HomeMy WebLinkAboutFND-006-02 1 � n
a�
Leading the Way REPORT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION
Date: MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 Resolution #61
--
Report M FND-006-02 File#: ° Z By-law#:
Subject: CLARINGTON CURBSIDE GARBAGE COLLECTION
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purposes and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report FND-006-02 be received;
2. THAT Council select Option 1 or 2 from Part "A" below:
PART "A" —Option 1
THAT Council recommend to the Region that the Region of Durham enter into a six-year
agreement commencing September 1, 2002 with Canadian Waste Systems for the curbside
collection of non-hazardous garbage, organics and recyclable wastes in the Municipality of
Clarington, as part of the Region of Durham Request for Proposal RFP 434-2001 and the
optional services as identified in the Region Report 2002-J-10;
PART "A" —Option 2
• THAT the Municipality withdraw from the Region's RFP process for Integrated Waste;
• THAT Council authorize Staff to issue a tender for garbage collection with an improved
level of service;
• THAT Staff report back to Council with the recommendation of a contract award; and
• THAT a copy of this Report and Council's decision on the matter be forwarded to the
Region of Durham;
REPORT NO.: FND-006-02 PAGE 2
3. THAT the flat rate method of charging taxpayers for garbage services be implemented for
the full cost of garbage service (including collection, recycling, haulage, disposal, etc.)to be
phased out over a five year period and replaced with a tax rate system to be applied against
all property classes consistent with the other area municipalities within the Region of
Durham.
1 I
Submitted by: �'� � '' Reviewed by. c tc
ancy T yl r, .A., C.A., Franklin Wu,
Director of Finance/Treasurer. Chief Administrative Officer.
Pre-4 Hor a}h, MR, RRFA,
Director of Operations.
FH/LB/NT/hjl
1A2
REPORT NO.: FND-006-02 PAGE 3
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT
Council, at their meeting of Monday June 25, 2001, approved the following recommendations
for Report WD-35-01:
1. THAT in order to assist in attaining a 50% diversion target by 2007 or sooner, a curbside
composting program be implemented in the Municipality of Clarington through a
negotiated partnership with the Region of Durham;
2. THAT the Public Works Department and Treasury Department Staff work with the
Region of Durham to develop an acceptable integrated solid waste collection system;
and
3. THAT all costs associated with the integrated waste collection system be recovered
through a Regional Solid Waste Levy,
RFP FOR INTEGRATED WASTE
Municipal Staff had a series of meetings with the Region's representatives to prepare a Request
for Proposal for integrated waste collection system for Clarington. The Region issued the RFP
in August 2001 and bid submissions closed November 2001. Submissions were received from
BFI, Canadian Waste Services Inc. and Miller Waste Systems.
Bids required a price for core collection, other collections and haulage and disposal. The
Request provided that prices for new and innovative proposals would be considered.
The core waste collections would include weekly collection in plastic bags with a three-bag limit
(extra bags requiring a bag tag), weekly collection of food waste in separate plastic bags with no
limit to quantity, bi-weekly collection for fibres, cardboard and containers and increased blue box
items (no limit to quantity).
There would be twenty-four yard waste and brush collections per year, one pick up of Christmas
trees and weekly collection of white goods.
1303
REPORT NO.: FND-006-02 PAGE 4
RFP STATUS
The Region's Evaluation Committee has met with Municipal Staff on two occasions to review
the costs of services and any outstanding issues. The Region has since determined the
collection costs, haulage and disposal costs but has not calculated a final waste tax levy for
Clarington. Some estimates are included under financial issues below.
REGION OF DURHAM REPORT 2002-J-10
The Joint Works and Finance and Administration Committee Report No. 2002-J-10 dated
February 27, 2002 (copy attached) recommends to Regional Council in summary that subject to
the approval of the Municipal Councils of Clarington, Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock:
That the Region adopt a By-law to assume waste collection responsibilities from the
participating area Municipalities and that the Region enter into a six year agreement
commencing September 1, 2002 with Miller Waste Systems for the curbside collection of
non-hazardous garbage, organics and recyclable waste, and that the integrated waste
collection, haulage and disposal contract be recovered through the Regional Solid
Waste Tax Levy of the participating area Municipalities.
The Report does not take into consideration the Municipal concerns that have been raised since
the commencement of the RFP process. Issues include royalties for the Clarington Waste
Transfer Station, impact of a Solid Waste Levy to all non-residential property classes and the
award of one bidder for Clarington and the Northern Municipalities having the potential to
reduce the number of bidders in the process at the end of the contract term. This is not in the
best interest of the Region and our residents. This report has been approved by the Joint
Works and Finance Administration Committee, subject to the approval by the participating
municipalities.
Council may consider recommending that the Region accept an alternative recommendation
that would have the Region accept the core collection costs as submitted and award the
Clarington contract to Canadian Waste Services Inc. This is reflected as Option 1 under Part
"A" of the recommendations.
1304
REPORT NO.: FND-006-02 PAGE 5
FINANCIAL ISSUES
There are some concerns being raised with respect to preserving the current flat rate system.
The option of participating with the Region with Clarington's contract awarded to Canadian
Waste Systems does not resolve the Regional Solid Waste Levy that would be applied to all
property classes across Clarington. However, the Region can still opt out of the flat rate
calculation for their existing services such as recycling and disposal which represents two-thirds
(2/3) of the existing flat rate. That would leave a flat rate for the collection component only and
a tax rate for recycling and disposal. This may cause some confusion to taxpayers and would
still result in non-residential taxpayers paying for garbage services. It is likely that the Region
would take this approach as they are of the opinion that their portion of the existing flat rate is
not a true user pay when directed just to households. Some of the components of the Region's
costs relate to Region-wide services provided to all taxpayers.
If the current flat rate system is eliminated, the cost for waste services for many residential
taxpayers will decrease while the costs for non-residential taxpayers will increase. Preliminary
estimates are as follows. For a residential property the approximate change on a tax rate basis
for each $100,000 CVA increment would be about $70 (i.e. a residential property with
CVA=$200,000 would pay garbage tax of$140). For commercial properties, the charge would
be approximately $108 for every $100,000 in assessment. For industrial, the charge would be
$164 per$100,000 CVA and for large industrial, $211 per$100,000 CVA. The Region is
indicating that there would not be a significant impact to non-residential (particularly large
industrial) due to the proposed tax policy changes currently before Regional Council and the
reduction in the provincial industrial tax rate. However, commercial and multi-residential
properties would not have this offsetting impact. In order to alleviate this, the Region has
suggested a five-year phase-in to make the transition from a full flat rate system to a full tax on
assessment system. Staff is recommending this as it allows for a gradual impact. The
estimates indicated above are based on a full tax rate basis system applied to all property
classes.
