CITY OF TORONTO: LONG-TERM WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) Meeting #8
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Metro Hall, Room 310
Attendees:
Stakeholder Advisory Group Members:
John Campey – Ralph Thornton Centre
Bryan Purcell – Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Heather Marshall – Toronto Environmental Alliance
Gary Rygus – Retail Council of Canada
Daryl Chong – Greater Toronto Apartment Association
Virginia MacLaren – University of Toronto
Kate Parizeau – University of Guelph (on speaker-phone)
Staff:
City of Toronto:
Annette Synowiec – Solid Waste
Pat Barrett – Communications
HDR:
Jim McKay
Dillon:
Betsy Varghese
Consultant Facilitator:
Betty Muise
Charlotte Ueta – Solid Waste
Robyn Shyllit – Public Consultation
The meeting was called to order at 12:39 pm.
1. Welcome and Acknowledgements
The facilitator welcomed the group. She noted that Kate Parizeau would be joining the meeting by
speaker-phone. She said that the project team values the input of SAG members and prefers them to
attend in person, but if they cannot do so, SAG members can request to participate by speaker-phone,
and the project team will accommodate that request.
The facilitator reviewed the goal of the meeting which was to “discuss baseline conditions,
challenges, opportunities and options related to waste recovery and residual waste”.
Specific objectives were:
 Present some of the baseline components for recovery and residual waste;
 Discuss challenges & opportunities identified to date;
1
 Provide an overview of Tech Memo #1 Baseline
The facilitator reviewed the meeting's agenda.
Annette Synowiec informed the SAG that there has been a change to the project team at Solid Waste
Management Services. Vince Sferrazza has moved to Transportation Services, so Annette is backfilling for him as Acting Director for six months. Charlotte Ueta is Acting Manager of Waste
Management Planning and will be taking the lead on the Long Term Waste Management Strategy.
2. Recovery
Jim McKay presented on Recovery. He noted that the SAG has looked at this topic before and will do
so again as it is one of the more complex areas in the Strategy. He reviewed what recovery is, and its
place as the fourth R on the waste hierarchy, after reduction, reuse and recycling. It can include
recovery of materials, gas and/or energy.
The presentation content for this section is in Slides 6-14 in Appendix I. The following is a summary
and captures discussion surrounding the presentation. Slide titles are underlined.
Baseline Conditions: At some of the larger, closed landfill sites for which Toronto is responsible, some
landfill gas is being captured. The City is finalizing a Biogas and Landfill Gas Utilization Strategy
Study regarding options to use biogas at Disco and Dufferin and landfill gas at Green Land Landfill.
Challenges: Many people equate recovery with incineration. Incineration is not a term that is used in
this context because incineration by definition does not include energy recovery, but there is no reason
to burn something without recovering energy from it. The terms used are generally Energy from Waste
(EfW) or thermal treatment.
 EfW often faces challenges with public resistance due to concerns about health impacts,
emissions, traffic into the site, etc. This is especially the case because they are typically sited in
urban areas.
 Some technologies in this category have been used on a commercial basis for a long time and
are considered proven, reliable technologies, but there are others in this category that are still
new and have not yet proven themselves as reliable when employed on a large scale,
commercial basis.
 A sociological argument against recovery is that it takes the onus off the individual to reduce or
separate their waste. From a technical perspective, recovery is being looked at for multi-family
residences where material separation has proved difficult.
 In North America, landfill is cheaper than recovery operations.
A SAG member asked if the City is getting any credit from the recovery that it is doing. Jim McKay
said that Ontario doesn't have a carbon market yet. There certainly is speculation that it is coming, but
at this point there is no greenhouse gas (GHG) financial return. However, there is a revenue stream
from the electricity being recovered from landfill gas and being sold to the grid. The Province pays a
2
premium for that.
Challenges (cont'd):
 Facility siting is difficult.
 From the time the decision is made to build a facility, the timing of permitting and approvals is
about 8 years, and about 11 years until it is up and running.
