COUNTY OF SIMCOE
To:
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Section:
Corporate Services – Solid Waste Management
Item Number:
CCW 15-078
Meeting Date:
February 26, 2015
Subject:
Materials Management Facility – Siting Methodology and Evaluation Criteria
Recommendation:
THAT staff be directed to follow the general siting process for the Materials Management Facility as
outlined within Item CCW 15-078;
AND THAT site evaluation criteria outlined within Item CCW 15-078 be applied to County-owned
properties;
AND THAT the methodology to seek willing vendor privately-owned sites be initiated and site
evaluation criteria applied to these sites as outlined within Item CCW 15-078;
AND THAT the short list of viable sites for the Materials Management Facility (County and/or privatelyowned) be presented to County Council for direction following the evaluation process.
Executive Summary:
In August 2014, County Council approved furthering development of a Materials Management Facility
(MMF) and extending the scope of work assigned to Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to provide
engineering services for siting. The MMF, a facility for the consolidation and transfer of garbage,
organics, and recycling, would be an integral part of the County’s waste management system – the link
between collection operations and moving material to final waste disposal/processing locations.
In consideration of synergies between the two Solid Waste Management infrastructure projects,
development of siting methodology and evaluation criteria has been completed simultaneously for both
the MMF and Organics Processing Facility (OPF). This methodology will determine the framework for
how potential sites will be identified and evaluated, ultimately presenting a preferred site for each of the
facilities. In consultation with the County’s Project Team, and incorporating feedback from the public,
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) has prepared the first of a series of siting reports for the MMF,
presenting a proposed methodology and outlining evaluation criteria that will be applied to prospective
sites.
February 26, 2015
Committee of the Whole CCW 15-078
2
It is proposed that the siting process encompass three major stages – preparation and endorsement of
the siting methodology and evaluation criteria, evaluation of a long list of sites using exclusionary and
additional criteria (such as proximity to sensitive receptors), and a comprehensive, comparative
evaluation of the short list of sites. This process will include consultation with the Community
Engagement Committee, public information sessions, and direction from County Council at key
milestones. The preferred site for the MMF is expected to be presented to County Council in
early 2016.
Optimizing the location for the MMF considers the origin of waste being collected throughout the
County. The center of waste generation was determined using Geographic Information System (GIS)
data, with a 15 km radius defining the optimal search area. This centrally-located search area
encompasses lands within Springwater, Oro-Medonte, Innisfil, Essa, and Clearview. It is proposed that
existing County-owned sites (such as open and closed landfills and County forest tracts) and willing
vendor privately-owned sites, sought through a search of the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and a
formal Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) process, be evaluated concurrently. From this, a
short list of sites will be determined for comparative evaluation.
Staff seeks Council direction on moving forward with the siting process and evaluation of sites as
proposed within this Item. Further to this, the REOI process for privately-owned sites will begin and
extend through the spring, with the short list of sites presented to County Council in late summer prior
to a series of public information sessions.
Background/Analysis/Options:
Assessing Options for Transfer
When the Solid Waste Management Strategy was approved in 2010, all County managed garbage was
landfilled in the County and organics were transferred from three waste management facilities. Waste
collection contractors were responsible for recyclables processing and marketing with the exception of
the North Simcoe contract area where the County managed this material at the North Simcoe Material
Recycling Facility. The Strategy outlined some short and long-term options for transfer, including
utilization of “Transtor” units for recycling (hydraulic bins that receive incoming material and store it
temporarily). The report noted, however, that longer-term transfer requirements were less clear as the
next collection contract had yet to be procured, future processing arrangements for recycling and
organics were unknown, and Council direction on waste export was uncertain. It recommended
completion of procurement processes for the next collection contract and for waste export prior to final
determination of the preferred transfer system.
Since 2010, the following progress has been made on assessing the County’s options for transfer:
Item CS 11-103 – Recyclables Transfer Facilities Funding Application, June 15, 2011
 presented details of a study undertaken by the Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF), indicating
that based on the tonnage of recycling managed by the County, Transtor units would not be a
viable option. Utilization of four transfer locations with conventional clear-span buildings with
loading platforms was recommended.
Application for CIF Funding
In 2011, the County began working with CIF on an application for funding construction of three
transfer facilities utilizing Site 10 – Nottawasaga, Site 11 – Oro, and Site 13 - Tosorontio. CIF was
created to help Ontario municipalities undertake best practices initiatives to improve the effectiveness
and efficiencies of blue box recycling programs.
February 26, 2015
Committee of the Whole CCW 15-078
3
The application initially assumed a decentralized model, transferring at various existing waste
management facilities as had been outlined in the Strategy. It became clear upon discussions with
CIF that a single, central transfer point would be most efficient, resulting in greater economies of
scale and reduced operating costs.
