Item No,8 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER- Operations MISSION STATEMENT: "Oü Cily is bu¡h on relalionshrps - behrcen cilizens and lhet goveÍnmenl, bus¡nesses andpubl¡c fistitt¡lions, cily and regþn -all ¡nterconnected, mutuallj suppotttue, andlocused on the b.i gh test future )11e êan create together." Livelink REPORT #: 18116 Report Date: December 22,2015 l#600îDate to Council: f,'ebruary 22nd, 2016 Classifrcation #: 81112444 Author's Name: Anne-Marie Albidone Author's Phone: 519 97 4-2277 ext.3123 Author's E-mail: aalbidone@citywindsor,ca To: Mayor and Members of City Council Subject: Waste and Recycling Tender Results 1. I. RECOMMENDATION: City Wide: X Ward(s): _ TI{AT Council ACCEPT the bid from Green for Life in the amount of $1,651,543/yr (amount already includes a discount of $74,9).2 based on a combined bid, net of nonrecoverable HST) on tender #142-15 for the provision of bi-weekly recycling collection services in the City of Windsor, to begin on February 27,2017; atd THAT the Chief Administrative Officer and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign an agreement with Green for Life for the provision of recycling collection services, which agreement shall be approved as to technical content by the City Engineer, financial content by the City Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, and as to legal content by the City Solicitor; and II. THAT Council ACCEPT the bid from Green for Life in the amount of $66.81 per metric tonne (amount already includes a discount of $0.96 per metric tonne based on a combined bid) for total estimated contract cost of$3,474,120/yr (based on estimated 44,000 tonnes of garbage and 8,000 tonnes ofyard waste, and net of non-recoverable HST) on tender #143-15 for the provision of residential waste and yard waste collection se¡vices to begin November 18,2017;' and THAT the Chief Administrative Officer and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign and agreement with Green for Life for the provision of residential waste and yard waste collection services, which agreement shall be approved as to technical content Financia.l Offrcer, and as to legal content by the City Solicitor; and by the City Engineer, financial content by the City Treasurer and Chief III. THAT Council APPROVE a pre-commitment of the annualized cost of $431,173 to the 2017 Operating Budget, and an additional annualized cost of $571,066 to the 2018 Operating Budget for Environmental Services, to cover the cost of the inc¡eased tender pricing. 1of14 W, The cuÍent tenders for Recycling Collection and GarbageYard Waste Collection will expire in 2017. Since a fulI year is normally required to procure new equipment, new tenders for these services were issued on November 3'd,2015. Bids were received on December 7ú,2015 fot Recycling collection, and on Decemb er g'h, 2Ol5 for Garbage/Yard Waste collection. A CUPE Local 82 proposal to in-source these seryices was received on November 5th, 2015. In the Recycling Collection tender, bidders were asked to provide costs for weekly recycling collection, as an option. As a result of extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis, administration is recommending that Council approve a combined award to Green For Life for the recycling (bi-weekly service level) and garbage/yard waste contracts. 2. BAGKGROUND: At its Special Council meeting ofOct29,2015, City Council approved the following resolution: cRL98/201s I) That Comcil DIRECT Adminis*ation to extend the curlent Recycling contract \t)ith Green for Life for a period of six months, under the current terms, at a total cost of $701,845.02 or 8116,974.17 monthly, excluding HST; and, il) That Comcil DIRECT Administration to tender City of l4/indsor Recycling and Garbage collection exclusive of the Essex Il/indsor Solid W'aste Authority as soon as practicable and report to council to provide the outcome of this tender plocess and the estimated impact on the City of Windsor budget, if any. The crment contract for Recycling collection expires on February 26, 2017 while the Waste collection contract expires on November 17,2017. The current service provider is Green for Life (GFL). In order to ensure sufficient time to procure collection vehicles for the services, the tender for Recycling collection was issued on November 3rd,2015 with a closing date of December 7ft,2015, and the tender for'Waste collection was issued on