Due to complications with respect to tax policy, it was recommended in the 2001 budget report
that the flat rate may need to be addressed. This is primarily due to effects of the standardized
tax bill format. As tax policy continues to evolve, it may have been necessary to discontinue the
flat rate system in the future.
REPORT NO.: FND-006-02 PAGE 6
It is acknowledged that, from a collection perspective, Clarington's portion of the flat rate is
structured as a user pay system and promotes fairness in that, due to bag limits, etc., a
residential taxpayer pays the same fee for the same service regardless of the assessed value of
the home. However, it is an administratively difficult system to administer due to the complexity
of identifying and tracking which properties should be charged for waste services. Council does
have the option to continue the flat rate on the collection side but this is only feasible if Council
chooses to opt out of the Regional contract.
CLARINGTON'S OPTION TO OPERATE
Council may chose to continue with the current program whereby Clarington is responsible for
residential waste collection and the Region is responsible for the blue box, haulage and
disposal. This is identified as Option 2 under Part "A" of the recommendations.
If this is the direction Council wants to give Staff, Council must approve a resolution to withdraw
from the process with the Region of Durham for Waste Management Services. Council then
would authorize Staff to re-tender the waste collection contract consistent with our current
responsibilities. Council should be aware that there might be increased costs for service if we
do not enter into an agreement with the Region under the existing RFP.
If Council wishes to increase the blue box program and implement a food waste program as
previously discussed, the end result would be a higher residential garbage rate for Clarington
residents. It is therefore the intent of Staff to request pricing for this additional service of a food
waste program as a separate optional price. Should Council choose not to go to tender,
Purchasing By-law#94-129, section 5, paragraph 5.06 would need to be waived.
WASTE DIVERSION
One of the objectives for the RFP for Integrated Waste by the Region was to streamline
garbage and recycling programs in Clarington and the three Northern Municipalities to promote
more waste diversion.
1306
REPORT NO.: FND-006-02 PAGE 7
It is recognized that the Region and all area Municipalities need to aggressively take action to
increase waste diversion. Even though the timing was right for Clarington and the Region to
partner with the RFP, regardless of what direction Council elects to choose, we need to
progressively move forward with initiatives with the Region to achieve the target of 50% of
waste diversion for landfill by 2007.
Some of these initiatives may include:
• Reduced residential garbage bag limit from four to three;
• Bag tags for anything over three with a user pay fee system;
• Yard waste placed in kraft paper bags;
• Better education in our schools, industry sector; and
• Establishment of a re-use centre.
WHO DOES WHAT COMMITTEE REPORT
As Council is aware, the Stage Two Report of the Who Does What Services Review has been
presented for discussion at the Region and at the area Municipalities. This study addressed the
business case of solid waste and the concept of a one tier Waste Management System. The
business case results are not supported at this time by the Municipality due to the theoretical
assumption made by the consultants with respect to cost savings in review of the one tier
model.
Clarington does support a one tier Waste Management model based on the economies of scale
marketing, promotion, education and a standard core level of collection services. Unfortunately,
two lakeside Municipalities have recently renewed their garbage and yard waste collection
contract, which will expire in or about 2008. Two other Municipalities use their own municipal
forces to actively provide their curbside collection.
All area Municipalities must be ready to consistently reduce weekly garbage limits, initiate
special programs and pilot projects to assist with the waste management strategy targets by
2007.
1307
REPORT NO.: FND-006-02 PAGE 8
SUMMARY
This is a complex issue both from a garbage collection service perspective, as well as from the
taxation perspective. Ultimately, several options have been presented for Council's
consideration. Queries with respect to the waste services should be directed to the Director of
Operations. The Director of Corporate Services has reviewed and concurs with the purchasing
issues included in this report.
It has been recognized that overall costs to the waste collection program will increase
substantially by the introduction of increased levels of service. It is also recognized that we
need to implement improvements during the next contract term to meet the waste diversion
targets as set out by 2007.
Attachment#1: Joint Works and Finance and Administration Committee Report 2002-J-10
Interested party to be advised of Council's decision:
Regional Municipality of Durham
Mr. Peter Watson
105 Consumers Drive
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 1C4
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905) 623-3379 F (905)623-0608
1AB
io2to1AR11 pm 4.22,03
Attachment I
THIS LETTER HAS BEEN
• I FORWARDED TO EACH:"'
AREA MUNICIPALITY"
The Regional
Municlpallty
of Durham March 8, 2002
Clerk's Department
Mrs. P.L. Barrie
605 ROSSLAND.ROAD E. Clerk
P.O.BOX 623
WHITBY,ON L1N 6A3 Municipality of Clarington
(905)668-7711 40 Temperance-Street-
WW .cler 668-9963 Bowmanville. ON •L1C W
www.clerks @region.durham.on.ca
Pat M.Madill,A.M.C.T.,cMM i REPORT ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL.434-2001 FOR THE
Regional Clerk CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF NON-HAZARDOUS-
GARBAGE,ORGANICS AND RECYCLABLE WASTE FROM
RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON AND THE TOWNSHIPS OF UXBRIDGE,:SCUGOG
'AND BROCK 020024-10) (Our File: 023: 00)
Mrs. Barrie, the Joint Finance and Administration and"Works
Committees.of Regional Council'considered the-above matter and
at a meeting held on March 6, 2002, the Council of the Regional
"Municipality of Durham adopted the following recommendations"of.."
the Committee,,as-amended:
a) THAT subject to the approval of the Municipal .Councils of
l.w> Ate,#.4 Clarington, Uxbridge, Scugog and'Brock:
i) THAT the Region adopt a by-taw to assume waste
collection responsibilities from the participating Area..'.