 There are questions about the output from some facilities, for example whether the compost
from Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is of value since it has been co-mingled with
other garbage.
 There will always be some materials that have to go into a landfill site. Even the most modern
EfW facilities still cannot take all materials, which would then have to be sent to landfill.
Annette Synowiec added that as part of the development of the Long Term Strategy there was a large
scale study by the City on the potential for a MBT facility. HDR has had that to consider as part of its
work. If anyone is interested in getting that level of detail, it is publicly available. Jim McKay said that
when the City did that study it was probably one of the first regarding a large scale MBT facility. He
said that the great thing about the timing is that there is much more data available now which allows for
a better evaluations. Also, the new Durham York facility provides a lot of information about the Ontario
market.
A SAG member asked if the landfills that Toronto runs are keeping track of how much GHG they have
been mitigating over the years if they wanted to gain credit in the future. Jim McKay said that some of
them, like Green Lane, Disco, Dufferin, Bear Road and Keele Valley, do have very carefully recorded
information. He wasn't sure about the others. Annette Synowiec offered to make it a circle back item.
Opportunities (Approach):
 Recovery recognizes an “untapped” resource value of waste materials.
 Having a landfill site in Ontario is very valuable to the City and recovery can extend the
lifespan of Green Lane Landfill.
 The ability to site the facility closer to the point of waste generation reduces transportation and
environmental impacts.
 Creating energy or fuel products offsets the use of and need for virgin materials.
Opportunities (Technology):
 Capture and use of landfill gas reduces the impact of methane on the environment.
 There are a variety of MBT technologies, some of which can be sited at the landfill.
 Cement kilns are interested in the use of waste products instead of coal. It helps them to bring
their emissions down. St Mary's Cement is testing the use of plastic bags from the green bin
stream as a source of fuel instead of coal.
 EfW technologies: There are many types of EfW facilities (see slide 13).
A SAG member asked which technologies are being used locally, for example in Durham. Jim
McKay said that direct combustion is what Durham York built. In Burnaby, a significant amount of
Vancouver's waste goes to a direct combustion plant there. Peel's facility is 2 stage gasification.
3
Plasco is a plasma arc gasification facility in Ottawa. The product that remains is exposed to a very
high temperature torch with a plasma arc that turns it to black glass. The toxic components get
embedded in that glass. Dongara built a refuse derived fuel facility in Vaughan to service York Region.
What was left over after separation was a fluffy material that was turned into pellets. The intent was to
sell the pellets as an alternative fuel to burning wood or natural gas. One of the challenges that Dongara
had was that the price of natural gas dropped and they found themselves with no market for their
product.
A SAG member asked which facilities are full-scale commercial facilities and which are
demonstration plants. Jim McKay said that the Durham York, Burnaby and Peel facilities are all fullscale commercial facilities. The only technologies on the list that are proven technologies are direct
combustion and refuse derived fuel production. In the US there are facilities that have RDF on the front
end and then direct combustion after that. The rest are still considered “new and emerging
technologies” which are in varying stages of development and testing, but have not yet been
constructed as full-scale commercial facilities.
A SAG member asked whether there is typically a need to mix in other fuel sources with direct
combustion. Jim McKay said that the older facilities would mix in other fuel sources but the new
facilities take straight garbage. Once the facility is up to operating temperature, it is fully selfsustaining from garbage off the street.
A SAG member asked, in terms of energy production, which on the list are most efficient in producing
energy. Jim McKay said that is a complicated question because only direct combustion is a proven
technology. The others are still under development so the data are not available for comparison. There
is a lot of R&D directed at finding the next best technology and many are indicating that they will be
comparable with direct combustion. One of the downsides of plasma arc technologies is that the torch
requires so much energy that it may use up any energy gains generated on the front end. The SAG
member wondered if in that case there could be any net gain. Jim McKay said that none had been
proven yet.
