DRAFT
CITY OF TORONTO: LONG-TERM WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) Meeting #5
Thursday, December 4, 2014
City Hall, 23rd Floor, Boardroom. 12:30 pm
Attendees:
Stakeholder Advisory Group Members:
Daryl Chong – Greater Toronto Apartment Association
Gary Rygus – Retail Council of Canada
Kate Parizeau – University of Guelph
Virginia MacLaren – University of Toronto
Cedric De Jager – Recycling Council of Ontario
John Campey – Social Planning Toronto
Emily J. Alfred – Toronto Environmental Alliance
Bryan Purcell – Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Peter Hargreave – Ontario Waste Management Association
Staff:
City of Toronto:
Annette Synowiec – Solid Waste
Pat Barrett – Communications
Kate Kusiak – Public Consultation
Michelle Kane – Solid Waste
Vince Sferrazza – Solid Waste
HDR:
Jim McKay, Project Manager for the consultant team
Consultant Facilitator:
Betty Muise
The meeting was called to order at 12:38 pm.
1. Welcome and Acknowledgements
The facilitator introduced Beth Goodger, the new General Manager of Solid Waste Management
Services, who came to meet the SAG members.
Beth Goodger said that she was pleased to join the SAG's meeting, though she would not be staying
for the whole meeting. She said that she had already heard from staff regarding how valuable this group
has been to the process. By way of introduction, she said that she joined the City of Toronto just after
Thanksgiving, so she is new to the City. That said, she described herself as an “Old Garbage Lady”,
having spent most of her career in public works and especially in solid waste. Her experience has been
at the City of Hamilton where, during the amalgamation of the City, she was part of a long term waste
management plan that transformed the City's waste management program at the time. Before that plan,
the City of Hamilton had about a 16% diversion rate with an outdated energy from waste facility. For
their plan, they also had a public group that provided input, which informed their council. As City
1
DRAFT
staff, it is an honour to serve communities and deliver services in a way to shape the community. This
is a unique time for the City of Toronto to be talking about solid waste in this way. The City of Toronto
is doing great at 54% diversion but it needs to do more, since Green Lane Landfill won't be open
forever. She said she is looking forward to bringing forward to Council something really good around
this time next year. She said that she has started meeting with the councillors and she is starting to share
with them how important the long term strategy is, and how a city deals with its waste is a huge
reflection of the city, including how transportation, energy costs, and packaging all figure into the
equation. She said that she is seeing a lot of interest from the councillors. Councillor Jaye Robinson is
the new Chair of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee. She said that she hopes to drop in at
future meetings as well, and she thanked the group for representing their organizations and for their
time and input.
The facilitator reviewed the goal of the meeting which was to “Discuss potential elements of a vision
for the long term waste management system and key underlying guiding principles”. The goals of
previous meetings had all involved “building a foundation”. Now the group would be switching to
looking at a vision and guiding principles of a long term strategy. The objectives include looking at
potential ideas and elements of a vision for the long term waste management system, and generating
ideas and suggestions for guiding principles that should be considered when assessing and evaluating
options and approaches to be included in the strategy. The facilitator said that the SAG would not have
to decide or wordsmith a vision, since Beth Goodger's group and the public will also have input into
that. Rather, this meeting is to hear from the SAG on behalf of their constituent stakeholder groups.
The facilitator provided an overview of the meeting agenda, noting that this would be a very
interactive meeting, so the SAG members could provide a lot of input.
The facilitator introduced a new attendee, Peter Hargreave, of the Ontario Waste Management
Association, who was attending on behalf of OWMA.
2. Looking Back to Move Forward
This section started with a quiz on facts relating to the waste management context of Toronto and
Canada. The SAG members first did the quiz on their own. The facilitator then presented the answers.
The quiz questions and answers are in slides 3-13 of the presentation in Appendix I.
Jim McKay presented on the history of waste management in Canada.
The main presentation content for this section can be found in slides 14-21 in Appendix I. The following
captures the group's discussion concerning the presentation. Slide titles are underlined.
In describing the history of Waste Management in Canada, Jim McKay noted that the earliest stages of
waste management, in the first part of the 20th century, were purely about sanitation. In the 1950s1970s, open dumps were in decline and the concept arose of the “sanitary landfill”, engineered to keep
“nasty stuff” in the hole instead of leaching into ground water, with practises like compaction and
2
DRAFT
periodic covering to control pests. At this time there was an increase in societal awareness of pollution
and environmental impacts.