Considering best practices, their funding would be contingent on the potential for the facility to be
jointly utilized by other local municipal jurisdictions on a cost recovery basis. In consideration of this,
the most central existing waste management facility, Site 11 – Oro, was selected for further analysis.
Transfer Station and Fibre Processing Analysis Report, GENIVAR Inc., March 26, 2012
 Genivar undertook an engineering review and options analysis for both the transfer of two-stream
recyclables and garbage from a central transfer location. This work included the preliminary
assessment of space availability at Site 11 and the costs associated with development of a single,
centralized facility at this location. It recommended that the County determine if Site 11 would be
the preferred site for the facility.
Item CO 12-023 – Results of Initial Analysis of Request for Proposal Responses for Recycling Transfer
Options for Budget Consideration, November 27, 2012
 results of an initial analysis of contracted transfer costs versus the cost for a County transfer facility
were outlined. The capital project was deferred until a detailed analysis could be conducted and
reported to Council (note that contracts for curbside collection, transfer and haulage of recycling,
processing of recycling, and waste export were set to begin in 2013).
In the interim, short-term transfer contracts were put in place, providing costing for comparison with
development and operation of a County-owned transfer facility.
Item CCW 14-253 – Transfer Facility Assessment, August 12, 2014
 a financial comparison between continuing the current system of contracting transfer services and
construction of a County transfer facility was completed. The analysis considered changes in
tonnages with the closure of County landfills and growth, capital costs of both the building and
equipment, and estimated annual operating expenses over a 20-year period. The payback period
of a County facility was estimated to be between five and six years (dependent on funding).
Council approved further development of this project and extended the scope of work assigned to
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) to provide engineering services related to siting this
facility.
It was further noted that an MMF would be the ideal location for a permanent equipment servicing
location for Solid Waste Management. Currently, a facility is leased in Springwater in the short
term for this purpose.
Item CCW 14-344 – Transfer Facility Funding Update, August 26, 2014
 pursuant to the updated financial analysis of transfer costs, Staff met again with CIF to discuss the
status of the application, the availability of funding, and moving forward. CIF confirmed that
funding was available with the same contingencies as in 2011.
February 26, 2015
Committee of the Whole CCW 15-078
4
CIF funding for the MMF was secured in late 2014. It guarantees funding 47% of blue box-related
project costs to a maximum funding limit of $2,187,840. The funding is contingent on the potential for
the facility to be jointly utilized by other local municipal jurisdictions on a cost recovery basis and design
of the facility to allow for potential future expansion to accommodate a full Materials Recovery Facility
(MRF).
Item CCW 15-020 – Infrastructure Projects – Update, January 13, 2015.

on December 2, 2014, public information sessions were held at the Simcoe County Museum. The
purpose of these sessions was to formally introduce the MMF Project, summarize the proposed
siting process and methodology for both Solid Waste Management infrastructure projects, and to
obtain public feedback on site evaluation criteria.
Moving forward, the purpose of this Item is to:




summarize how the proposed siting methodology and evaluation criteria were developed;
outline public consultation and feedback to date;
present the proposed siting methodology, evaluation criteria, search area, and candidate sites
outlined in the facility’s first siting report; and
seek Council direction on moving forward with the siting process as outlined.
Siting Methodology and Evaluation Criteria – Development Process
Development of the siting methodology and evaluation criteria for the MMF has been a comprehensive
process, advanced alongside works on the OPF Project. Council endorsed a preliminary project plan
for the OPF in January 2014, which included a series of tasks related to the siting of this facility. CRA
was retained in May 2014 and as outlined above, their scope of work was expanded to encompass
siting considerations for the transfer facility. Siting these two infrastructure projects together will avoid
duplicating consulting services, be prudent in regards to consulting fees, and consider obvious
synergies between the facilities.
A formal, documented siting process for the MMF – similar to that for the OPF – was recommended.
This first siting report will determine the framework for how potential sites will be identified and
evaluated, ultimately presenting one preferred site for Council direction. Defining the siting
methodology and evaluation criteria at the onset of this process, seeking both public input and Council
direction, will be imperative to ensuring a transparent and defendable siting process.
Communication material outlining the draft siting methodology, timeline, and evaluation criteria was
presented for review to the Community Engagement Committee (CEC) in November and at a public
information session held on December 2, 2014. Incorporating feedback received, the proposed
methodology and evaluation criteria have been finalized in CRA’s first report for the MMF entitled,
“County of Simcoe Materials Management Facility – Part 1 – Planning – Siting Methodology and
Evaluation Criteria” (February 2015), provided for reference as Schedule 1.