Another SAG member asked which technologies do best in terms of weight of waste reduction. Jim
McKay said the answer is similar to the previous question, because the other technologies are not yet
proven. Direct combustion is best for volume reduction though less so for reduction by weight. After
combustion, the waste that comes out the back door is 10% (of the original) by volume, and 30% by
weight. Measuring by volume is more relevant for landfill. When Plasco was working, they were
saying they had 0% waste, on the assumption that the slag would be used for aggregate material for
road construction or concrete block production. Peel Region was using some of the bottom ash (which
is non-hazardous, vs fly ash, which is hazardous) for blending into asphalt for paving. There are a
number of regional parking lots which have the bottom ash blended into the asphalt and they are using
that for testing.
A SAG member asked how common it is, with direct combustion, to use the waste heat for heating
surrounding buildings. Jim McKay said it is very common. It depends to an extent where it is located.
The default is to produce electricity to send to the grid. It is more profitable to have a facility nearby
where they can send hot water or steam. Peel Region has a contract with Atlantic Packaging nearby,
4
whereby Peel sends steam to Atlantic Packaging which they use in their processing. Durham York is
selling only electricity at the moment. The next stage is to sell hot water, but there is no industry around
them yet to sell it to. In Europe, EfW facilities are sited as power facilities to attract industries to an
economic source of power.
Another SAG member asked, when thinking of the next 30-50 year horizon, what Jim foresees as the
economics of these technologies and also how the regulatory side may develop. Jim McKay said he
doesn't foresee the price of energy going down but there will always be a demand for energy. Also the
rate at which technology is developing is very rapid, and a lot of money is being spent on development.
The types of streams that these technology have been tested on has been very consistent, but that is not
a true reflection of the real waste stream, which is inconsistent. He thinks there is going to be more
emphasis on recovery as a whole. He thinks it will evolve away from direct combustion to some of the
more advanced technologies, but none of them have proven themselves. There are a lot of high hopes
for the Enerkem system in Edmonton.
Another SAG member asked about the potential for thermal energy production (eg. steam) from
landfill. Jim McKay said that there is not enough heat for that, but there are technologies to use the
heat generated to increase the rate of decomposition in the landfill to allow more space.
The facilitator asked members of the SAG about their thoughts regarding other challenges, issues or
opportunities to be considered.
A SAG member said that she wondered about the feasibility of certain technologies that rely on certain
waste streams, if organics and recyclables are successfully removed from the garbage stream. This is a
concern about investment in those type of technologies, and a scenario to be explored should be
whether they would be able to pay-off the investment if the input waste stream changes .
Another SAG member had similar concerns about how to size an EfW facility that is commercially
viable but could still run properly if the City achieves its waste diversion targets. One would not want
the presence of this type of facility to be a disincentive to waste reduction or diversion.
A SAG member asked whether there is a sense that it is a challenge that the Province does not
recognize energy from waste. Jim McKay said yes, though they are starting to recognize it. In Ontario,
EfW is treated as disposal, but Durham York was able to get a premium on their electricity in a nod to
the value. Siting is also more streamlined than it was. There are glimmers of hope that the Province is
starting to see recovery as something different than landfill, though technically it is still treated the
same.
A SAG member said he saw cost as a challenge and asked about the relative costs of the options. Jim
McKay said that there will be a detailed analysis in the study. The tipping rate for Peel right now is in
the neighbourhood of $65-85 per tonne, which is more than most landfills, though not much more than
Ontario based landfills. The transportation cost to get it there is much less because it is closer. For the
more exotic technologies, the costs being floated are around $250-$350 per tonne, largely because they
haven't proven themselves yet. The next level of analysis in the Strategy will come back to those
details.
5
A SAG member asked if there weren't other technologies to be considered, like a dirty MRF. Jim
McKay said that mixed waste facilities are dirty MRFs. A mixed waste facility will pull out
recyclables, and an MBT is a mixed waste facility with an anaerobic digester added to manage
organics.