1980s: The Birth of Recycling. The first curbside recycling program in Canada was a pilot project in
Kitchener/Waterloo, in 1981. The second was in 1986 in Mississauga. Since then recycling programs
around the world have grown tremendously in size and scope.
1990s – Today: Waste Diversion Programs. Since 2002 the Waste Diversion Act has promoted and
directed waste diversion. Recycling programs have evolved to take many different materials. There are
curb-side pickup programs and drop off depots for different materials.
1990s – Today : Emerging Trends. There are new types of packaging and there is a proliferation of
single-use products designed for disposal. E-waste is growing rapidly.
Developing Technology and the 4th R. There are new technologies to manage waste: Energy from
Waste, Anaerobic Digestion, and technologies for recovery.
Toronto's Waste Timeline. Some major milestones include, among others, the closure of the Keele
Valley landfill and the opening of the Dufferin Green Bin Processing Facility, which was the first of its
kind in the North America.
Looking Back to Move Forward. Looking at how economic influences and societal desires have
resulted in the evolution of waste management, the SAG was asked to think about where things could
and should be heading over the next 50 years.
The facilitator asked the SAG for their thoughts.
A SAG member observed that we have become more of a disposal society, and wondered whether
we'll be forced to evolve back again to use less disposables.
Another SAG member thought that there will be more plastics in the waste stream, though what the
plastics come from may change because of the increasing scarcity of oil. She thought people may find
other ways to make plastic-type materials.
Another SAG member said that there are hopefully upcoming regulatory changes at the Provincial
level that could change packaging behaviour, and could work to make producers take full life-cycle
responsibility for the packaging they create. If done correctly, producers would be responsible for
paying for disposal, and that should reduce disposal. Hopefully this trend will continue and happen in
Ontario.
Another SAG member said that change is happening very quickly, due to market influences, and it is
difficult for municipalities to keep up with that change. He thought the pace of change is quickening. In
the last 2 decades, there has been a huge change in waste composition and that will continue to change.
He said that how people live and the products they purchase can change and affect the way waste is
produced.
Another SAG member said global economic factors are driving the move to shorter use products.
These include low transportation costs, and low labour costs. That could change over the 30-50 year
horizon as fuel prices increase and there is a possible convergence on labour costs. That could shift the
emphasis back to longer lasting products.
3
DRAFT
Another SAG member said she was thinking of the “1981 moment” of the rise in environmental
consciousness, and that another cultural shift would be needed. At the moment, people tend to see the
Green and Blue bins as a panacea but they are going to need to realize that recycling is “down-cycling”
and there has to be more emphasis on reduction.
The Facilitator asked the group how they thought attitudes may have changed.
A SAG member said that he thought there has been growing awareness of personal responsibility.
People are taking more responsibility at levels that are quite surprising, for example with recycling.
That is hopefully growing and changing through the education system.
Another SAG member said that while he agreed to an extent, there is a downside for some of the
products collected at curbside. There used to be a deposit-return system, which made people think
more about the value of those items. Those items used to have a higher capture rates than there is now.
Another SAG member said that while people care a lot more than they used to, they usually think that
if they have put an item in the Green Bin or Blue Bin, they have done their job. They are not thinking
about reduction.
Another SAG member said it would be interesting to see what the market reaction would be now
compared to those years if the deposit-return programs still existed.
3. Driving Factors – Then and Now
The facilitator said that she wanted the group to crystallize some of the driving forces that had been
discussed. She invited SAG members to take a few minutes on their own to consider what the key
broad trends for their organizations or stakeholders would be, 30-50 years out (not just for waste
management). She invited members to use the paper provided to write down their ideas.
After SAG members had done this exercise, the facilitator shared Jim McKay's list of ideas of key
trends in waste management that he foresaw. They were:
 Increased environmental awareness.
 Access to information and data sharing, which refers to the access to ready information from
around the world that can be made available almost instantaneously. Filtering this information
can become a challenge.
 Scientific and engineering advances. For example, Edmonton's facility to turn garbage into
methanol and ethanol for use in gasoline for cars is a new advancement that was unknown even
10 years ago.
 Increased regulation, which can be slow but is adapting to the new technologies that are
emerging.
 Private sector involvement in waste management, which is a fairly recent trend. There are more
P3 developments where a private sector entity is designing, building, owning and operating a
facility on behalf of a municipality, or even in its own right.
