO BE AWARDED

Compliance with Mandatory Submission Requirements Pass/Fail

Proponent profile, experience and qualifications o Stability of Proponent as a business organization o Detailed demonstration of Mixed Waste Processing facility

procurement and development experience and completion of work of a similar nature for comparable organizations

o References (general) o References (specific to Mixed Waste processing planning/

procurement and/ or large public works financial planning projects, including aspects of capital estimating and business assessment reporting

20

Qualifications and related experience of the Project Team and Team Manager.

o Technical – Mixed Waste Processing Facility – Waste Projection/ System Profile

o Technical – MBT-AD facility conceptual design and development components

o Financial and Investment Modeling/Analysis o Strategic (policy/legal/organizational)Experience in working with

large municipalities or other levels of government

25

Proposed Approach and Work Plan o Demonstrates a clear understanding of the scope of work and

project objectives. o Provides detailed description of proposed approach o Project plan that includes stated objectives and deliverables. o Detailed work schedule and resource requirements

35

Interview o Proponents must score a minimum of 75% (or 60 points) to be further considered for

interview (at discretion of Solid Waste Management) and cost evaluation.

Proponent's Fees o Proponent's fees are calculated as follows:

The lowest cost Proposal receives 20 points, and the remaining Proposals are assigned points based on the following formula: Formula: [(lowest cost Proposal price of next Proposal) x 25]

20

Total Score 100

Page 109 of 109

VIEW

ING C

OPY

DO NOT S

UBMIT