A SAG member said that on the opportunity front, the Province is moving toward carbon pricing.
Their preferred system is a cap and trade system like Quebec and California. They would like to enter
into a joint arrangement like Quebec and California to allow trading of offsets between jurisdictions.
Quebec and California have aligned requirements, allowing a few types of offsets, including methane
capture. He said he is not too familiar with how these technologies will relate to that. He wondered how
significant the carbon offsets would be in terms of revenue generation. Jim McKay said he thought it
would be a significant revenue stream and the waste management industry is watching it carefully. It
has the potential to tip the balance between putting something into a landfill or using other
technologies.
A SAG member said that it would be a challenge to better understand how much goes into Green Lane
landfill from IC&I and other municipalities. She said that there may be opportunities for smaller scale
facilities, like the Zoo-share facility, which could potentially take lower value organics from a dirty
MRF. Things like that are happening based on community bonds, which could be an interesting
financial model. Jim McKay said that some of the new and emerging technologies can be built much
smaller. The direct combustion facility in Durham is at the smallest possible scale, which is 140,000
tonnes per year, but the newer technologies can be as small as 20-30,000 tonnes per year. Some are
modular and can be added onto as needed. They can also be spread out geographically. The SAG
member said that some infrastructure already exists that could be adapted and be made more
decentralized. She wasn't clear if those are being investigated. Jim McKay said that right now most
waste flows through a transfer station. He asked if the SAG member was suggesting it be processed onsite at the transfer station. The SAG member said it might be processed on-site or at more localized
options like the Scarborough facility.
A SAG member asked whether it is within the scope of the Strategy to consider whether there are
potential sites in Toronto for a direct combustion facility. Jim McKay said the team would not be
looking at specific sites but he could comment on the size a site needs to be and on some of the
required site conditions (for example, access to the electricity grid). The team can comment generically
on what is needed, and also on the differential between locating a facility like this in Toronto versus at
Green Lane.
The Facilitator asked the SAG if they saw a need to look into any issues further.
A SAG member asked if there are land-use restrictions that would prevent the development of these
types of facilities. He wondered whether it would require discussions with the Province about land use.
Jim McKay said that anything relating to land use would be dealt with at the City level, and they
generally have control of that. They still need to take into account the height of the facility, surrounding
properties etc. Some of these facilities are very tall, and in Peel there are issues relating to height due to
being in the flight path for Pearson Airport.
6
A SAG member wondered about the issue of public vs private options, and whether it is more feasible
for the City to own and operate an endeavour itself, rather than having a private entity sell products,
like fuel. Jim McKay said that there are a variety of models for these types of facilities. The majority
of new ones are going for design, build, operate, and maintain, where a contractor is brought on to do
the whole thing over a period of time, like 25 years. There are some which also have a finance piece
attached to it so that the company who is designing and building will also have a financial stake in it
through their investment. Although there are some models of private ownership where the municipality
has an agreement to send waste there, it is still fairly common that the municipality owns the facility.
For example, Durham and York Region own the plant that Covanta designed, built, operates and
maintains.
The facilitator asked if any stakeholders had any information that could be valuable for the study, that
could be shared.
A SAG member said that opposition to siting facility is a challenge and could be a bigger challenge
here than in Durham.
A SAG Member suggested looking into community benefit agreements, whereby the community
receiving the facility gets specified benefits, like construction jobs. She also said that her organization
can share a report that it found from the Province, which contracted a company to do a full life-cycle
assessment comparing landfill methane capture to some form of EfW, as well as a review of that report
by an expert panel. They only have the report in hard-copy, as it was obtained through a freedom of
information request.
3. Residual Waste
Betsy Varghese presented on Residual Waste, i.e. the material that is left after all diversion and
recovery has been done.
The presentation content for this section is in Slides 15-29 in Appendix I. The following is a summary
and captures discussion surrounding the presentation. Slide titles are underlined.