CRA has modeled the proposed siting methodology and criteria after a number of policies, technical
guidance documents and approaches, most notably the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change's Statement of Environmental Values. Primarily, siting and development will consider the
prevention of impacts and protection of the existing environment. Complimentary processes that utilize
criteria as part of their evaluation process were reviewed. For example, while this project would not be
subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA), evaluation criteria utilized for projects
under the OEAA were reviewed and added, where appropriate.
February 26, 2015
Committee of the Whole CCW 15-078
5
Incorporating Public Feedback
As outlined in CRA’s report, involving the public and stakeholders at these early stages of the siting
process will encourage involvement in the decision-making process, provide assurances that all views
have been considered, and will ensure accountability. To facilitate the public consultation process,
three distinct vehicles for soliciting feedback have been established: a dedicated project webpage
which allows for the provision of information to the public and feedback via an electronic comment form,
the Community Engagement Committee, and public information sessions.
For reference, feedback regarding the siting criteria has been documented and provided in CRA’s
report, Appendix A.
Note that the proposed siting criteria was subsequently amended from that presented to the public in
December. Based on public feedback received, the Oak Ridges Moraine and Class 3 Agricultural
Lands were added as part of Screen 1. In addition, further clarification on evaluating sites within the
County Greenlands and Prime Agricultural Areas was provided with Screen 1. Existing zoning and land
use will be considered within these areas. For example, previously developed properties such as
existing or closed landfill sites or quarries which fall within County Greenlands or Prime Agricultural
Areas may move forward for further evaluation should other criteria (such as size) be met. This will be
documented in the Part 2 siting report.
Proposed Siting Methodology
The siting process is proposed as follows (we are currently at Part 1, d):
Planning – Siting Methodology and Evaluation Criteria
Part 1
a.
b.
c.
d.
Part 2
Define the search area
Develop siting methodology and series of evaluation criteria (Screens 1, 2, and 3)
Public consultation
Seek County Council approval on the siting process and evaluation criteria
Long List Evaluation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Part 3
Identify candidate sites
Screen 1 – apply exclusionary criteria to the list of candidate sites to generate a
long list of sites
Screen 2 – apply further screening criteria to the long list of sites to generate a
short list of sites
Presentation of short-listed sites to County Council
Public consultation
Short List Evaluation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Refine details of short-listed sites and collect additional data as required
Conduct a comparative evaluation of short-listed sites using all identified Screen 3
evaluation criteria
Identify the potential impacts, mitigation measures, and net effects of each site
Rank the sites and identify the preferred location
Seek County Council direction on preferred location
February 26, 2015
Committee of the Whole CCW 15-078
6
Evaluation Criteria
CRA’s report outlines a comprehensive list of evaluation criteria, provided for reference in this report as
Schedule 2. Each criterion has been grouped into a common component (similar to those described in
the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act), and assigned a series of indicators that are used in the
evaluation. The identified criteria will be applied to the sites in a series of "screens" that correspond
with each stage of the siting process. Sites that satisfy the evaluation criteria at each screen are
deemed to be the most feasible, and will be carried forward for further evaluation.
Screen 1, a set of exclusionary criteria, will be applied to all potential sites. These criteria/indicators are
provided as a minimum threshold in order for a site to be considered further. For example, under
“Technical – Suitability”, potential sites must meet a minimum size requirement of 7 hectares/17 acres.
From Screen 1, a long list of sites will be determined for further evaluation.
Screen 2 will be applied to the long list of sites and contain additional criteria/indicators to add another
threshold level to be met in order for a site to be carried forward for further investigation. For example,
under “Environmental – Air Quality, Odour, and Noise”, the proximity to sensitive receptors located
downwind will be compared for each of the long-listed sites. Sites that are better will move forward, the
results of Screen 2 providing a reasonable number of short-listed sites (anticipated to be 3 to 5).
All Screen 3 criteria will be applied to the short list of sites in the form of a detailed, comparative
evaluation. All criteria/indicators will be utilized for this Screen and the comparative evaluation will
consider the potential effects, mitigation measures, and net effects for each of the criteria/indicators.
As outlined in CRA’s siting report, the sites will then be compared against one another and ranked as to
whether the offer advantages or disadvantages for each component. Ultimately, the preferred site will
be identified based on the appropriate balance of strengths (advantages) and weaknesses
(disadvantages) and how well the site satisfies the requirements for a transfer facility.
Defining the Search Area
The MMF will act as a consolidation point – collection vehicles from throughout the County will transport
materials to this location so that garbage, recycling, and potentially organics (dependant on Council
direction regarding the OPF Project) can be consolidated and loaded into larger transfer trailers for
hauling to end processors/disposal locations. As such, transfer facilities are highly dependent on
transportation networks. Siting a transfer facility close to where the materials originate (i.e. the center
of waste generation or the “waste centroid”) can significantly reduce costs related to hauling.