November 3'd, 2015 with a closing date of Decemb er 9th,2015. Proponents were asked to submit bids for current service levels, as well as a¡ enhanced weekly recycling servìce level. A total of 8 proponents picked up the Recycling collection tender documents, while 10 proponents picked up the Waste collection tender documents. Six (6) bids were received for each tender by the respective closing dates. A prequalification process was conducted to ensure that all bidders participating in the tender were qualified, and only the bids from prequalified bidders were opened. Four (4) bids were opened for each of the collection tenders. On November 5th, 2015, CUPE Local 82 submitted a proposal to Administration for the insourcing of waste and recycling collection. Local 82 employees performed collection services for waste and recycling up until November 2010, at which point the service was outsourced to GFL (then Turtle Island Recycling Ltd.). Both the tender results and the CUPE Local 82 proposal are discussed in this reporl for Council's consideration. 2of14 3. DISGUSSION: In terms of waste collection services, there are two main areas the Council should consider: Service Provision and Service Level. SERWCEPROWSION Tender results A public tender opening in accordance with the Purchasing Bylaw was held on December lg, 2015 at 1l:45arn at 400 city Hall Square. At the opening, only those bids for which the bidder had been prequalified under the prequalification stage \ /ere opened, aad the others were retumed unopened. The following charts outline the results ofthe tender openìng. Chart 'A' shows the ¡esults of the individual contract costs received for each service, and chafi 'B' reflects the prices with discounts. Discounts were offered if bidders were awarded both recycling a¡d waste collection. These discounts only apply in the event of a combined award and are identified in chart'c'. It is noted that bidders submitted per-tonne bids in respect to the waste collection component, and these bids were based on estimated amual tonnages of 44,000 tonnes per year for garbage and 8,000 tonnes per year for yard waste (a totai of 52,000 tonnes). For purposes of comparison, the estimated extended price is shown as well as the per-torure price actually bid. Bidder Miller Waste Windsor Disposal Service Emterra Green for Life Chart A ndividual and Waste Waste Bids Recvclins Bids Garbage & Yard Bi-Weekly Weekly Collection Waste Collection $6,086,080.00 l$117.O4ltonne) $4,468,880.00 l$85.94ltonnel $4,301,960.00 l$82.73ltonne) $3,524,040.00 (567.77ltorne\ $3,s03,340.00 9s,273,62s.00 $1,883,633.00 $3,708,529.00 $2,739,223.41 83,816,726.07 $1,726,4s5.00 $2,949,255.00 3 of14 Individual Bidder Miller Waste Chart B and Waste tsids (with discounts Waste Bids Recvclins Bids Garbage & Yard Bi-Weekly Weekly Collection Waste Collection $5,071,560.00 (reflects $ 19.5l/ton¡e discount) $2,s86,110.00 $4,229,76s.00 $4,468,880.00x $1,86s,863.00 $3,690,759.00 $4,301,960.00 (reflects $0.0O/tonne discount) $2,239,223.41 $3,316,726.07 $1,651,543.00 $2,874,343.00 Vy'indsor Disposal Service Emterra s3,474,120.00 (reflects $0.96ltonne discount) *(discount for waste only deemed to be $0.00) Green for Life Chart C Total Cost for Combined Service Level Bidder Waste + Bi-weekly Recycling (current service level) Waste + Weekly Recycling (enhanced service level) Miller Waste $7,6s7,670.00 $9,301,325.00 Windsor Disposal Services s6,334,743.00 $8,1s9,639.00 Emterra $6,541,183.41 $7,618,686.07 $5,125,663.00 $6,348,463.00 Green for Life In all scenarios, Green for Life (GFL) is the lowest bidder. The combined bid by GFL represents a 19.2% increase over the 2016 budget (inclusive of non-recoverable HST) of $ 4,213,636; wlnle the second lowest bid repre sents a 55.2%o increase in cost over the 2016 budget. council will recall Adminishation's caution during the previous tender process ofincreased bid prices once the infrastructure required to perform the work in-house was absent. Green for Life is a well established waste management company in canada. The business was established in the early 1990's and currently provides collection services to several Ontario municipalities, including the City of Windsor. Union proposal CUPE Local 82 submitted a proposal to Administration on November 5th, 2015,to retum waste and recycling collection to in-house service provision. The entire proposal is attached as Appendix A, however the