 Risk and innovation refers to the degree of risk that always accompanies many new programs.
4
DRAFT
While there has typically been hesitancy on the municipal side to take those risks, there is
evidence that municipalities are starting to be ready to accept them. . For example, the City of
Toronto took on the risk of a new Green Bin program.
The facilitator asked SAG members to share their ideas with the group.
A SAG member said that his stakeholders are the housing providers of the City, who have been in the
game since the 1950s. They hadn't built anything substantial since 1980s, but now everyone recognizes
that higher density, smaller stacked housing is the way of the future. There is a real need for capital
repairs and energy retrofitting of old buildings, as well as generating new stock. The facilitator noted
that this has a big impact in terms of waste collection and how to service those buildings.
Another SAG member, who represents the non-profit sector broadly, had the following list:
 Increased needs vs reduced funding;
 Technological change in terms of information support, help desks and websites;
 A shift in target population, with a rapidly growing elderly population and an increasingly
culturally and racially diverse population.
He made the link to waste management for the non-profit sector, saying that there are opportunities for
community organizations to be the focus for education and possibly for collection, and for sharing
items that not every household needs. He also mentioned the possibilities of source reduction of food
waste through community kitchens.
Another SAG member said that many of his trends don't necessarily relate to waste management. His
organization focuses on climate change and helping the City to meet its climate change goals. The
trends he foresaw were:
 Decarbonization of the electricity supply. Five years ago every KW/h used produced about 250g
of Carbon, and that has now fallen to about 50g, about a 5th of what it was. The trend is
continuing, though slowing down.
 There is a need to look at electrification of transportation, which will have big implications for
the City.
 There will also be more demand for electricity, including for heating, and for building homes
with high efficiency technology.
 A certain amount of climate change is already evident in Toronto's weather, evidenced by more
extreme weather events and its impact on the City's infrastructure needs.
Jim McKay said that the transportation of materials is significant enough that trucks are shifting from
being diesel powered to natural gas powered in an effort to reduce costs and emissions profiles. That
has been a huge shift, with entire fleets being converted in the last 5 years. Waste management is one of
the biggest contributors to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, particularly landfill sites. New
technologies are being used to try to either minimize the transportation footprint or minimize the
amount of material going to landfill. The SAG member said that in the Toronto context, waste related
emissions are a little over 10% of GHG emissions, including methane from landfill and transportation
of the waste.
5
DRAFT
Another SAG member, who is a researcher at a university, said that climate change will have a major
impact on all of their activities. It will impact the way they operate and how they adapt to more extreme
weather events. Her list also included:
 Much more rapid access to information, notably “big data” will be an important aspect of
research in the future.
 Technology is going to be important, including relating to how people learn. There will be more
on-line and social media for participation and learning at universities.
 There will be more emphasis on graduate education for specialization.
She said she would like to explore the intersection of waste management with climate change,
particularly adaptation and resilience issues. She also said the waste management sector will be using
big data more and more. Jim McKay gave some examples of how data is now being used, including
RFID technology, and GPS equipment on all trucks, etc.
Another SAG member, who is also a university researcher, took a different approach. Her list
included:
 The way that economic change and government policy regulation affects the academic sector,
including which research is funded and what is not funded. This relates to the ability of
universities to determine their own mandates.
 Demographic change, and specifically a suggestion that there will be a squeeze on universities
at the undergraduate level. That can be an opportunity as youth are often at the heart of the
environmental movement and youth energy is typically harnessed in universities.
 There is a push to collaborative work and applied research.
Another SAG member said that her organization represents the general public who care about
environmental issues, and that includes about 50,000 supporters. She identified the following trends:
 General demographic factors such as an ageing population and an increasingly culturally
diverse population.
 Increasing economic disparity between high and low income groups. People may not have the
luxury of engagement, and the people who are engaged may not always be representative of the
larger population.
 People are thinking about climate change and about adaptation.
 There is an increasing interest in linking local environmental issues with global issues.
 Digital disparity: there are people who don't use the internet. Though there are many people
who are very loud on-line, they are not representative of everyone. There is a sense that “if it is
not on-line, it doesn't exist”, but sometimes there is good information that is not on-line.
Conversely, there is a proliferation of non-peer reviewed journals on-line.
 For community organizations, less funding is always an issue, as well as a more recent
crackdown on environmental groups that are too political.
 There is the sense that people think they have done their job by using their green and blue bins.