Betsy Varghese reviewed with the group that Toronto's residual waste is sent to Green Lane Landfill
near London, Ontario, and she provided some general facts about the landfill (Slide 18). Slide 19 shows
how the landfill operating area has evolved over time. In 2006, the landfill received Environmental
Assessment approval to expand, and that is where the City is currently filling. About 75% of waste
going to Green Lane is from Toronto transfer stations. Some other streams are also from the City of
Toronto (eg. sewage sludge and street sweepings). About 10% comes from the private sector and about
8% comes from other municipal customers.
A SAG member asked to clarify whether some of the waste from City of Toronto transfer stations also
includes some private sector waste that is dropped off there. Annette Synowiec said that anything at
the transfer stations is considered City collected waste. She said that the big private haulers don't
7
usually go to City transfer stations. Jim McKay said that it is more expensive to go to the City transfer
stations, so the only people that go to them are those prepared to pay a premium for the convenience.
A SAG member asked if the 8% of waste from other municipalities is flexible. Annette Synowiec said
there are agreements which could be broken, but there could be a penalty. Jim McKay added that the
8% fluctuates because some of the other municipalities use Green Lane only as a contingency.
Betsy Varghese returned to the presentation and described some of the features of the landfill (slide
21), including methane flaring to reduce GHGs, on-site leachate treatment, and trees for screening.
A SAG member asked if the cells are being built individually, whether in the future they could include
a bioreactor. Betsy Varghese said it could but at present a bioreactor is not being used.
She continued with the presentation, highlighting Challenges facing the landfill. Green Lane is
projected to fill up in about 14 years. That is a challenge because it takes a long time to site and get
approval for disposal facilities.
A SAG member asked if Green Lane landfill could reduce buffer size to get more landfill space. Betsy
Varghese said that would require an Environmental Assessment (EA). Without a new EA, operations
can take place only within the approved footprint. The SAG member asked if there is a sense that it
would be easier to expand Green Lane than to find a new site. Betsy Varghese said that is one of the
alternatives that will be looked at in the Strategy. The SAG member asked if there is a minimum size
for buffers. Jim McKay said there is a minimum requirement for buffers and it is not very much. He
said that in theory reducing the buffers might be an option, but all the options need to be compared to
each other.
Another SAG member asked if the 14 years remaining is based on current waste generation and
diversion rates. Betsy Varghese said it is, and it gets updated annually according to the latest rates.
Annette Synowiec said that most recent City projections have shown an extension to the life of the
landfill to 2029. Jim McKay said that in the last few years the City has drastically reduced the amount
of material going into Green Lane, and noted that if every year the amount of material going in goes
down, the landfill's lifespan goes up. A SAG member asked if it is well known that the amount of
material is going down. Jim McKay said he thought people are aware that diversion is increasing but
not necessarily that the amount of material going to landfill is going down. He said this should be
communicated publicly through the Strategy. Another SAG member said that he thought it is an
important communication point that an increased diversion rate may be able to offset population
growth and result in reduced materials going to landfill.
Betsy Varghese returned to the presentation. She said that another Challenge (slide 23) is the goal is
for Green Lane to be revenue neutral at the end of its lifespan.
A SAG member asked how much of the tipping fee covers capital vs operating costs. Betsy Varghese
said the tipping fee largely goes toward the operating costs but she didn't know the exact split.
Another SAG member wanted to clarify about the goal of achieving revenue neutrality at the end of
8
the landfill's life. He wanted to know if this meant saving up a reserve to pay for the ongoing costs after
the landfill closes. Betsy Varghese said yes.
Betsy Varghese returned to the presentation. She talked about Opportunities on slides 24-26. She
reminded the group that an EA would not be part of this Strategy, but if the Strategy identifies a
preferred option that requires an EA, that would happen after the Strategy. She described landfill
mining as a process to dig out an old cell and sort it to get out recyclables and then put non-recyclables
back in, in order to make more space in the landfill. The City of Barrie has been doing this and has
learned valuable lessons. They are generally satisfied with this option. She also described the
opportunity to build bioreactor cells to transform and degrade organic waste rapidly in the landfill.