•.<_ �`# �):. Municipalities,'as permitted under the Regional
Municipalities Act, Section 150 (1); a"nd that none
participating Area Municipalities be advised"that they.
can.be exempt from the proposed Regional bylaw, as..
permitted in Section 150 2 of the Regional
Municipalities Act,
ii) THAT the Region enter into a six-year-agreement
commencing"September 1, 2002 with Miller Waste
_. ......._. __. .-t
Systems for the curbside collection of non-hazardous
garbage, organics,.and. recyclable wastes in the
Municipality of Clarington and the Townships of
"SERVICE EXCELLENCE ...../2
for' ur; 41l 1t �INITY"
1309
Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock(as proposed'in Miller's,:`
document of response to RFP 434-2001 lnnoi ativ4
Proposal"No. 3 -'and the recommended'option it
services as detailed on page eight of Report:k0024,
10, fora total annual.cost of$5,634,682;excluen0
taxes);
iii) THAT the proposed Regional by-law exemptfg non
participating municipalities provide that it cannot.be
repealed'oramended except with the consentofthe"
affected area municipality and unless a double :.
majority of all the votes.on the Regional Council are''
cast in its favour..
b) THAT the costs of the above recommended'integrated waste
collection,.haulage.and disposal contract be recovered:
through.the-Regional Solid Waste Tax Levy of participating
Area Municipalities;
c) THAT the Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to'execute
-the above noted collection contract agreement;.and:."-.,
d)- . -THAT a copy of.Report#2002-J.-10 from-the Commissioners.
of Works';and Finance,be forwarded to each of the-!
participating Area Municipalities and members of the
Region's Waste-Management-Advisory Committee for
information.
Based on the foregoing resolution would you please place.this.
issue before.your Council In order to determine whether your-
municipality wishes to be a participating or non-participating ...
municipality as it relates to waste collection,responsibilities':
Furthermore, for those municipalities who are not participating we
would ask that you please provide your municipality's consent:to,be
exempt from the by-law as provided for in Section 150(2) of the.
Regional Municipalities Act.
..../3
1 SI 0
Enclosed, for your information;is,a copy of Report.#2442-Jff4t the
'Commissioner's of Works and Finance.
P.M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM
Regional,C113rk
PMM%sc
Encl.
c: R.J. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
J.R. McCorkell, Commissioner of Works
B.J. Roy, Regional Solicitor
13 -1 1
Y •' 2
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report to: The Joint Works and Finance and Administration
Committee
From: J.R.McCorkell, Commissioner of Works
LW R.J. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
Report No.: 2002-J-10
Date: February 27, 2002
SUBJECT:
Report on Request for Proposal (RFP) 434-2001 for the Curbside Collection of
Non-hazardous Garbage, Organics, and Recyclable Waste from Residences and
Businesses in the Municipality of Clarington and the Townships of Uxbridge, Scugog
and Brock.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Joint Works and Finance and Administration Committee recommend to
Regional Council that:
A. Subject to the approval of the Municipal Councils of Clarington, Uxbridge,
Scugog, and Brock:
i. The Region adopt a Bylaw to assume waste collection responsibilities
from the participating Area Municipalities, as permitted under the
Regional Municipalities Act, Section 150 (1), and that non-participating
Area Municipalities be advised that they can be exempt from the proposed
Regional Bylaw, as permitted in Section 150 (2) of the Regional
Municipalities Act.
ii. The Region enter into a six-year agreement commencing
September 1, 2002 with Miller Waste Systems for the curbside collection
of non-hazardous garbage, organics, and recyclable wastes in the
Municipality of Clarington and the Townships of Uxbridge, Scugog and
Brock (as proposed in Miller's document of response to RFP 434-2001 -
Innovative Proposal No. 3 - and the recommended optional services as
detailed on page eight of this Report, for a total annual cost of$5,634,682,
excluding taxes);
B. The costs of the above recommended integrated waste collection, haulage and
disposal contract be recovered through the Regional Solid Waste Tax Levy of
participating Area Municipalities;
C. That the Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the above noted
collection contract agreement.
__ 1312
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 2
RECOMMENDATIONS.CONT'D:
D. That a copy of this report be forwarded to each of the participating Area
Municipalities and members of the Region's Waste Management Advisory
Committee for information.
REPORT:
1. ATTACHMENTS:
The following are included with this report as attachments:
1. Letter dated June 28, 2001 from the Municipality of Clarington supporting the
implementation of a curbside organics composting program, and work with the
Region to develop an acceptable integrated solid waste collection system with
cost recovery through the Regional Solid Waste Levy.
2. Letters dated July 17, 2001 and February 13, 2002, from the Township of
Uxbridge, confirming the Township's support for a Regional RFP for an
integrated collection system with cost recovered through the Regional Solid
Waste Tax Levy and supporting in principle the award of a contract.
3. Letter dated July 23, 2001 from the Township of Scugog, supporting a Regional
RFP for integrated waste collection with costs recovered through the Regional
Solid Waste Tax Levy.
4. Letter dated July 30, 2001 from the Township of Brock supporting a Regional
RFP for integrated waste collection.
5. RFP 434-2001 Summary Results (Table 1).
6. Preliminary Estimates of Solid Waste Tax Levy Impacts (Table 2).
2. BACKGROUND
• On April 11, 2001, Regional Council adopted the following recommendations from
the report of the Commissioner of Works and the Commissioner of Finance, "Review
of the Solid Waste Management System Study and the 2001 Proposed Current and
Capital Budget and Related Financing:"
"That the Durham Works Department and Finance Department staff work with
willing Area Municipalities to develop an acceptable integrated one tier solid
waste collection system with uniform service delivery"
and,
2
1313
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 3
2. BACKGROUND, CONT'D
"That in order to assist the Region in attaining the 50%diversion target by 2007
or sooner, a curbside organics composting program be implemented in the Region
of Durham through a partnership between the Region and interested Area
Municipalities"
• The Municipality of Clarington and the Townships of Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock
each stated an interest in pursuing a partnership with the Region to develop an
integrated waste collection service, including a curbside organics program.
• There was an enhanced opportunity to implement an integrated collection service in
these four municipalities since the Region's Blue Box collection contract, and the
Area Municipal garbage and yard waste collection contracts of these four
municipalities, were all set to expire in close proximity.
• On July 4,2001,Regional Council adopted the following recommendations:
"That, subject to the approval of the Townships of Uxbridge, Brock, and Scugog,
the Region call for Request for Proposals for the integrated collection of waste in
the Townships of Uxbridge, Brock, and Scugog for a period of six years starting
on Monday, April 29, 2002"
and,
"That, subject to the approval of the Municipality of Clarington, the Region call
for Request for Proposals for the integrated collection of waste in the
Municipality of Clarington for a period of six years starting on Monday, April 29,
2002"
• Working in partnership, the staff of the Region, Clarington, Brock, Uxbridge and
Scugog developed a set. of specifications for a RFP, including opportunities for
bidders to offer optional additional collection services, optional haulage and disposal
services, and alternative/innovative proposals. The goal in developing the RFP was
to foster standardized levels of service across the four municipalities, with enhanced
opportunities for residents to increase waste diversion.
• The RFP was made compatible with the Region's "Long Term Waste Management
Strategy Plan: 2000 to 2020", which was fully supported by the Region's Waste
Management Advisory Committee and adopted by Regional Council in December,
1999.