Another SAG member, whose organization deals with waste management, provided the following list:
 Reduced land availability and public acceptance will mean fewer landfills and less capacity.
Lots of public landfills are going to be closing in the next 30 years.
6
DRAFT
 There is a huge change in composition of waste materials. This impacts the value of materials
that can be recouped in the end.
 Increased housing density impacts collection, relating to servicing and vehicle construction.
 The design of facilities is changing. Some other jurisdictions are looking at densifying waste
management facilities (including vertical expansion of transfer stations). This also increases the
viability of different marketplaces because it allows faster pickup of materials with different
routes.
 Resource demands change with increasing scarcity of certain materials, such as metals.
 There is an increased focus on value. The “green fence” went up in China. This was about a
rejection of poor quality products from facilities, and this changes how municipalities run their
facilities.
Another SAG member, who represents the retail industry, said that 30 years doesn't exist for retail.
They are lucky to figure out just a few years in advance. There are changes going on now. These
include:
 A move to smaller footprints due to land use policies. Retailers can still take advantage of
existing large developments but there are no more new big box developments.
 There will be constant pressures to change. The pressure to move to full EPR is ignored at a
retailer's peril. How to get there is a question. Some people may decide that there is a role for
municipalities to play.
 At the Provincial level, the Province seems to be oblivious to big data or even current data.
 There will be pressures on pricing while remaining competitive, from on-line and cross border
shopping.
The last SAG member to comment said that he thought others had summed things up well. He was
representing an organization dedicated to recycling that responds to current trends by seeing how they
can influence those, and then seeing what can be done to influence long term trends. EPR is still a holy
grail and their organization is doing its best to influence that and apply it, but it is still a minefield.
A SAG member said that he had participated in a City of Toronto poverty reduction strategy. He
learned that the City has over 70% post-secondary people living in the GTA, while he has also heard
that 51% of all grocery food bought by consumers is thrown out into the waste-stream. It appears that
there are smart people who are doing less than smart things. There is a challenge in society. Perhaps
people know what they are doing, but they are too busy trying to survive to deal with it.
The facilitator observed that perhaps this comment identified another trend, where convenience is
serving something. A SAG member suggested the term “time poverty” and the facilitator asked if that
is getting worse. The group generally said they thought it is, and the facilitator thought it is important
to identify time poverty as something that drives behaviour.
A SAG member said she had thought of another trend, which is a lot of citizen-driven innovation, such
as the Repair Cafe and the Tool Library, etc. She said that the downside can sometimes be that people
see things on-line and don't realize that those things are not available here (such as recycling of certain
materials).
7
DRAFT
Another SAG member also added that in institutions, particularly hospitals and schools, there is a
move toward more individual packaging for sanitation, such as individually wrapped straws, etc.,
which significantly increases the amount of packaging. As a final trend, he identified an impact of the
ageing population as well, where there is sometimes a reduced capacity to reduce and recycle,
especially as there are fewer people left from the generation of the Depression who knew how to
conserve materials.
4. What does 30-50 years look like?
The facilitator asked the group to keep those trends in the back of their minds, and then imagine
taking a field trip to the year 2045, and writing a postcard back to today about the vision they would
like to see at that time.
First SAG members wrote their ideas individually, and then they got together in 3 small groups to share
their visions and write down the common and unique elements of their visions. Each group reported
back to the whole SAG.
Team 1 said that they had 3 distinct post-cards, since each member tackled it from a different angle.
Member 1 imagined what garbage looked like. He imagined that organics were separated very well.
Since organic waste is about 75% water, he envisioned water being taken out on-site, becoming grey
water to be treated. The residual 25% is transported to a nearby facility for treatment. All other streams
are co-mingled, and taken to a facility for separation.
Member 2 envisioned the waste diversion and recovery rate would be up to 90%, perhaps using a dirty
MRF. That would include the ICI sector too. The residuals would be treated in the region (rather than
shipping to Michigan, which at this time hasn't really stopped yet).
Member 3 foresaw a lack of harmonization of effort by governments, but hoped instead for national
leadership on harmonization which would be streamlined and provide efficiency. In his ideal vision,
incineration wouldn't be a taboo subject, and perhaps the Ring of Fire would be used for different
purposes, taking residual waste and putting it in mine shafts. He foresaw challenges. As there are new
and improved products for packaging, the challenge remains: what to do with it.
The facilitator asked Member 1 whether his vision was specific to multi-residential buildings.
