Several Answers on Waste Disposal Facilty Delivered.

Answers and Questions IC members

Answers to questions of S. Wescott Williams:

1. Are commitments to any of three firms are already made. Two of them are part of the negotiating part, are they asked as part of the negotiating teams or is this in addition? A: Commitments have been made to HBN Law and KPMG Corporate Finance in January 2009. Both companies also support the negotiation team. No commitment has been made to KEMA with regard to the Independent Cost Quality Engineering services.
2. What in gvt's opinion are these less than desirable effects of this particular system? A: Each waste thermal processing system will produce air emissions. These air emissions can be reduced to an acceptable level in accordance with emission norms set by EU, USA or Netherlands Antilles. Cleaning of these air emissions is in the final stage, just before leaving the stacks, done in a so-called bag filter house. These bag filters must be exchanged on a regular basis by new bag filters. The exchanged bag filters are contaminated with different chemicals, that otherwise would be released freely into the environment, and must be stored in special closed bags and be landfilled. This is a normal procedure that comes with all of these kind of waste processing systems. An option could be to export these bag filters to for example a special processing plant in Rotterdam or elsewhere in the world. This will be investigated. The air emissions from the BOS (Batch Oxidation System) system are less compared to these of the average incineration systems. Also the ash residuals are of better quality compared to the incineration systems. The Environmental Health Impact Assessment will give extensive insight in these issues. The present landfill produces air emissions which are not in accordance with environmental requirements. Let alone the air emissions which are released during fires at the landfill. Continuation of the present landfill will result in further filling up and raising of the level of the top of the landfill up to undesirable heights. The present landfill is an eyesore and environmentally unacceptable (reference is made to court case against government with regard to the smoke and smell of the landfill). Compared to the air emissions from the present landfilling activities the new processing facility will be a great environmental improvement.
3. Has an environmental impact study been commissioned? if so, by who and can we get a copy? A; Yes, the Environmental Health Impact Assessment has been executed by Royal Haskoning, Ecovision and WtTZ (the latter presented by an experienced environmental health physician). The final report has been submitted on October 29, 2009. A presentation of the study for the Central Committee is scheduled for the second half of May. A copy of the study will be submitted to the IC members before this presentation.
Ref. Letter of the Island Council status of affairs (HBN and KPMG):
4. 'smp' request explanation. A: reference is made to the "St. Maarten Peil". The SMP (main sea level) is used as a benchmark for leveling.
5. What is the minimum water surface in the pond for its buffer function; how much of this has the ringroad project absorbed and how much remained. A: In May 2007 bureau Lievense was commissioned by government to develop a report about the buffer capacity of the Great Salt Pond. The final report was dated on February 2nd 2009. The minimum capacity of the Great Salt Pond is 110 hectare. With projected ring road including the eastern part the remaining surface of the pond will be a little more than 110 hectare. Without the eastern part the remaining surface will be 114 hectare.
6. Who were the 4 companies selected. Can we receive their definition of a local company? A; Veolia, Verde, Interstate Waste Technology and Windward Roads. A local company is a company registered on St. Maarten.
7. Did those 2 proposals by the company include the Cole Bay alternative; was it separately or was the alternative one of the two proposals submitted. A: Windward Roads submitted in fact 3 proposals. Each proposal had an option for an alternative location on a land reclamation at Cole Bay.
8. Which 4 proposals were evaluated as stated by Exco in their letter on page 3? A: The proposal of Interstate Waste Technology and 3 proposals of Windward Roads.
9. Island Ordinance of Financial Mgt: ER is requested to ratify the procedure that has been followed, it is not asked to ratify the projects. Need clarification. A: The ordinance on financial management has been established at a time in which these kind of more complex tender procedures were not customary. To secure that the pursued tender procedure is in accordance with the ordinance the Island Council is requested to ratify the pursued tender procedure. The approval of the project will be requested when the final project dossier is presented to the Island Council.
10. Electricity generated by thermo processing is referred to as green electricity? A: Yes
11. How much if the electricity which possible can be generated do we estimate in the final analysis can go to GEBE? A: +/- 60 million kwh per year