• On August 29, 2001, the Region issued RFP 434-2001 for the curbside collection of
non-hazardous garbage, organics, and recyclable waste from residences and small
businesses in the Municipality of Clarington and the Townships of Uxbridge, Scugog,
and Brock. The original closing date was September 25, 2001.
1314 3
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page-No. 4
2. BACKGROUND. CONT'D
• Before the closing date, three contractors requested an extension to the closing date in
order that they could properly prepare their submission. A second extension was also
granted. The RFP officially closed on November 6, 2001.
3. RFP 434-2001
• RFP 434-2001 was designed to focus on:
— increasing residential waste diversion through recycling;
— increasing residential waste diversion through composting;
— reducing the amount of garbage residue for disposal; and,
— implementing an integrated waste system for the collection,processing and
disposal of residential wastes.
• The RFP identified the following service areas:
— the combined Townships of Uxbridge, Scugog, and Brock;
— the Municipality of Clarington; and,
— the Townships of Uxbridge, Scugog, and Brock and the Municipality of
Clarington combined.
3.1 Proposed Core Collection Services
• The RFP identified the following proposed core collection services and requested
pricing for:
— Weekly garbage collection with a three bag limit;
— Weekly source separated food waste collection (to be phased in);
— Bi-weekly Blue Box recycling collection for cardboard, papers, mixed
containers, including an expanded list of new materials (the new contract will
include all plastic bottles, empty aerosol cans and empty paint cans, in
addition to the current blue box program);
— Two new Blue Boxes for all new curbside customers-to encourage recycling;
— Brush, leaf and yard waste collection using kraft paper yard waste bags or
open top rigid containers, and a three bundle limit for tied brush (8 times per
year in the Townships and 24 times per year in Clarington);
— Christmas tree collection (the second and third Mondays in January in the
Townships and the second Monday in January in Clarington);
— White goods collection(call in service in the Townships and weekly service in
Clarington);
— Apartment building waste collection in the Townships;
— Twice weekly collection in designated business districts in the Townships;
— Twice weekly street container collection.
• These services are to be provided on a four day a week basis, Tuesdays to Fridays
between 7:00 am and 4:00 pm.
1 . 15 4 ,
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 5
3.2 Proposed Optional Collection and Related Services
The RFP identified a number of proposed optional collection services and requested
pricing for:
— Weekly Blue Box recycling collection;
— Weekly or bi-weekly collection of polycoated and gable top containers;
— Weekly or bi-weekly collection of polystyrene products;
— Weekly or bi-weekly collection of plastic film;
— Weekly or bi-weekly collection using single or multi-compartment cart(s);
— Monthly call in bulky goods collection;
— Special events collection services;
— A local site office in Clarington; and,
— Use of the Region's landfill site in Brock Township.
3.3 Proposed Optional Haulage and Disposal Services
• The RFP identified a number of proposed optional haulage and disposal services and
requested pricing for:
— Garbage and bulky goods for disposal;
— Food wastes for composting;
— Christmas trees for composting;
— Brush, leaf and yard wastes for composting;
— Blue Box recyclables for sorting and baling only; and,
— White goods for processing and re-use. .
4. RFP 434-2001 SUBMISSIONS
• On November 6, 2001, the Region received submissions from the following:
— BFI Canada Inc.
— Canadian Waste Services
— Miller Waste Systems
• BFI Canada Inc. submitted proposals for core waste collection services only.
Canadian Waste Services and Miller Waste Systems submitted proposals on core
collection.services in addition to optional services for haulage and disposal.
• All proposals were reviewed by the Region for compliance to the mandatory
conditions contained in the RFP documents. All bids were satisfactory.
• The time extensions to the closing date necessitated a delay in the anticipated
start-date of the collection contract. The earliest revised start date is currently
estimated to be September 1, 2002. This start-date is subject to Regional and local
Area Municipal Council approvals being received in March 2002, and includes six
months to plan revised collection routes, schedule education and promotion activities
and arrange for the delivery of new collection trucks, etc.
- 13165
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 6
4.1 Alternative and Innovative Service Proposals
• In addition to basic RFP requirements, alternative service proposals or innovative
proposals were solicited. The Region received three innovative proposals, all from
Miller Waste Systems:
Miller's Innovative Proposal No. 1: This proposal included the weekly
collection of food waste, co-mingled Blue Box recyclables, and garbage using
three compartment compactor trucks.
Miller's Innovative Proposal No. 2: Proposal 2 included the collection of food
waste and garbage in the first week, followed by food waste and co-mingled Blue
Box recyclables in the second week using two compartment compactor trucks:
Miller's Innovative Proposal No. 3: Miller's third proposal involved the weekly
collection of food waste and garbage using two compartment compactor trucks,
plus the biweekly collection of Blue Box recyclables using two compartment
recycling trucks with Blue Box materials collected as co-mingled containers and
co-mingled fibres.
• The three innovative proposals from Miller Waste Systems were provided with
the caveat that service prices are based on all four municipalities participating.
4.2 RFP 434-2001 Summary Results
• Table 1, attached as Attachment No. 5, shows the RFP summary results for:
— the lowest cost single bidder, excluding innovative proposals;
— the lowest cost two bidders;
— the lowest cost innovative bid;
— the costs for the various optional services; and,
— the recommended bid proposal.
5. RECOMMENDED BID PROPOSAL
• It is recommended that the Region accept the lowest cost innovative bid, received
from Miller Waste Systems as Innovative Proposal No. 3. This Proposal meets all
RFP requirements and includes the collection of core waste materials, recycling
processing, organics composting, and the haulage and disposal of all wastes collected.
Including collection, processing, haulage and disposal, it is the lowest cost option.
1 . 17 �
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 7
5. RECOMMENDED BID PROPOSAL CONT'D
• The following is a description of the proposed Miller Innovative Proposal No. 3
submission:
— Food waste and garbage are collected weekly in`two compartment compactor
trucks;
— Blue Box recyclables are collected once every two weeks in two compartment
recycling trucks(one compartment for co-mingled containers and the other for
co-mingled papers and cardboard);
— All waste materials are delivered to Miller's waste facility in Pickering for
further processing, except garbage from Brock Township, which is to be
delivered to the Region's landfill site;
— The garbage is hauled from Pickering and landfilled at the WMI Pinetree
Acres landfill site in Michigan;
— The food waste is hauled from Pickering and composted at the Miller Waste
compost site in Richmond Hill;
— Blue Box recyclables are sorted and baled in Pickering by Miller Waste for
the Region to exclusively market and sell; _
— Brush, leaves, yard waste, and Christmas trees are hauled and composted by
Ontario Disposal at a compost site in Oshawa or at the Miller Waste compost
site in Richmond Hill;
— White goods are processed at the Miller Waste site in Pickering.