Member 1 said that although his vision wasn't specific to multi-residential buildings, something like a
centrifuge for organic waste might be suitable for that context.
Team 2 reported that they envisioned a move toward a circular economy where waste is a resource.
This could include changes in ownership structures for materials. For example, just as we lease hot
water heaters today, in the vision it could be like that for white goods too, where they get returned at
the end of their life and redeveloped. There would be more deposit-return systems and a move toward a
sharing economy. This could not just be about municipalities. It would be a multi-stakeholder effort
with community groups, local businesses and others. Animation, energy and labour would come from
all sides. In the vision, the City uses a great green procurement policy that considers waste. The City
also has great recycling requirements for its vendors and good downstream monitoring of where all
materials go in the long-term.
Team 3 envisioned greater awareness of waste choices. Packaging and products would be labelled for
8
DRAFT
their carbon footprint so consumers could make more informed choices. Waste would be dealt with
locally as much as possible (for example, with community composting) to avoid a lot of transportation
issues. They envisioned integration of energy generation so that waste would be collected by electric
trucks. There would be full EPR for everything. There would be less waste because there would be an
extended life-cycle on goods – things would last longer and be repairable. The vision ultimately is for a
zero waste society – a circular economy. One member imagined that with production having evolved,
by 2045 the revenue generated from materials recovered from waste would exceed revenue from the
LCBO.
A SAG member envisioned getting to a point where resources were valued so much, and there had
been enough technological advances, that old landfills that had been capped would be mined for old
materials.
Another SAG member said she would love to be able to say that Toronto is a leader in waste
management again. It would be great to look back and be pleased with the steps taken in 2014, and
people in other jurisdictions would say “Toronto did it, so can we”. Many others agreed with her.
The SAG took a 10 minute break.
5. Guiding Principles
The facilitator showed a list of vision themes from another group and said she thought it showed a lot
of alignment with the thoughts expressed in the SAG. She asked if the list prompted any further
thoughts or comments.
A SAG member thought most themes looked more like a 5-10 year vision, rather than a 30 year vision.
She thought it was not as visionary as it could be.
The facilitator then addressed the topic of guiding principles. The question for the group was “What
guiding principles would you like to see considered to support the evaluation and selection of options
and approaches to be featured in the Strategy?”
She tabled the guiding principles that were part of the consultant RFP for the development of the Waste
Management Strategy. Jim McKay said that when Council approved the development of this Strategy,
it was with the understanding that these guiding principles would be incorporated. The principles are:
1. Consideration of options which support waste reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery before
final disposal
2. Consideration of all other environmentally approved disposal options to extend the life of Green
Lane Landfill
3. An open and transparent review of options
4. Innovation and flexibility to adapt to emerging technologies and changes to the regulatory
environment
5. Development of policies and opportunities for collaboration
9
DRAFT
A SAG member asked, regarding principle 5, with whom collaboration was meant. Jim McKay
replied that this is to be defined. The SAG member also said it was interesting that principle 1 was in
the form of a list, not a hierarchy. Annette Synowiec said it was meant to be implied.
Another SAG member asked about the time-frames to plan, approve and build new disposal facilities.
He wondered if it is realistic to think that new facilities could extend the life of Green Lane, or if it is
already too late. Annette Synowiec replied that the Strategy could include redirection to other landfill
facilities.
Another SAG member asked what “environmentally approved” means. Jim McKay replied that if it
is an existing facility then it is already approved. It is implied that it has a Certificate of Approval. If it
is a new technology, it has to meet the Province's regulatory requirements for performance. The SAG
member said that he was thinking of things like garburators, and a move to some weird technologies.
He wondered whether it would include those types of things. Jim McKay said he thought it would
need to be looked at. It is becoming more prevalent as an organics management option. Annette
Synowiec said that In-sinkerator garburators were one of the vendors that came to Vendor Days.
Another SAG member wondered whether the City has the ability to collaborate with other
municipalities and even with the Province. The City has to be sure not to be off-side, especially with
the Waste Reduction Act – Part II. The facilitator said that would be extending the principle of
collaboration.
The facilitator said that the principles that she showed are in place to drive the development of the
Strategy. She asked the group whether there are any other guiding principles that could help to
determine the direction of the Strategy, or if they had any other thoughts about guiding principles.