A SAG member asked for more elaboration on landfill mining, and what has been learned in Barrie.
Betsy Varghese said there are lots of benefits. In Barrie they have been extracting to improve
groundwater quality. They extract the waste and install a liner where none was originally installed. That
is usually the impetus for doing this, and then they do the mining which also allows the additional
benefits of extra landfill space, recovering recyclables, and soil for use at the landfill site.
Another SAG member asked whether the organic waste would have decomposed by now in the old
landfills. Betsy Varghese said yes, but there would still be a soil fraction that could be used. The SAG
member asked whether the soil could be used elsewhere or whether it is hazardous. Betsy Varghese
said it would need to be tested before it is used elsewhere. One of the challenges with landfill mining is
knowing what kinds of materials might be dug up, because a lot of this was buried before there were
restrictions on what could be put in. There has to be a health and safety plan in place to deal with issues
like asbestos.
A SAG member said he thought that the Province has a poor understanding of where soil is being
moved around. Within the municipalities that might be better understood but once it leaves the
municipal boundaries there are concerns about where hazardous soils are going.
A SAG member asked how the Province is being engaged in this. He said they have started
consultations on their new Waste Diversion Act, and he wondered whether there is a coordination of
efforts. Annette Synowiec said that the Province has been identified as a key stakeholder. She had
spoken to the Province the day before and told them about the LTWMS. She said that for future
engagement opportunities, the City wants to have discussions with them, depending on which options
are being considered. That would include policy options along with technological options. The City of
Toronto is also communicating with other municipalities. The team is not making recommendations at
this stage so there is nothing specific to share yet, but there is an effort to keep them in the loop.
Another SAG member asked about the latest status on generating electricity from methane at Green
Lane instead of flaring it. Jim McKay said the study on that is being finalized.
A SAG member asked what proportion of organic materials within the residual mix at a landfill would
be necessary to allow methane production, and how methane production might change if the landfill
input changes. Betsy Varghese asked to put that in the circle back for the next meeting. Jim McKay
said there are some landfill sites that don't have landfill gas systems because what is going into it does
9
not produce methane. A certain amount of gas needs to be produced to make the business case for it.
A SAG member asked whether Nova Scotia had banned organics in its waste stream. Betsy Varghese
said yes, but enforcement isn't strong enough so there still are some organics in the waste stream. The
SAG member said it would be worth considering the implications for methane production if the policy
on organics going to landfill were to change in Ontario.
A SAG member asked whether there had been a recent residual waste study to look at the composition
of residual waste from different streams like single-family, multi-residential, and IC&I, and how it
compares to other municipalities. She thought it would be worth considering specified landfill cells for
different streams, like multi-residential, where there are more organics and therefore more potential for
using a bioreactor. Annette Synowiec replied that the City had just finished a multi-family waste audit.
Betsy Varghese said an audit looks at the organics, recycling and garbage streams to give a full picture
of what is going on. The SAG member asked about extending that study to other sectors. Annette
Synowiec said that is in the work plan.
Another SAG member said that when he was in PEI, he spoke to waste management people there, and
they got diversion for IC&I waste up to about 70% by radically raising tipping fees for them. He
wondered if it is feasible to increase tipping fees for IC&I and private haulers to Green Lane. Betsy
Varghese said that is one of the tools to be looked at in the Strategy.
A SAG member wondered whether services to multi-residential buildings could be made more
consistent or standardized. Betsy Varghese said that multi-residential is a big part of the Strategy and
that will be looked at too.
The facilitator asked if any of the stakeholder groups had any information pertinent to this. A SAG
member said that her organization had asked people to do their own waste audit and they may have
some data to provide. Their organization has also been encouraging people to reduce their bin size.
The SAG took a 10 minute break.