highlights are as follows: 4of14 1. all rear-loading packers for waste collection. When collection was in-house, Environmental Services utilized both rear-loading vehicles (requiring 2 operators) and side -loading vehicles (requiring 1 operator). The union is suggesting using only rearUse of loaders because (a) The purchase price ofa rear-loader is substantially less than side-loading vehicles; (b) Rear-loaders hold more tonnage therefore less time is lost in transportation (c) Having 2 operators allows for regular rest periods which could lead to fewer WSIB claims. Graduated pay scale, The union proposes that newly hired Environme ntal Local 82 employees wouid follow a 7 year graduated pay scale. The current JJE established rate for waste collectors of rearJoading trucks is $26.58 (2016 rafe). Their proposed pay scale, which would remain in effect for all newly classified employees for as long as the service of waste and recycling collection remained in house, is as follows: Level Maximum Rate Value @ current max. of $26.58 t7.28 I ) 65V" .' 75o/o 17.28 19.94 4 5 75o/o l9-94 85o/o 22.59 22.59 26.58 6 7 3. 7o of 65'/" 85V. l00o/o Service continuation. In the event of a labour disruption the union has indicated that any employee actively working the classifications of gartagelrecycling/yard waste collectors would continue to do so for the duration ofthe labour disruption at the established service levels. Furthermore, there would be no delay in service provision due to a picket line. In order to properly analyze the Dnion's proposal Adminishation determined the staffing, equipment and resources required. The results of the cost analysis of the union proposal can be found in the financial section of this report. While the union proposal to in-source services is significantly more costly than that ofthe lowest bid received during the tendering process for both waste collection and recycling collection, there are two operational considerations to review with an in-house service provision model. Firstly, the Union is proposing a guarantee of continued service in the event ofa labour dispute. Council should note that although GFL is not cuuentiy unionized, they could become so at any point in the contract. Although GFL would still be expected to provide the seruice in the event of a labour disruption, it is anticipated that there would be some delay in that service. The union's proposal has stated that in the event of a labour disruption, they will continue with waste collection services at established levels and wouid not impede those employees from performing their work. Secondly, in-house service allows for more control and Ilexibilify by Administration to react to City Council's requests and direction in terms of altering service levels, byJaw requirements, acceptable items, etc. without concem of increased costs beyond actual ope¡ating costs (such as 5 of14 additional employees/trucks), and which would all be presented to council prior to making such decisions. Council will recall that the recent change to hard-sided container requirement resulted in a¡ increase fee to the contracto¡ that did not become apparent until well after the implementation. With the impending new provincial legislation regarding waste diversion, recycling is expected to inc¡ease and therefore may lead to an opportunity for a contractor to request additional funding. Although still significantly more costly, City Council may also wish to give consideration to insource only one ofthe services (either waste or recycling) and keep the other out-sourced. However, awarding only one serwice to an outsourced provided will negate the discounts outline in charts B a¡d c above. should councíl wish to do so, which would be for reasons other than financial, Administration would recommend in-sourcing garbage and out-sourcing recycling, as that combination is the least expensive option under a partial in-sourcing opetation. The table below outlines the possible combinations along with their associated costs. NOTE: Above costs are for current service levels (i.e. Weekly garbage and bi-weekly recycling). In addition, costs are inclusive of non-recoverable HST and include an assumed CPVinflation rate of 1.5%o per year. SERWCE LEVELS As illushated in the charts A-C, bidders were asked to provide pricing for weekly recycling collection as an enhanced service level. Many municipalities in Ontario have moved to weekly