• The only difference between the requirements of the Region's basic RFP and the
Miller Waste Innovative Proposal No. 3 is the method in which the Blue Box
recyclables are collected.
• The basic RFP required recyclables to be collected in three streams (cardboard, paper,
and co-mingled containers). Innovative Proposal No. 3 collects recyclables in two
streams (co-mingled fibres and co-mingled containers) with Miller Waste separating
the Region's recyclables at their own waste facility in Pickering. The innovative
proposal No. 3 collection component does not have the lowest cost, but the proposal
offers savings on the recycling processing end, which more than offset higher
collection costs, and contribute to an overall savings compared to other proposals.
• The Region would continue to market and sell Blue Box materials. Depending on
market conditions, these recyclables can have a value that historically has fluctuated
between $1 million and $4 million per year. It is in the best interests of the Region to
continue to market our own recyclables.
7
1318
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No: 8
5.1 Recommended Optional Services
• The RFP contains a number of optional services and the following are recommended
for inclusion in the award of this RFP:
— Use of the Region's landfill site in Brock Township for Brock Township's
garbage waste, to generate an annual savings of over$ 91,000;
— Have one contractor collect waste materials and also haul it and compost,
process,re-use or dispose of the waste materials collected;
— Expand the Blue Box program to collect additional Blue Box recyclables
above those materials proposed in the basic RFP (i.e., all plastic bottles, empty
paint and aerosol cans) including other materials, where there is a
demonstrated market and non-prohibitive collection and processing costs.
The recommendation is to include polycoated and gable top containers'and
aseptic containers for an additional gross cost of only $ 8,853 per year (from
which recycling revenues would be deducted);
— Forego the requirement for the collection contractor to maintain a local site
office in Clarington saving$50,400 annually.
5.2 Recommended Bulky Goods Service
• Uxbridge and Clarington currently provide their residents with a bulky goods service
as part of their basic curbside garbage collection service. Depending on the amount,
urgency and type of wastes, residents also have the option of paying a private waste
collector to collect and dispose of these goods or using the Region's Waste Disposal
Sites.
• There are advantages from providing a separate curbside bulky goods collection and
disposal service. Bulky goods are those types of materials that generally do not fit
into a plastic garbage bag, such as sofas, carpets, plastic lawn furniture, mattresses,
etc.
• However, it could be argued that collecting bulky goods as part of regular garbage
collection defeats the main purpose of having a limit on the number of garbage bags
that will be picked up and disposed of by the municipality at municipal cost. In
addition, including this service with the regular garbage service rather than
implementing a user pay system may discourage alternative waste diversion options
(recycling, reusing, donating) and increase the amount of waste unnecessarily going
to landfill.
319
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 9
5.2 Recommended Bulky Goods Service, Cont'd
• An alternative argument is that implementing a user pay system for bulky goods
increases the risk of illegal dumping, especially in rural areas. Although this is a
recognized potential risk in implementing any new diversion initiative which
imposes limits or costs on residents, the risk is deemed to be small, as compared to
the available benefits from increased diversion activities.' The public generally
supports a user pay system as providing proper incentives, rewarding those who
divert and imposing true costs on those who do not.
• The Region and participating Area Municipalities are continuing their review of
the option of implementing a user pay system for bulky goods pick-up in
participating municipalities. There has also been some discussion as to whether
white goods pick-up should also be user pay. The issue is not a contract issue,but
a policy and cost recovery issue, and the price for bulky and white goods services
will be included in overall waste service contract costs, regardless of the final
decision on the matter.
• It is important to note however, that calculations in attachments five and six assume
that bulky goods services would be fully cost recovered through implementation of a
user pay system. It is also assumed in the calculations that white goods pick-up
would be included in core collection costs.
• The user pay issue will be revisited in the 2002 Review of the Solid Waste
Management System and the 2002 Proposed Current and Capital Budgets and
Related Financing.
5.3 Optional Collection Services Not Currently Recommended
• The following optional collection services are not recommended at this time:
— The film plastics industry has advised not to include their materials in any
recycling collection program since current markets,are unstable and there is
no demand for the material;
— The collection of polystyrene products and packaging was also considered
premature as end markets are very limited and pricing unstable. There is just
one vendor in Ontario and polystyrene loads must be scheduled 12 months in
advance;
— Moving to a weekly collection of recyclables is currently cost prohibitive and
increasing the frequency of recyclables collection is not deemed necessary at
this time. This option should, however, be revisited in the future, as the
proportion of recyclables increases relative to the garbage stream;
— Bidders on this RFP provided no options for a single or multi-compartment
wheeled cart(s) collection system.
- 1-320 9
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 10
6. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT
The Regional Municipalities Act includes the following relevant sections:
150 (l) A Regional Council may pass a by-law to assume any or all of the
waste management powers for all of its area municipalities
150(2) A Regional Council may,with the consent of the council of an area
municipality,by by-law exempt that area municipality from a
by-law under subsection(1) but the consent is not required in
respect of a repeal of the by-law."
• The eight Area Municipalities are currently responsible for garbage, leaf and yard
.waste collection services. The Region is responsible for the education and promotion
of waste diversion programs, the transfer, haulage and disposal of garbage, the
composting of leaf and yard waste, and the collection, processing and marketing of
Blue Box recyclables. The Region currently operates a Recycling Centre, a rural
landfill site, and four waste management facilities.
• It is recommended that the Region pass a By-law to assume all Solid Waste
Management responsibilities within the Region, as per Section 150 (1) of the
Regional Municipalities Act. It is also recommended that, subject to the
successful transfer of these responsibilities, the Region recover the costs of the
integrated waste management service through the Regional Solid Waste Tax
Levies of participating municipalities.
• It is also recommended that the Region advise non-participating Area
Municipalities that they can be exempt from the Bylaw transferring waste
management powers to the Region, as per Section 150 (2) of the Regional
Municipalities Act.
7. CONSULTATIONS WITH PARTICIPATING AREA MUNICIPALITIES
• Regional staff have met on several occasions with senior staff from participating Area
Municipalities to provide details of the RFP submissions, including financial impacts,
and to obtain feedback.
• In February 2002, the Region met with each of the Area Municipal Councils to
review:
— the integrated waste collection, haulage, and disposal RFP;
— the increased level of waste collection services;
— the overall costs of providing waste management services;
— the results of the RFP financial review; and,
— the recommended program.