12. Is gvt saying that they will encourage GEBE to look into other alternative Energy sources, in addition to the green Energy available of the plant, or is it specifically referring to the green electricity. A: In the new ordinance and concession for electricity production and distribution GEBE will be encouraged to produce green energy besides the energy from waste.
13. In what fashion, how far specifically and to what amounts these components changed. A: In the tender documents and submitted proposals the total amount of waste was established at 115,000 ton per year. Based on the waste weighing analyses in the one year period from April 2009 until April 2010 the total amount of waste delivered at the gate of the landfill is established at 140,000 ton per year. The financial and technical consequences will be presented in the final project dossier to be presented for approval to the Island Council.
14. Is the final decision by ExCo on the system to be deployed dependent on the KEMA advice or is KEMA authorized to work with the contractor. Did ExCo make a decision on the system or will the advice from KEMA also be a reason to look into another system? A: On December 17th 2008 the EXCO has chosen for the BOS system. The final decision to approve the selected system as proposed by Windward Roads will depend on a positive advice on the chosen system by KEMA.
15. Are they referring to the tariff structure as proposed by or used by KEMA A: The expertise of KEMA is not second guessed with regard to the new tariff structure. However KEMA was commissioned by GEBE and not by government. Government wants to secure the interest of the consumers through a second opinion especially with regard to the input given by GEBE for the development of the new tariff structure. There are two interest at stake, the consumer and the corporate interest of GEBE. Government wants to ensure that both interest are well taken into account. Recently discussions have taken place with Bureau Telecom which recently has executed a similar evaluation of the new tariff structure on Curacao.
16. Negotiations with GEBE: will they have an effect on the agreement of which is still at the Governors office? A: No. These negotiations have already been taken place.
17. Will it not be extremely difficult for other law firms and financial company to bid on this process as relevant experience is used as criteria A: relevant experience is of imperative importance with regards to projects of this magnitude. Certain other law firms are already engaged by parties involved in the project.
18. Negotiations French side: to what gvt attribute those failed negotiations A: Government has done all it could do to include the waste processing of the French side. Without the necessary cooperation from the relevant French services this could not materialize. To eventually make it possible to process waste from the French side the environmental requirements for the plant have been increased by making the EU requirements applicable in the tender documents. The following excerpt from Enviro News Magazine's November 2007 interview with the Vice president of Environmental Affairs and Sustainable Development of French St. Martin Mr. Pierre Aliotti, may serve as further information: "On the issue of cooperation with Dutch St. Martin, Aliotti has already met with new Environment Affairs Commissioner on Dutch St. Maarten Theo Heyliger last September on several issues including continuing exploratory talks to implement a joint waste disposal system. The two sides of the island have been working on such a system for quite some time already but nothing has materialized to date. Aliotti admitted that French St. Martin is probably not "in the same time frame" regarding implementing a joint system with Dutch St. Maarten. He argued that while both sides need to tackle the issue head on, French St. Martin has already made significant strides in this area in keeping with mandatory requirements from France. "A few years ago St. Martin's garbage system had been in a terrible state and the prefecture had summoned us to deal with the situation. We had to deal with it so there have been some major improvements in what used to be a complete shame on St. Martin. " he said referring to the state of garbage disposal in the past. "So right now there is no immediate emergency for us because part of the problem has been taken care of already."
Furthermore the following activities has taken place in cooperation with the French side:
• A presentation to Mr. Roy Marlin, Commissioner in charge of Public Works, and his staff on February 15th, 2006;
• An official visit to West Indies Environnement Développement Recyclage SAS (WIDER) plant ECODEC in Guadeloupe of Mr. Ludwig Ouenniche of the Chamber of Commerce and Mrs. Jadira
Veen, President of Sint Maarten Pride Foundation, on October 4th, 2006;
• A presentation to several representatives from the Public and Private Sectors and the Environmental Organizations from both French and Dutch sides, on November 8th, 2006. In that meeting were present, Mr. Storeteller and Mr. Mooij.
• Visit to plants in France and Spain, September 10-12, 2007
• two meetings with Commissioner Theodore Heyliger and Dr. Max Ogoundélé-Tessi, head of Technical Services of the Collectivité of Saint-Martin with WIDER