recycling coliection. According to the Essex Windsor Solid Waste Authority's (EWSWA) 2011 Solid Waste Management Master Plan, weekly recycling collection is expected to increase diversion by an estimated 2%-3%, thereby extending the life of the landfill. The City of Windsor's current diversion rate is 41.1% while the provincial average (for those municipalities participating in OMBI) ts 44.6%. Many of those municipalities also have organic collection which contributes to their diversion rate. With weekly recycling, the City of Windsor could approach the average diversion mte of its OMBI partners without the investment in organic collection. Under the curent service level (bi-weekly) and the current funding model, close to TOyo of total lecycling costs are funded through the sale of recyclable materials. The remaining amount is funded by equally by Stewardship Ontario and the municipalities of Essex County (through the EWSWA budget). Given that a weekly recycling program is likely to generate a mere 2-3%o more product, the revenue from sales is not likely to increase drasticaìly. Th'erefore the remaining additional costs for weekly collection to be funded by Stewardship Ontario and the 6of14 municipalities would be significantly higher. The financial matters section firrther outlines this impact to the City of Windsor. However, this increased cost may only be short term (4-6 years). The MOECC is proposing a new Waste Free Ontario Act that would replace the current Waste Diversion Act. îhe cunent Act requires municipalities to provide recycling collection at least half as frequently as garbage collection. The new Act proposes to transition fi-rll responsibility of the blu; bo; prog¡am to producers. WÏile many aspects of the Act remain undefined, the Ir¡OpCC has clearly stated the hansition must be seamless to the customer (residents) a¡d the service levels must be maintained. should the new bill pass third rcading, municipalities may no longer have the ability to independently set or alter service levels, as the producers wili likely bJ required to maintain the service levels set at the time of transition. The transition io frrll producer responsibility for the Blue Box program is expected to take 4-6 years. council should note there is no obligatìon to award the weekly recycling bid, however doing so would be a step towards the provincial diversion farget of 60%o and may ensure a higher service level should we tra¡sition to full producer responsibility. This is disóussed firther in the risk section. Should council wish to provide weekly recycling, GFL remains the lowest bidder. In order to allow proper timelines for the procurement ofhucks, a decision by council on the service provider and service level is recommended no later than February 22õd,2016. 4. RISK ANALYSIS: There are significaat risks associated with the service provision options and moderate risks associated with service levels. A more detailed chart ofthe risks ássociated with each of the options is attached in Appendix B. SERWCE PROWSION An outsourced model of garbage or recycling collection presents a significant risk ofa budget variance in the event that changes to the service contract are required. The dollar amount may or may not be material. Given the 7 year coîfracr term, and the pen ding l aste Free onrario Act, changes to the services are likely. Possible mitigation optionJincludé the potential to negotiate any additional fees with the contractor and would be assigned to the Execùtive Director ãf operations. Another mitigating strategy would be to shift to weekly recycling as the impact to volume would be spread over 52 collections as opposed to only 26 collectioni. should ìhe significant immediate financial burden not be a concern, council may choose to minimize the impact of this risk by opting for the in-house delivery model for one or both services. This would increase costs \ryith certairúy, but has an adva¡rtage of allowing fo¡ some control over the cost increases associated with service changes. It should be noted that there is also a risk that budget pressures a¡d Human Resource implications could be realized with changes in service provision under an in-sourced model as well. The in-house model presents a significant risk with respect to potential labour disruptions, as workers would be in a unionized environment and would retain their individual right to strike. If a service disruption occuß, there would be insufficient ¡esources to continue expected service levels as did occur in the most recent past work stoppage. Potential mitigation óptions include contingency plans and negotiations with the union, which would be assigned to ihe Executive Director of operations. Another mitigating strategy would be to outsource all services. 