1321 10
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. I I
7. CONSULTATIONS WITH PARTICIPATING AREA
MUNICIPALITIES. CONT'D
• The Township of Uxbridge has indicated by Council resolution that it supports in
principle the award of a contract to supply integrated waste collection in the
Township of Uxbridge.
8. FINANCIAL SUMMARY AND ISSUES
8.1 Tax Levy Impacts
• Finance Department staff, in cooperation with the Finance staff of Clarington,
Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock, have completed a preliminary estimate of the full-year
tax levy impacts of the proposed integrated waste service(see Attachment 6).
• The analysis was based upon the 2001 Regional Waste Budget and 2001 Property
Tax data. The 2002 Regional Solid Waste Management Budget is currently under
review. Area Municipal staff provided local tax levy impacts.
• The Regional Levy is currently based upon the calculation of a Region-wide Uniform
Rate, which is currently set at $86 per tonne. This rate is used as a basis for
recovering net Regional waste costs from the Area Municipalities and is levied for all
municipal tonnes entering landfill sites, waste management facilities, recycling
centres and composting facilities.
• The analysis of Solid Waste Levy impacts from implementation of the proposed
Integrated Waste Services Program separates the Regional budget components to
ensure that only costs common to the eight municipalities are charged to all eight
municipalities (e.g. 3Rs promotion and education, administration and landfill
perpetual care). Waste Management Facility costs are also calculated separately and
estimated for each Area Municipality based upon 2001 usage and fees.
• It is assumed for the financial analysis that the cost components for collection,
recycling processing, haulage and disposal, under the proposed new integrated waste
services program, are fully recovered from Clarington, Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock.
Collection costs are recovered on a dollar per stop basis while processing, haulage
and disposal costs are recovered on a dollars per tonne basis, consistent with
contractor pricing. The contract prices for these components are applicable to the full
six-year contract, albeit with inflation and fuel cost adjustments.
132211
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 12
8.1 Tax Levy Impacts. Cont'd
• In reviewing proposed integrated waste service costs and levy impacts due to RFP
434-2001, it is appropriate to consider normal cost increases anticipated from
the requirement for new local collection contracts. These include cost increases
that would be incurred regardless of whether an Area Municipality participated
in the proposed integrated system or entered a new local contract on their own.
The tax levy impacts herein are compared only to the 2001 Regional and local Solid
Waste Tax Levy requirements.
• Participating Area Municipalities anticipated varying degrees of cost increases
compared to their existing collection contracts, which were awarded five to six years
ago. Price increases were anticipated due to new market prices, increased operating
costs to maintain collection truck fleets, changed tonnage projections, other
inflationary pressures and/or the introduction of some or all of the proposed new
collection services.
• Proposals for new collection services also can increase the costs of collection, but can
significantly increase diversion levels.
• Each municipality that participates in the integrated contract would see increased
diversion levels through the following new additional services:
• Removal of food waste from the garbage stream;
• Increased leaf and yard waste pick-up;
• The addition of empty paint and aerosol cans, all plastic bottles and gable-top
and polycoated containers to the Blue Box program.
• As noted previously, the tax levy impacts forecast are preliminary, and can be
affected by 2002 Budget and property tax changes. While no significant change is
currently anticipated in the total value of the 2002 Budget, the preliminary analysis
does not fully account for new Waste Management Facility fees implemented in July
2001. This effect will be positive since the fees move the Waste Management
Facilities closer to full cost recovery. With full cost recovery, no costs would be
recovered through the Regional Solid Waste Tax Levy.
• The preliminary analysis of tax levy impacts also does not consider increasing
volumes of recycled materials, which would be generated from the proposed
expansion of the Blue Box program. Additional volumes of recyclable material will
generate additional revenues to offset costs.
• Recycling revenues, which are based upon market conditions beyond the Region's
control, have and will continue to present forecasting risk year-to-year, due to the
potential for significant material price fluctuations.
13 23 12
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 13
8.2 Other Financial Issues
The Requirement for Participation by All Four Municipalities
• Contract costs and estimated tax levy impacts in Attachments five and six include
three bids, the lowest innovative bid (recommended), the lowest single bidder under
the basic RFP and the lowest two-bidder option. It is important to note that the
lowest innovative bid and the lowest single bidder option depend upon the
combined participation of each of Clarington, Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock.
• If, given local financial or other considerations or currently unforeseen impacts, any
of the four participating Area Municipalities find the recommended integrated service
unacceptable, or if Area Municipal participants feel it would be more beneficial to
divide the contract between Clarington and the Northern municipalities, the next
lowest acceptable bid becomes the lowest two bidder option.
• Under the lowest two-bidder option, Canadian Waste Systems would be the
contractor in Clarington and Miller Waste Systems would be the contractor for
Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock. The two-bidder option, although providing the lowest
cost integrated collection service, would add $52,426 overall to the basic RFP costs
compared to the lowest innovative bid (due to higher cost recycling processing and
disposal costs). Adding polycoated containers to the Blue Box, also adds another
$29,313 to the total contract cost under the two bidder option, compared to the lowest
innovative bid, although bulky goods collection costs under the two bidder option are
$23,920 lower than the lowest innovative bid.
• When all Regional Solid Waste net costs are considered, moving to the
two-contractor option is estimated to increase the total levy impact in each of the four
municipalities by between I% and 2%.
• It is recognized that at the time of writing, the staff and local Councils of the
four participating Area Municipalities continue their review of RFP 434-2001,
including review of any implications from the transfer of local waste collection
responsibilities and costs to the Region.
The Transfer of Collection Costs to the Regional Tax Levy
• It is recommended that, given the successful transfer of local collection
responsibilities to the Region, the costs of the integrated waste system be fully
recovered through the Regional Solid Waste Tax Levy, which will be charged to all
assessed properties in the four municipalities.
1,324 13
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 14
8.2 Other Financial Issues, Cont'd
RFP 332-2001: Receiving and Hauling of Non-Hazardous Residential Food,
Garbage and Yard Wastes for Composting or Disposal
• In December 2001 the Region of Durham issued RFP 332-2001 for the receiving and
hauling of non-hazardous residential food, garbage and yard wastes for composting or
disposal. This RFP is set to close March 7, 2002.
• As noted in section 3.3, optional haulage and disposal services were also solicited
under RFP 434-2001, with proposals received by both Miller Waste Systems and
Canadian Waste Services to haul and dispose of food, garbage and yard wastes from
Clarington,Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock.
• The recommendation to accept the Miller Innovative No. 3 proposal means
acceptance of pricing for each of the collection, processing, haulage and
composting/disposal components of the contract. There is potential for
RFP 332-2001 to generate different pricing for some of these services. However,
Works Department staff deem this risk to be negligible, and anticipate options and
pricing submitted under RFP 332-2001 to be comparable.