19. 3 BOS: Is this a maximum system for the landfill. A: the system can be extended to more than 3 BOS trains. In fact the building can already house a 4th BOS train.
20. Attractiveness of this area for private development and commercial will be affected. When it comes to gvt services it will not be a problem. Why gvt draws this parallel there. Can it be put into the perspective of the Almere Plan. This plan should be up for discussion in the Island Council. A: In the "Almere plan" the proposed designation of the area of the projected waste plant was designated for housing. In the plan was no space projected for a waste plant. The waste plant at that time was supposed to be located at the French side or in Cole Bay (reclamation). The attractiveness for commercial businesses to locate their enterprises in the western part of Pond Island is of course influenced by the designation of the western part (waste plant or housing).
21. Cole bay option: why is government considering the cole bay option? The potential maximization of that area? And if that is the case, what time period are we talking about, what amount of years will the landfill be able to process waste processing plant? A: The Cole Bay area with its present large companies is a more appropriate location for a concentration of large scale industries. In many governmental studies and plans the present industrial area along the coast of the Cole Bay has been indicated as the most favourable location for further extension of larger scale commercial development. Considering the limited space at this location ideas have been worked out in the past to expand the area with a land reclamation in the eastern part of the bay. In 2007 a Preparatory resolution has been taken for the development of St. Maarten West based on the Development Perspective St. Maarten West by Island Design (Lanjouw). Included in this Perspective was the zoning of the eastern part of the Cole bay for larger industrial activities. It is therefore an obvious location choice for a waste plant. However land must be created through a land reclamation and/or purchase and excavation of land. The realization of such will take time and extra money. The time and financial consequences of an eventual combination of both locations (Cole Bay and Pond island) will be worked out and presented to the Executive and Island Council, when the project dossier is finalized. The critical stage of the present landfill with a further rising summit and environmentally unacceptable method of waste processing will hereby be considered.
22. Cole Bay area: Financial impact, environmental impact all according to gvt view:should Cole Bay be even be an option at all. A: The Island Council can take a final decision based on the time and financial consequences. As elucidated in the previous answer the government has taken a Preparatory resolution to designate the eastern part of Cole Bay for large scale industrial activities making the Cole Bay area in principle an obvious option for the location of a waste processing plant.
Questions and answers R.R. Marlin:

