King Township signs on for 8 more years in $83M waste collection deal

YorkRegion.com
Dec. 13, 2016
Tim Kelly

Your garbage will be collected for the next eight years by the same company some residents bitterly complained about just a few short years ago.

That decision, reached after a brief closed-session meeting and not without a bit of controversy, was reached at King Township council Monday night.

Councillors agreed to an eight-year, $83 million contract with GFL (Green For Life) Environmental to pick up garbage in the N6 (Northern 6) municipalities of York Region. The N6 consist of York's six smallest municipalities and include East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Aurora, Newmarket and King.

King's share of the cost is about 10 per cent of the total or about $1 million annually.

GFL has come under fire for service complaints during its time collecting garbage in King and the other N6 municipalities during the past contract.

"Our waste management situation is a crisis," said Councillor Bill Cober back in November 2013. "I believe it is unacceptable," Mayor Steve Pellegrini said about the service provided by GFL at that time.

In January 2014, GFL executives went on a bit of a NG municipal apology tour heading to Newmarket, Aurora and Stouffville to apologize for and address service complaints, and promise to do better in future.

Still, on Monday night, Councillor Linda Pabst remained unconvinced before the vote expressing her unhappiness with GFL's service.

"We have had horrible service ... our garbage bins are heaved everywhere, the lids are never with them, they're down in the ditches, that happened to me as well and to some of my constituents, the trucks often drove by the garbage bins to the next house and just left them there, why we would go to the same company? I cannot support this company at all," Pabst said. She later voted to support the contract after seeing a confidential comparison of the various bids.

It seems it paid off big time for the company as King council, after going in camera to compare confidential scores on price and service, agreed to the deal.

But not before several residents complained about not having a chance to see how the proponents stacked up against each other in the public report.

Anthony Ferrito said he was "disappointed and frustrated" by the report. "Why were the scores of the proponents not provided?" asked Ferrito, a question repeated by citizens Quinn Moyer and Paul Morassutti, who also took the podium.

"This report before you does not provide the facts, nor is it transparent," said Moyer.

Morassutti said he found it "incredible" council was being asked to commit to an $83 million contract with "no substantial information on the evaluation process or the facts."

Coun. Cleve Mortelliti agreed with all three citizens, wanting to see the confidential breakdown of the proponent bids and how they scored against each other.

Township Engineering and Public Works and Building Department Director Andrew Drzewiecki said he did have that information at hand but that it was confidential and could only be shown to council during a closed session. Council promptly went into closed session, reviewed the document, came back into open session and approved the contract. However, Mayor Steve Pellegrini asked that the proponents be approached about allowing their bid scores to be publicly published as soon as possible.