Recycling Processing
• RFP 434-2001 bids submitted by Miller Waste Systems, including the recommended
Innovative Proposal No. 3, include the processing of Blue Box recycling materials
from Clarington, Scugog, Uxbridge and Brock at Miller's facility in Pickering.
Although the Region would continue to market and sell Blue Box materials collected,
processing would, no longer occur at the Region's recycling facility. In 2001, Blue
Box recyclables collected from these four municipalities accounted for 22% of the
Region's total curbside Blue Box program, with Clarington's tonnage representing
approximately 12.5%.
• A recycling facility with growing volumes generally has falling per unit costs to the
point at which it reaches optimal capacity. A recent study commissioned by the
Works Department demonstrated that the Region could expand recycling operations
at a cost comparable to the private sector. If the Region were to build a new recycling
centre, it was estimated that the present value unit costs of the operation would fall by
over 60%by year 10, due to increasing volumes and the pay-down of fixed costs.
• Therefore, it is important to note that removing recycling processing volumes
could impact the economics of the Region's current recycling processing
operations as well as the timing of any future decision to expand recycling
capacity.
1 : 25 14
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 15
8.2 Other Financial Issues
Recycling Processing, Cont'd
• Since the Region is less likely to build significant new recycling capacity in the
shorter-term, perhaps for most of the six-year term of the proposed integrated
collection contract, the impact of removing recycling volumes as proposed in
RFP 434-2001 is likely to be negligible. Furthermore, although a detailed
analysis has not been carried out, the shorter-term effect of diverting a portion
of the recycling volumes from the Region's existing facility may have positive
cost implications for the Region, since the existing recycling facility is operating
relatively close to full capacity.
• Recently the Works Department has commissioned studies to examine the means to
ensure sufficient recycling capacity will be available to match the growing volume of
recyclable materials that will be collected. The Region should continue to investigate
its future processing options with financial/economic implications fully assessed.
Options include the question of whether the Region should invest in a new recycling
processing facility and determination of whether the-operation of that facility would
be public, private, or determined through a competitive bidding process open to both
sectors.
9. CONCLUSION
• It is recommended that the Miller Waste System's Innovative Proposal No. 3 be
accepted along with the recommended optional services as outlined in this report.
Waste collection services will be standardized and more materials will be recycled
and composted. The contractor is capable of undertaking the work.
• If Regional Council approval is received and confirmed by the Area Municipalities,
the Region and its contractor will prepare for the implementation of this new service
effective September 1, 2002. This will include arranging new collection routes and
developing an aggressive education and promotion program using the local news
media. A new waste management information guidebook and calendar will be
distributed to all households in the participating municipalities, and will be developed
with input from Area Municipal staff.
J26
Report No.: 2002-J-10 Page No. 16
9. CONCLUSION. CONT'D
• Under the Miller Innovative Proposal 3, the cost of collecting all curbside residential
wastes, composting food and yard waste materials,processing an enhanced number of
blue box recyclables, and the hauling and disposing of wastes from the four
participating Area Municipalities is approximately$5.6 million.
IMcCorkell, 4:ng. R.J. C app, CA
C missioner of Works Commissioner of Finance
Recommended for presentation to Committee
G.H. Cubitt, MSW
Chief Administrative Officer
16
1327
M V L.QLI It11G11 V T(! f OyC 1 V 1 L
JUL09'01 ArI 9:
• ,MUNICIPALITY OF '
_ �ar�inaton
• '""ONTARIO l.LarKll J lTtrr,t 1 v1Cly r
Original '
To
Copy
1 1
June 28, 2001 ATTEi�'; ,; To: J. ,Q,yyl cC pr .j/
' I
COPIES TO: C.C.: File '
Ms. P. Madill
Regional Clerk e Apps Ad)on ^`_
Regional Municipality of Durham .r- -
605 Rossland Road DURHAM REGION
Whitby, Ontario �CEIVED----
L 1 N 6A3
JUL 2 3 2001
Dear Ms. Madill: WORKS
DEPT.
Re: Clarington's Curbside Garbage Collection
At a meeting held on June 25, 2001, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington
passed the following resolution:
"THAT Report WD-35-01 be received;
THAT; in order to assist in attaining a 50% diversion target by 2007 or
sooner, a curbside organics composting program be implemented in the
Municipality of Clarington through a negotiated partnership with the
Region of Durham;
THAT the Public Works Department and Treasury Department staff work
with the Region of Durham to develop an acceptable integrated solid
waste collection system;
THAT all costs associated with the integrated waste collection system be
recovered through a Regional Solid Waste Levy; and
17
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET - BOWMANVILLE • ONTARIO • LIC 3A6 • (90S) 623.3379 • FAX 623.4169
WFRAITF• www.municioalilv.clannoton.on.ca lerouorrle
1328
Attachment 11 Page 2 of 2
P. Madill -2- June 28, 200'1
THAT a copy of Report WD-35-01 and Council's decision on this matter
be forwarded to the Region of Durham."
Enclosed, as directed by Council, is a copy of Report No. WD-35-01.
Yours ruly,
' Patti arse .M.C.I
icipal erk
Enc.
cc: S. Vokes, Director of Public Works
13298
Attachment 12 Page 1 of 2
The Corporation of the Town Hall
Tt,y
O��* .� 51 Toronto Street South
P.O. Box 190
O� Uxbridge, ON L91)1T1
Telephone (905) 852-9181
Facsimile (905) 852-9674
t -.,o
Uxbr*e Web www toavn.wcbdc1gc.on.ca
dkW
In Vc Rcoonal Municipality of DurMn
July 17, 2001
E DURHAM REGION
t---" - ED
2001
Ms. Debi Bently =PIEszo: S
Deputy Clerk T.
Region of Durham
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
RE: Waste Action Plan for Future Regional Waste Management Contracts
Township File: GR-314.4
Please accept this letter as confirmation that the Township of Uxbridge supports the
Region's call for Requests for Proposals for an integrated collection of waste in the
Township of Uxbridge, the costs of which shall go on the Regional levy.
Yours truly
>1�
?k Valter E. Taylor
Township Clerk
/nas
cc: J.R. McCorkell, Commissioner of Works L--'
Peter Watson, Manager, Waste Management
1330
Attachment 12 Page 2 of 2
The Corporation of the Town Hau
51 Toronto Street South
Toww�p P.O.Box 190
Uxbridge. ON L9P M
Of Telephone (905) 852-9181
Facsimile (905) 852-9674
Uxbridge web www.toaro.uxbricc.on.ca
In Ik Rcgbnal Municipality of Dudne
February 13, 2002 DURH MREGIO
RECENED
Peter Watson EE 8 1 $ 2002
Manager, Waste Management WORKS
Region of Durham Works Department DEPT.