7 of14 Additionally, if Council were to consider the in sourcing ofservices and then wish to tetum to an outsourced service model in the future, there is a significant budget risk resulting from expected transition costs in the order of$8 million and associated labour impacts which historically have taken up to five years to resolve ifa similar approach to the last outsourcing in 2010 is adopted by City Council. Although, it is noted that the bulk of these costs would relate to the wages for displaced employees, ifthey were to be retained, until the compliment would be reduced through attrition; therefore, the City would gain an increased senice level similar to what happened in the 2010 outsourcing. This risk presents as moderate in an outsou¡ced model (see Appendix B). SERWCE LEVEL The potential legislative cha¡ges that may arise from the passing of the l\/aste Free Ontario Act present overarching risks and opportunities for both service provision and service levels, especially given that the details ofthe proposed regulations are unknown at this time. The impact ofthese changes may vary depending on the timing oftheir implementation and whether any grace period is granted for existing waste collection contracts. With respect to service levels, an overall trend towards increased recycling is apparent and will likely be supported in the upcoming legislative changes. The City may benefit by shifting to weekly collection of recycling in advance ofthese changes, in order to realize increased compensation under a fuIl producer responsibility model. Adopting a weekly service level presents a high budget risk, as sales revenue are not likely to increase significantly and the Essex Windsor Solid Waste Authority (EWSWA) may not choose to purchase an additional level of service from the City, resulting in increased costs to provide weekly service. The impact ofthis risk is anticipated to be short-term, provided the shift to full producer responsibility occurs within the next few years. 5. FINANCIAL MATTERS: SERWCE PROWSION As noted throughout the discussion section ofthis report, GFL provided the lowest cost for the provision of waste and recycling collection at current service levels (weekly waste pick-up and bi-weekly recycling), with a combined bid price of $5,125,663. When considering nonrecoverable HST on this amount, the annual budget required will be $5,215,875. The current 2016 budget, and required budget increase, is broken down as follows: 2016 Approved Budget Contractor Bid Price (including Net Budget Impact NonRecoverable HST HSTI Waste 'Waste & Yard Recycling Bi-Weeklv Total - s 2,972,s14 s 3,474,120 $ 501,606 $ 61,145 s t,24t,r22 $ 1,651,543 s 410,421 $ 29,067 s 4,213,636 $ 5,125,663 s 912,027 s 90,212 *$ffii* 5:,S91 ffi',,.-(.3&*!, Based on the lowest cost bid, a budget increase of 51,002,239 will be required. Annual on-going adjustments to the contract price for CPI and fuel will also be required on an a¡nual basis. Upon awa¡d of the tenders, this budget increase will be annualized as part of the regular Operating 8 of 14 Budget presented to Council. The approval of this budget increase will result in the following impact to the 2011 &.2018 Operating Budget: ttl 2018 Budget Requirement does not include any adjusrmentfor CpI or Fuel Local 82 Proposal As part of the frnancial analysis related to the provision of Waste and Recycling Services, a detailed comparison of the costs to continue with an outsou¡ced serwice versus the cost of insourcing waste and recycling collection was completed. This analysis was performed as a result ofthe proposal received from CUPE Local82. The results of that analysis, for the 7 year term of the contract, are summarized below. In all insta¡ces, the cost to in-source results in a significantly higher cost of providing waste and recycling service over the 7 year term of the conhact. It should be noted that the cost analysis that follows is based on a status quo delivery model of weekly waste collection and bi-weekly recycling collection. Given the significantly higher cost of in-house service