A SAG member said that it is notable that none of these principles talk specifically about minimizing
the environmental impacts of waste management. It is implied in the 4 Rs but there are other ways
waste management can impact the environment. He suggested it should include triple bottom line
analysis. Another SAG member suggested the principle of minimizing environmental, economic and
social impact and risk.
A SAG member suggested that the Strategy should address the totality of solid waste produced in the
City, since the City deals with only a portion of the waste being produced in its borders. Another SAG
member asked if there is a way to find out how much waste is produced by the ICI sector. Jim McKay
said it is difficult because there is no database that tracks it. Some broad assumptions can be made
based on data from Statistics Canada, which can produce some estimates, but they are not thought to be
very accurate. Another SAG member said that he thinks that the number being thrown around by the
Province (11%) is false. It is not indicative of what he hears when he talks to retailers. It begs the
question about data sources and what is actually known. Jim McKay agreed that there is a data gap.
Another SAG member suggested that this discussion spoke to another principle that the strategy
should be based on evidence, accurate information, and awareness of that information, for example
among consumers.
10
DRAFT
Another SAG member suggested a principle of waste as a resource going to its highest and best use
first – i.e. as high up the waste hierarchy as possible.
Another SAG member said that transparency and accuracy is necessary within the structure itself.
There are lots of numbers about diversion rates being put out by lots of municipalities across the
province. He said he would question the accuracy of the data, particularly relating to diversion rates.
Another SAG member added that it is also about the accessibility of that data.
A SAG member said that under the principle of looking at environmental impacts, she would want to
apply life-cycle considerations.
That SAG member also wondered to what extent does or can the City manage IC&I waste. Annette
Synowiec said that the City is definitely looking at the regulatory possibilities through the City of
Toronto Act. At the moment it can't control IC&I, though there are some regulations in place that
require multi-residential buildings to recycle the same basket of items that the municipality does. Jim
McKay clarified that the Province describes multi-residential as IC&I, which is a problem. Another
SAG member said that when he says the Strategy should include IC&I, he doesn't necessarily mean
that the City should take it over. It means that IC&I is considered in the Strategy. It means looking at
the full spectrum of tools, from taking over that stream to at least tracking it so that waste-stream is
better understood.
Another SAG member suggested including in the principles a desire to localize waste management as
much as possible.
Another SAG member suggested introducing the idea that there is potential for waste management to
offer new economic opportunities, perhaps with a principle to maximize the economic benefits of
managing waste. Another SAG member added that if there are some costs, they could be outweighed
by benefits. The idea is to maximize the net benefits in all areas – social, environmental, and economic.
Another SAG member wondered about including contribution to economic and social equality –
particularly relating to where facilities are located. There is a history of the smelly, nasty facilities
being located in communities least able to respond. The Strategy should consciously try to be fair about
this issue.
Another SAG member asked whether health impacts would be included as part of the social or
environmental impacts. For example, there are health impacts of recycling hazardous items, like things
with flame retardants. Jim McKay said that it can be part of social or environmental impacts, but a lot
of time it is pulled out as a standalone item.
The facilitator said that Jim McKay would consolidate what had been generated by the different
stakeholders and constituent groups that had provided their input.
6. Circle Back, Vendor Days and Close
11
DRAFT
As a first item in this section, the SAG agreed that the SAG #3 audio recording can be deleted.
The facilitator said that the only item under “Circle Back” was a question about green procurement.
Michelle Kane said that she had spoken to the Purchasing division and currently there is no plan to
update the green procurement policy, but it will be brought forward as a suggestion from the SAG.
Vendor Days:
Annette Synowiec presented some slides to inform the SAG about the event.
The main content for this presentation is in the slides in Appendix II. The following captures the group's
discussion surrounding the presentation.
Annette Synowiec said that staff had met with 19 vendors, and the day was quite successful. Her team
had also invited some Solid Waste Management sectional staff so some other directors and lead staff
attended as well.
She showed the questions that the vendors had been asked. Those that answered adequately were given
the opportunity to present. She showed the list of vendors that came and the kind of information that
they had presented on. The Solid Waste Management Division also had a booth at the Expo that
promoted the Long Term Strategy. Staff there spoke to about 80 additional people. Vendors attending
the Expo still had an opportunity to provide information into the Strategy through e-mail. This
information will be fed back into the Strategy and the development of options.