105 Consumers Drive
Whitby, Ontario
L1N oA3
RE: INTEGRATED WASTE SERVICES
TOWNSHIP FILE: GR-314.4
Please be advised that the Council of the Township of Uxbridge at its regular meeting
held on Monday, February 11`h, 2002 adopted the following recommendation:
"THAT the Council of the Township of Uxbridge hereby supports in principle the
awarding of a contract to supply integrated waste collection in the Township of
Uxbridge."
Yours truly
Walter E. Taylor
Township Clerk
/nas
20
1331
Attacnment fs Page i or i
TOWNSHIF OF SCUCOG
181 PERRY STREET Phone:905.985-7346
BOX 780, PORT PERRY Main Office Pau:905.985-9914
ONTARIO L91, I A7 Clerk's Office Fax:905.985.1931
as as
1OW"SNIPw SCUQft
YVONNE de WIT , B.Math,MBA KIM COATES, X.M.C.T.
Chief Administrative Officer Clerk
July 23, 2001
Ms. Debi Bently ;OPiES TO:
Deputy Clerk
Region of Durham i
605 Rossland Road East •a.,�. . -�
Whitby, Ontario
L1 N 6A3
Dear Ms. Bently:
Re: Waste Action Plan for Future Regional Waste Management Contracts
Please accept this letter as confirmation that the Township of Scugog supports the
Region's call for Requests for Proposals for an integrated collection of waste in the
Township of Scugog, the costs of which shall go on the Regional levy.
Yours truly,
v nne de Wit, B.Math., MBA
ief Administrative Officer
ERECEIVED REGION
cc: J. R. McCorkell, Commissioner of Works
P. Watson, Manager, Waste Management 6 2001
AKS
PT.
2I
1 � 3E �UlS ftiLAKE
�J�
Mamma f4 Page 1 of 1
lit
THE CORPORATION OF
THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK
IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
1 CAMERON ST. E., P.O. BOX 10, CANNINGTON, ONTARIO LOE 1 EO (705) 432-2355
July 30,2001 DURHAMR,
RECENED
AUC - 3 2001
W.
Ms. Debi A. Bentley CMO,CMM III - tNORr
Deputy Clerk DEPT.
Region of Durham
605 Rossland Road East
P.O. Box 623
Whitby,Ontario
L 1 N 6A3
Dear Ms.Bentley:
Re: Waste Action Plan for Future Regional Waste Management
Contracts(#2001-WR-11) Your File: 02300
The Township of Brock supports the Region of Durham's call for Request for Proposals for the
integrated collection of waste in the Township of Brock.
Yours truly,
THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK
George S. Graham,AMCT, CMC
Clerk-Administrator
GSG:ac
cc: J.R. McCorkell, Commissioner of Works
Peter Watson, Manager,Waste Management s/
P. Gillies, B.A.G.
33
22
Attachment 15 Page 1 of 1
Table 1: RFP 434.2001
Summary Results
Lowest Lowest Lowest
Proposal single bidder two bidders innovative bid
contractor for the Townships Miller Waste Systems Miller Waste Systems Miller Waste Systems
contractor for Clarington Miller Waste Systems Canadian Waste Systems Miller Waste Systems
basic RFP:
garbage&yard waste collection 2,545,853 2,360,931 2,523,005
recycling collection 1,045,368 1,107,935 899,304
haulage&disposal 2,104,655 2,259,789 2,253,920
approx.basic RFP costs $5,695,876 $5,728,655 $5,676,229
options:
add polycoated containers 12,508 38,166 8,853
add polystyrene products 29,766 46,499 26,112
increase for weekly recycling 414,120 579,277 n/a
add bulky goods 92,846 68,926 92,846
no Clarington office required -50,400 n/a -50,400
use single or muti cart systems no bid no bid no bid
Recommended service:
garbage&yard waste collection 2,523,005
recycling collection 899,304
haulage&disposal 2,253,920
sub-total 5,676,229
add polycoated containers 8,853
add bulky goods service 92,846
bulky goods user fees -92,846
no Clarington office required -50,400
Total gross RFP costs $5,634,682
23
334
REPORT#2002440 Attachment#6 Page 1 of 2
REPORT ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 434-2001 FOR THE CURBSIDE
COLLECTIONOF GARBAGE, ORGANICS, AND RECYCLABLE WASTE
IN CLARINGTON, UXBRIDGE, SCUGOG AND BROCK
TABLE 2: LOWEST COST BIDS:
ESTIMATED FULL-YEAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IMPACTS
Lowest Lowest Single Lowest
Innovative Bid Bidder Basic RFP Two-Bidder
Recommended Option
Clarin iton Impact ($) ($) ($)
Local Levy decrease -939,506 -939,506 -939,506
w Regional Levy increase +1,329,016 +1,339,017 +1,366,830
Combined Local & Regional Levy +389,510 +399,511 +427,324
Combined % Increase 13% 14% 14%
Uxbridge Impact
Local Levy decrease -293,314 -293,314 -293,314
Regional Levy increase', +369,078 +371,934 +385,565
Combined Local & Regional Levy +75,764 +78,620 +92,251
Combined % Increase 9% 9% 11%
Scaaoa Impact
Local Levy decrease -462,000 -462,000 -462,000
Regional Levy increase +550,050 +554,505 +559,908
Combined Local & Regional Levy +88,050 +92,505 +97,908
Combined % Increase 6.7% 7.0% 7.4%
NOTE: Preliminary estimates—based upon the 2001 Solid Waste Budget and 2001 Property Tax data
1 .
REPORT#2002440 Attachment#6 Page 2 of 2
REPORT ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 434-2001 FOR THE CURBSIDE
COLLECTIONOF GARBAGE, ORGANICS, AND RECYCLABLE WASTE
IN CLARINGTON, UXBRIDGE, SCUGOG AND BROCK
TABLE 2: LOWEST COST BIDS:
ESTIMATED FULL-YEAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IMPACTS
Lowest Lowest Single Lowest
Innovative Bid Bidder Basic Two-Bidder
RFP Option
Brock Impact ($) ($) ($)
Local Levy decrease -169,847 -169,847 -169,847
Regional Levy increase +300,832 +303,167 +313,435
Combined Local & Regional Levy +130,985 +133,320 +143,588
Combined % Increase 20% 20% 22%
z�
cJt
NOTE: Preliminary estimates— based upon the 2001 Solid Waste Budget and 2001 Property Tax data