delivery, the modeì was not extended to consider the provision of weekly recycling collection. rn addition, as with any Íinancial model, certain assumptions and projections are used in order to develop and compare costs over a number ofyears. staffing numbers, negotiated wage and other benefit increases, along with inflation râtes, play a signifïcant role in determining total in-house costs. variations in these assumptions will have an impact on projected costs. :t::i::-itl:ì:i:.:rr:::ì;,.triìi:,lr.r,r,::r:.i::::- .,: :'::: ruiäôiia:'.::'].]::i¡: ..:,:P':r,ol¡iti¡,ir:r.l::: :r::::.i':i:i::ì:iraìi::r:i:,.1,i:,:i:1:¡:r"a Waste & Yard Waste Collection ONLY Recvcline Collection ONLY Combined Service $ 26,260, 9 s t2,86s,334 $ 38,195.820 s 27.871-598 $ 17 .211.026 $ 42.098.115 lincreased Lbst of In-Spwcing : , ã:&1.11üÉ1¡* lep,ptfêil$itû:. i¡i:il::(7.. .4fÐ.:* s 1.6.t0.879 s 4.345.693 s3.902.295 * Inclusive of non-recoverable HST and qn assumed annual inflation rate in the contract price of 1.5% per year The detailed financìal analysis for the in-house model ìncluded wages a¡d benefits, vehicle costs, supervision, and administrative costs associated with providing the service. Looking at the final year of the contract (year 7), the expected increase in annual, on-going costs related to an inhouse service under each service option are as follows: 9 of14 YY:l1t Waste & Yard Waste Collection ONLY fcontractor bid is undiscountedl Recycling Collection ONLY þi-weekty) fcontractor bid is undiscountedl Combined Service fdiscountedl s 3,921,157 $ 4,381,671 $ 460,514 $ 1,921,006 8 2,s39,tr2 $ 618,106 g 5.703.263 $ 6,485,45s s 782,192 price of per year As can be seen from the above analysis, the cost of the union proposal increases annually until year 7. Should City Council entertain in-sourcing now, it's possible that sometime in the last 1-2 years of this conffact, city council may again, direct exploration of outsou¡cing. In 2010 as is tÍe case now and will be at a¡)time, this is an emotional exercise that takes significant staff resou¡ces and time. While the CUPE collective agreement language allows for outsourcing, they have gained some language strength since 2010, thus making the process even more onerous for maragement and council to undertake. This should be considered if council is contemplating an in- house operation. In addition to the annual on-going operational costs that would be required to in-source waste and recycling services, significant one-time costs would also be incurred in order to re-estabiish in-house operations. Capital - purchase new fleet (packers & recyclers) $ 3,077,508 $ 4,022,016 $ 17,000 $ 7,099,s24 - Administrator's car $ 17,000 $ 17,000 - Supervisor's trucks (Environmental) - Supervisor's car (Fleet) $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 60,000 17,000 $ 17,000 $ 65,000 $ 120,000 $ 17,000 $ - Service truck $ 65,000 $ 6s,000 - fit-up of Environmental Garage $ 120,000 ö 120,000 - computers for staJf $ 5 Subtotal - One-Time Capital . $ 3 2 q 780 4,273,851 $ 7.382,304 Other Post-retirement benefi * $ 559,000 $ 754,000 $ 67,609 s 234,000 23,755 $ On-boarding ofnew staff (collection only) $ 91,364 Early hiring of Administrator and Environmental Supervisor Temporary Employment Officer to assist $ 26,073 $ 49,045 $ 49,04s with hiring $ 18,9ss $ 18,955 $ 18,9ss Medical tests for new employees $ 10,005 $ 4.600 $ 13,68s Drive¡ simulation testing (Local 82 only) $_ $ 5 ts Subtotal - One-Time C)ther - Total One-Time Costs related to In- ¡r-+:!l,:: 5 $ $ $ q 55 933,924 4.015.985 'il the age of 65. in the long run, 10 of 14 These one-time costs would require council to pre-commit. funds as paft of the next 5-year capital plan. These funds a¡e Nor in the cur¡ent 5 year capital budget. As the current capital plan is fully committed for 2016 through 2020, this would require the postponement of major corporate projects that have currently been identified and approved in principle or an increase to the tax levy. As such, this investment should be viewed as a corporate priority, should Council approve the move to an in-house service delivery model. As part of the increased cost of re-instating in-house collection services, there would be a increased impact to staffing levels as a result of in-sourcing. - Local 82 (Environmental) - Local 82 (Fleet) - Local 543 (Environmental) - Non-Union (Environmental) - Non-Union (Fleet) Total FTE Increase 37.0 13.0 50.