To define the search area, the “waste centroid” was determined using collection data from the County's
Graphical Information Systems (GIS) Department. A 15 km radius from this point was used to define
the search area. Determining this radius is a study in optimization – maximizing the number of
potential, viable sites to evaluate and minimizing costs associated with hauling material greater
distances from the center of waste generation. CRA is confident that this area should provide a
sufficient number of viable County-owned and private sites, encompass major transportation routes,
and that a facility sited within this area would provide an efficient, cost-effective transfer location. The
County’s current location for transfer, the BFI facility in Barrie, is located within the 15 km radius and
has proven to be a favourable location.
It should be noted that the "waste centroid" calculations include data from the separated cities of Barrie
and Orillia in consideration of the CIF funding previously discussed. Again, this funding is contingent
on the County's transfer facility considering the potential for other neighbouring municipalities to utilize
this facility on a cost recovery basis.
February 26, 2015
Committee of the Whole CCW 15-078
7
Candidate Sites
Candidate sites within the search area are proposed from two main sources: existing County-owned
sites and willing vendor privately-owned sites that might be suitable to host the MMF. Evaluation of
both public and private sites will again ensure a comprehensive process and that the most robust site is
selected, particularly crucial in consideration of the limited search area for efficient transfer. Existing
County-owned sites within the search area will consist of open and closed waste facilities, County
forest tracts, and vacant lots that are currently undeveloped.
Privately-owned sites will also be considered alongside County-owned sites. It is proposed that
working with the County’s Procurement, Fleet & Property Department, a preliminary search be
conducted on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) of the Canadian Real Estate Association to identify
potential sites. In addition, a Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) is proposed that will seek
willing vendors with privately-owned sites. It is anticipated that if any of these site(s) move forward to
the short list, an Option to Purchase Agreement will be extended to the property owner(s). This
agreement will be conditional on Council approval and subject to the guidelines outlined in County
Policy PFP 2012-02 – Acquisition and Disposition of Real Property.
Going Forward
Following Council direction on the siting approach, works will begin on evaluating potential Countyowned sites, a preliminary search on the MLS, and preparation of a Request for Expression of Interest
for willing-vendor sites. This process is expected to extend into the spring, with the short list being
presented to Council in late summer.
Financial and Resource Implications:
Estimated capital costs for the Material Management facility are $4,185,000 for land/building and
equipment $545,000, respectively. Costs related to development of a facility are estimates only; actual
costs would only be determined through procurement processes.
Funding for this project is from the following: Waste Management reserve of $3,580,000 previously
committed; and a commitment of funding from the Continuous Improvement Fund, estimated at
$1,150,000.
2015 consulting expenses related to further development of the MMF, estimated to be $65,000, will be
funded by reserve.
Relationship to Corporate Strategies:
This item supports the Solid Waste Management Strategy recommendation to develop transfer capacity
infrastructure to manage garbage and recyclables generated in the County.
Reference Documents:
Item CS 11-103 – Recyclables Transfer Facilities Funding Application, June 15, 2011
http://docs.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/groups/public/@pub-cos-sta-com/documents/web_content/rsc117194.docx
Transfer Station and Fibre Processing Analysis Final Report, GENIVAR Inc., March 26, 2012
Item CO 12-023 – Results of Initial Analysis of Request for Proposal Responses for Recycling Transfer
Options for Budget Consideration, November 27, 2012
February 26, 2015
Committee of the Whole CCW 15-078
8
http://docs.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/groups/public/@pub-cos-sta-com/documents/web_content/rsc343304.docx
Reference Documents:
Item CCW 14-253 – Transfer Facility Assessment, August 12, 2014
http://docs.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/groups/public/%40pub-cos-sta-com/documents/web_content/rsc442308.docx
Item CCW 14-344 – Transfer Facility Funding Update, August 26, 2014
http://docs.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/groups/public/%40pub-cos-sta-com/documents/web_content/rsc445869.docx
Item CCW 14-407 – Community Engagement Committee, October 30, 2014
http://docs.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocNa
me=rsc455296
Item CCW 15-020 – Infrastructure Projects – Update, January 13, 2015
http://docs.simcoe.ca/ws_cos/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocNa
me=rsc462239
Attachments:
Schedule 1 – County of Simcoe Materials Management Facility – Part 1 – Planning – Siting
Methodology and Criteria (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, February 2015)
CCW 15-078 Schedule 1.pdf
Schedule 2 – Table 3: Revised Siting Criteria (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, February 2015)
CCW 15-078 Schedule 2.pdf
Prepared By:
Stephanie Mack, P.Eng., Special Projects Supervisor
Approvals:
Date
Rob McCullough, Director, Solid Waste Management
Debbie Korolnek, General Manager, Engineering, Planning and Environment
Trevor Wilcox, General Manager, Corporate Performance
Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer
February 11, 2015
February 12, 2015
February 18, 2015
February 19, 2015