A SAG member said he was curious how successful the event was as an opportunity for the staff and
consulting team to learn more about the options out there. Annette Synowiec said there were a few
good options that had been brought forward that hadn't been considered before. This included
combining some kinds of services. For example, a large waste management company that owns a
landfill, a transfer station network, and a collection firm proposed that if there is contracting out in D3
and D4, the City should put out a bid that included collection and disposal. Typically, adding collection
in with disposal hadn't been considered before, and that is a new conversation.
Also, another vendor has software for collecting data and real-time reporting. That could enable getting
information and report cards back to property managers at condos and apartments. That would be a
useful tool to see how they are doing, since the City is not able to provide that in real time. The
vendor’s software seems more advanced than what the City has right now. It allows building managers
to do a better job with their waste management and do bench-marking. Jim McKay added that there
was some good information about technologies from outside North America. A lot of technology
providers' reference facilities in Europe, Australia or Japan. A lot of these companies were in Canada
for the conference. He said he had heard of many of these things before but the technologies are
advancing so fast that there are ideas out there that are different, even from a year ago. Some vendors
could provide some of the lessons they have learned with their experiences, and describe how they are
modifying their approaches. The advances that they made in the last 12-18 months were significant. He
said that he found it interesting because some of these firms are applying these technologies around the
12
DRAFT
world. Some of them had taken some of Toronto's information off the web and presented their insight
into applying their solutions to the City of Toronto, without the constraints that often come with a
procurement process. This process was wide open and allowed for some good ideas.
Another SAG member asked about optical sorting. Jim McKay described Optibag. They provide 3
streams with different colour bags. Residents sort their materials into those three bags, tie it up and then
it all goes down one chute and is collected together and taken to a sorting facility. At the front end of
the facility, those bags go onto a conveyor belt with an optical sorter that directs the bags to the
appropriate stream. This has been applied in Europe. Stockholm did a pilot and it was accepted by
people willing to do the sorting.
Another SAG member said that she knew there was a group that did some sorting based on bag colour
in a county in California. It was to sort out plastics for an energy from waste process.
SAG Meeting Schedule:
The facilitator said there is a proposal to consider the third Thursday of every month in the New Year
for SAG meetings. She asked if there were any objections to this suggestion. A SAG member asked
about the Public Works schedule. Vince Sferrazza said that the first meeting is January 6, 2015.
The facilitator said they would move forward with this proposal. She checked with the group about
time slots, and asked the group whether mornings, middle of the day, or afternoons were better. There
were a variety of preferences with perhaps a few more for the morning. Annette Synowiec said they
would do a Doodle Poll and go with the majority, and if she saw a whole bunch of declines she may
reschedule.
A SAG member asked if the group could talk about the next steps in the Strategy. The facilitator said
yes. Another SAG member asked about Technical Memorandum I. Annette Synowiec said that the
City is finishing its review of the draft document, which is the baseline document. It is about 140 pages
of text plus appendixes. Once the City gets its comments back to HDR, they will need to revise it and
that will probably take a couple of weeks. By the next SAG meeting in January there will probably be a
draft ready, but it is a large document, so the plan is to have the next set of SAG meetings as
discussions on different parts of the document and for staff to walk the SAG through it. SAG members
would also have the opportunity to read the whole document on their own, at their leisure.
A SAG member asked whether the public consultation period would be shifted. Annette Synowiec
said no. Staff are finalizing the detailed implementation plan for phase 2 consultation. There will
probably be a public event toward the late Spring. The lead up to that would include a series of project
updates. The results of the survey from the summer should be distributed through the different
stakeholder groups. There will be a couple of different interactive surveys leading up to the public
event, which will include discussion of options and recommendations of criteria. Staff will share every
step of the way with the SAG and the SAG will have a chance to see it and provide input.
Annette Synowiec said that SAG members could anticipate staff having conversations with them about
how to engage their stakeholders. For example, if any of their organizations would be having an event
13
DRAFT
that would lend itself to having a booth or other information about the Strategy and provide a chance
for the City to do some outreach, they should let staff know. Staff is also looking into having a speaker
series on the 3Rs and a panel discussion with some academics and experts to garner interest in waste in
general and more specifically in the Long Term Strategy. The details of those events are still being
worked out. She said SAG members should feel free to provide suggestions.
The facilitator asked if it would make sense to include an update at the next meeting on what the next
couple of months would look like. Annette Synowiec said yes, and she would also want to include an
opportunity for SAG members to provide their suggestions for further consultation.
The facilitator thanked the group for their input and participation in the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 pm.141414
14