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 t.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 43.0 18.0 58.s As Council will recall, with the outsourcing that occurred in 2070 several position in both Environmental and Fleet were impacted. Bringing this service back in-house will essentially retum staffing numbers to previous leveis, although slight adjustments have been made as a result ofefficiencies in operations that have been achieved over the past 5 years. SERWCE LEVEL with a move to weekly recycling, the total annual recycling program operating cost would increase by $l,222,800, under a contracted model. This increase would be offset by estimated additional reventrc of $227,995 due to the sale of increased recyclable material being collected, based on a 2%o inqease in diversion rate (which equates to an increase of 8.3o/o in recyclable materials). Therefore the net armual impact of moving to weekly recycling would be an additional $994,805 in net program costs. If the cunent funding model between the City and County remains the same, the net program costs would then be split 50/50 between Stewardship Ontario and the City and County municipalities. The city would then pay approximately half of the remaining net program cost, or $248,701arurually, over bi-weekly collection. The $248,701 would be further offset by City waste collection savings of approximately $ 101,334 due to the removal of tonnage from the waste stream and into recyclable materials. These savings would be a direct result ofreduced tip fees. The anticipated a¡nual incremental cost ofmoving to a weekly recycling program is therefore estimated at approximately $ 141,367 over bi-weekly collection. If the EWSWA did not support the City's move to weekly collection, the additional $l,ZZZ,g00 would be fully charged to the Cìty, however, it would be expected that the full revenue of our increased material sales wouid be credited to us and not shared with the county. under this scenario, and after considering the 50% Stewa¡dship Ontario funding ofnet program costs, the net cost to the City would be approximately 5497 ,403. Continuing with the assumption of 11 of 14 decreased tonnage due to an increase in recycling pick-up and reduced tþing fees of approximately S101,334, the final cost to the City would be an estimated $396,069. This is outlined in the chart below: l:arCJ rì,]::F Incremental collection costs Additional recvclins revenue expected to be generated Net orogram increase Stewardship Ontario Funding @ 50o/o * Net cosr rc municipalities Cost sharing with County Balance ofcosts to Citv Reduction in tip fees paid through reduced waste tomage canft red fhroush recvclins Net Program Cost to City above current sen'ice level $ 1.222.800 ($227 "99s\ s994.805 (s497.403\ $1,222,800 (s227.995\ s994.805 (s497-403\ s497.403 $248.701) 8248,701 8497.403 $0 $497,403 1s101.3341 ($i01.334) 8147,367 $396,069 Act. Should the funding rate cos'.s is mandated by the cunent Waste Diversion Ontario decrease in the future, the net cost to the Cþ would increase. Therefore, a change in service level to weekiy recycling pick-up would see an increase in a¡nual costs to the City ranging from $147 ,367 - $396,069, depending on the funding model and would be subject to future inflationary increases which would be a¡nualized through the normal operating budget process. Furthermore, it should be noted that the County collection contract will be going to tender in a few months a¡d will also include an option for weekly collection. The new County collection contract will need to be awarded around November 2016 in order to allow sufficient time for the proponent to obtain the necessary equipment by the start of the contract (November 2017). 6. MNS.' Finance Department - Natasha Couvillon Angela Marazila Fleet Division Legal Department Purchasing Departrnent - 7. CONGLUSION: Administ¡ation has recommended continuation of a full outsourced delivery model as it is the most cost effective model with the least amount of risk. GFL is the winning ploponent in the bid process and it is recommended that they be awa¡ded this contract. 