4. DRAFT Technical Memorandum #1 – Baseline
Annette Synowiec said she would look into sending out hard copies of the draft Tech Memo by courier
to those members of the SAG not present at this meeting.
The facilitator said that the intent at this meeting was to give an overview of the draft Tech Memo to
assist in the navigation of the document.
Jim McKay presented on DRAFT Technical Memorandum #1 – Baseline.
The presentation content for this section is in Slides 30-33 in Appendix I. The following is a summary
and captures discussion surrounding the presentation.
10
Jim McKay said that DRAFT Tech Memo #1 is essentially a detailed summary of the Waste
Management System today. It is intended to be a reference document that describes the baseline
conditions of the system. It is designed to be read from start to finish but also allows for finding
information on particular topics.
The presentation slides list the sections of the document, including: a historical perspective on why
things are the way they are today; a policy review; solid waste collection, transfer, processing and
disposal; waste generation, composition and diversion; privately managed waste; solid waste education
and enforcement; financial overview; and progress and performance monitoring.
Jim McKay noted that a common theme throughout is that single-family and multi-family are handled
separately to better understand the differences between them. Another issue that is addressed is the role
of the City in dealing with waste that is currently outside of its waste management system.
A SAG member noted that he saw a lot of numbers going to 2013, but some also included 2014. He
asked when data from 2014 will be available. Annette Synowiec said 2014 numbers are still being
finalized, but the team is hoping to get them finalized within the next 2 weeks. Where 2014 numbers
are already in, that is because those were approved beforehand. Jim McKay noted that the draft
document that had been handed out was still considered a draft.
The facilitator told the group that this document is for SAG members' reference, and they should feel
free to bring questions, but there is no expectation that the SAG members have to provide a detailed
review. Annette Synowiec reiterated that this is the first major milestone, but it is still in DRAFT.
A SAG member said he was interested in a description of where Toronto is leading and lagging and
would like to know why it is leading or lagging in those areas. Jim McKay said that would be in the
next tech memo, which is the critical analysis of the system. It would look for lessons from other
municipalities and would also include gaps and challenges. Annette Synowiec said that the intent is
that this is done like a business analysis. This DRAFT Tech Memo is a description of the current state
of affairs and the next step is the analysis. Jim McKay said that this DRAFT Tech Memo is like a
snapshot of a system that is constantly changing. He said that a report could go to Committee next
week and could already make some items in the DRAFT Tech Memo out of date.
5. Circle Back and Next Steps
The next SAG meeting is scheduled for April 16, 2015.
Regarding a circle back item from the last meeting, Jim McKay said that he hadn't heard back from
San Francisco yet regarding questions about charging for each stream in their program.
Regarding Phase 2 Consultation, Betsy Varghese said that the topics on Slide 34 (Appendix I) would
be covered in the next SAG meeting. It would cover the approach for the Phase 2 Consultation
activities, and there would be a status update on some of the key stakeholder meetings that would be
11
getting underway. She also thanked the group for their feedback on Survey #2, and some of the results
would be shared at the next SAG meeting. There would be an update on what happened at the Green
Living Show, where the City of Toronto would be having a booth. Annette Synowiec said there would
be a City of Toronto presence in two spots at the Green Living Show, including providing general
information at the Livegreen Toronto booth and information about the LTWMS at the Waste Reduction
Section. On the Sunday there would also be an Open House with a lot of information from the first
public consultation and then two presentations on the work that has been done on the Strategy to date.
Betsy Varghese asked SAG members to promote the Green Living Show information and the Survey
to their contacts.
Robyn Shyllit said that the speaker series is a public engagement event. It is called “WastED – Waste
Education”. The first session will be at the end of April. She asked SAG members to provide ideas
about possible speakers that would appeal to a general, non-technical audience. SAG members can email Robyn with any ideas. The first one is going to be on community, the second on clothing, and the
third on food.
The SAG agreed to delete the audio recording of SAG meeting #6.
The facilitator thanked the group for their participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:02 pm.12
12