12 of 14 Although weekly recycling is the preferred and recommended service level, Administration has formally recommended the current service level, in keeping with administ¡ation's understanding of City Council's fiscal strategy, as bi-weekly collection is also the lowest cost model. Manager, Environnental Services AMA APPENDICES: Appendix A - CUPE Local 82 Waste Collecfion and Recycling Collection proposal B -P & C enclosure for Mayor & Council DEPARTMENTS/OTHERS CONSULTED: Name: Phone #: 519 ext. l3 of 14 NOTIFICATION: Name CUPE Local 82 Address Email Address 1576 Paxent localSzkù.cu e&2.ca Telephone 519-2s2-2877 Windsor, On FAX 519-2523 841 \IRY ¿I7 Green For lz) Life vuarDolt ufes., bhenderson@gflenv.com 905-831-6297 Suite B Vaughan, ON 905-4266241 L4K4K2 wrnosor Services Dßposal Ltd Miller Waste Systems Inc. 2700 DezieI Dr 519-944-8009 Windsor, ON N8W 5H8 Woodbine 8050 tt24 Brad.Harper@millergroup.ca 905-415-7320 905-4756396 Paulina.leuns@emtelTa.ca 905-336-9084 905-336- Ave Halton Recycling Dba Ltd. Emteffa 886s L1M IK4 Environmenfâl Canadian Ma¡kham, ON L3R 2N8 I122 Pioneer Rd Burlington, ON 5t9-944- Waste Management Inc 5425 Dixie Rd, Cwm@bellnet.ca 9U)-¿ I t-+O+O Suite 15 9UJ-¿ I I 5453 Mississauga, ON Rjzzo Envrionmental Services ofCanada Inc. L4W 186 2485 Ouellette Ave, chu ckjr(ddzzasqvlç9s.eaqr 586-477 -8900 nJa Suite 201 Windsor, ON N8X 1l.s 14 of 74 ~v .3 . . 5r. 593% "331? hill; 3' I . 421.32WASTE COLLECTION RECYCLING COLLECTION PROPOSAL NOV 5 2315 I I -- I ur- v: a-an-mon ?Anny-A, . . JayffiqJ[#",-##m I ,ff',r*,, ?{^iï;i]i?,iti;iï' November 4, 2015 Mt'. Dwayne Dawson Executive Dil'ector of Public Works L266 Mc Dougall Street NBX 3M7 Windsot Ontario Dear Dwayng RE: CUPF I ocal 82 Waste Coilection and Recvcline Collection proposal cuPE Local B2 is in support of the pathway to bring back the services of and ¡.elated to waste/recycling collection in the city of windsor. It's with honour ¡hat we offer our sewices and ongoing commitment to put service to the residents of windsor first, we always strive to workwith AdministraËion to fìnd ways to achieve savings and deliver great services to this communÍty. we will continue to work within the budgets set forth liy council, and have always been open to finding Ímprovements in service ãnd look forward to perhaps providing this service again to the citizens of windsor in an efficien! accountabìe and cost effective manner. Please see the attached proposal regarding the cun'ent tender for waste collection and recycling coìlection in the City of Windsor. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding any ofthe information contained in this package please feel free to contact ùs atSIg--252-2877 or via email at localg2@cupeg2.ca. We look forwa¡d to hearing back from you on this matter. Respecttully, V/@!rth*Z Nata¡ie Popovic Recording Secretary CUPE Local 82 Atflllatod w¡th Canadlan Lâbour coÌgress¡ Wndsor & Dlstr¡ct Councll of pühllc Emptoyêes, Ontarlo Dlv¡Eion of CUPE, OntaÌlo Federatlon ot Labour Wl¡risot & Dlstrlot Labour Counclt CUPE LOCAL 82 Waste Collection and Recycling Collection Proposal This is a preliminary proposal from CUPE Local B2 with respect to insourcing residential waste, yard waste and recycling collection, the reason we fi.ame it in that sense is due to the fact that we were not priuy to the particulals of the new tender, in addition, we do not have access to all budgetary costs and/or brealrdowns relating to the work ât the time we put this together. The reason that this proposal is vague with respect to specific numbers regar.ding staffing Ievels and/or required eguipment is to allow management the flexibility in determining the operational needs and operating costs for in house service delivery. However, with that being said we would like to suggest the use of two [2) man trucks wherever possible over.a one (LJ man truck for the following reasons: . ¡ . They are substantially cheaper to pulchase They hold considerably more in tonnage They allow for regular rest periods for Employees (thr-owingJ which reduce the Þotential for injuries and associated WSIB costs. StaÍfrng Any new hires would be considered regular full-time employees. Waoes To help ôffset the initial costs to purchase new vehicles the Locaì is proposing.a wage benefit package in a 5 year graduated pay scaìe for newly hired employees into tle positions identified in t-his ploposal. The current wages for employees working in the classifications ofone man packer or twoman packer is band 4 or $26.26 for 2015, CU PE 82 Gorboge/Recycling Proposol 7of3 The.following chart is an example of the wage structure the Local is proposing: *Negotiated increâses have not been accounted for+ Flertb itv and Cost Control We taì