1. Provide clarity on what type of fees will be associated with the waste to energy on the processing? What type of tipping fee is the BC considering for the waste to energy solution? Pls. provide elucidation on the fees structure? A: The income sources to pay for the waste processing are: 1) the income from the energy produced from waste to be sold to and paid by GEBE, 2) the variable concession allowance based on electricity consumption GEBE has to pay to government and GEBE can pass on to the consumers. The income sources 1 and 2 are included in the new ordinance and concession for electricity. The precise numbers will be presented in the final project dossier.
2. What is the total budget estimated for building of the facility? A; Total investment costs are budgeted at +/- $ 115 million.
3. Clarity of the role of Agrisoil NV? Will they still be involved? A; The state of affairs of Agrisoil has been reviewed. An eventual alternative for Agrisoil is presently being considered.
4. Status of the process of government regulating the price of electricity on St. Maarten? A: The new electricity ordinance will be presented to the Island Council in the course of this month. We hope to be able to grant the new concession to GEBE soonest possible.
5. Why would the IC be asked to ratify the process started with Windward Roads? Pls. explain is this is really necessary because in my opinion this process was started with a public bidding process. A: A: The ordinance on financial management has been established at a time in which these kind of more complex tender procedures were not customary. To secure that the pursued tender procedure is in accordance with the ordinance the Island Council is requested to ratify the pursued tender procedure. The approval of the project will be requested when the final project dossier is presented to the Island Council.
6. Is the Exco. considering institution some type of independent control authority that can be charged with the monitoring or will we enter into agreement with someone of the Dutch institutes and that they will then do on behalf of government the monitoring? How will this cost be carried by government? What type of sanctions will be placed on the contractor if not live up to the norms set? A: An independent control and monitoring authority is being considered to secure and independent and competent monitoring of the environmental requirements set in the Design Built Finance Maintain Operate-contract. Cost will be carried by the concession holder. Appropriate sanctions and penalties will be included in the DBFMO contract to be presented to the Island Council.
7. Give explanation on the collectability on the solid waste field? A: As elucidated in answer to question #1 the necessary income to pay for the waste processing will be anchored in law (new ordinance for electricity and new ordinance for waste). The concession allowance GEBE has to pay to government will be an operational expense.
8. Elucidation VROM, zie bijlage in de brief aan de ER: document needs to have some type of formal and legal basis of this document. A: The elucidation with regard to the location of the facility must be considered as approved by the Executive Council.
9. Are the proposals HBN law and KPMG ready and when will the ER be able to receive these? A: The proposals are part of the project dossier that will be presented for approval to the Island Council.
10. Provide an update on the concession for GEBE? A: The new ordinance for the production and distribution of electricity has been send for consultation to the Governor in the third week of March. Since 6 weeks have now passed without any reaction from the governor the ordinance (and concession) will be send to the island council soonest possible!
11. Kyoto protocol: Carbon credits: can the experts look into this matter re. selling carbon credits to the developing nations. If the possibility exists will BC consider pursuing this? A: A study has been awarded to KEMA to investigate the possibility of receiving carbon credits for the proposed project. KEMA will submit the study in the course of this month.
12. letter April 14, 2010: the closing chapter of this letter should also indicated to ratify the proposal private tender with KPMG and HBN law. I have not seen a separate letter to ratify the process with HBN law. A: Under HBN Law the same request to the IC has been made to ratify the procedure with HBN Law.

Questions and answers G. Pantophlet:

1. What it will mean for the health of the people of St. Maarten. French side will also be affected. A: the facilities will process the waste within the environmental requirements as set by the EU for air emissions, water, noise. The EU requirements are more stringent than the requirements as established by the federal government of the Netherlands Antilles.

Questions and answers R. Samuel:

1. Idea originated by the former gvt, what was the feelings by the former gvt to solving this problem in this way. It is good to know the feelings of the previous and current gvt A: the landfill is full. Continuation of the landfill will result in further filling up of Pond Island and/or raising the level of the top of the landfill up to undesirable heights. Furthermore the landfilling is an eyesore and environmentally unacceptable (reference is made to court cases against government with regard to the smoke and smell of the landfill). A solution for the processing of waste has become very urgent. In the past various governments has tried to solve the problem together with the French side.
2. Will it be possible to process garbage from the French side. A: Yes, but only after expansion of the facilities.
3. How many cubic pounds of waste is equivalent to amount of fuel. What is the amount of garbage is used to produce the same amount of energy. A: The proposed system can supply a total (including own use of the plant) of +/- 9 Mega Watt. From an annual 100,000 ton of waste approx. 70 million kwh can be produced through the BOS system.
4. Can the system proposed reduce the size of the landfill. If the system can do this, the people will be happy to support this. Are there systems that we can acquire to do this. A: The system can reduce the size of the landfill. The reduction will depend on the capacity of the plant. The plant can easily be expanded.
5. If this proposal is carried when will the study start? A: As soon as possible after the approval of the Island Council the contract will be commissioned.

Questions and answers L. Laveist:

1. who proposed to put a garbage disposal plant in cole bay? A: The Cole Bay area with its present large companies is a more appropriate location for a concentration of large scale industries. In many governmental studies and plans the present industrial area along the coast of the Cole Bay has been indicated as the most favourable location for further extension of larger scale commercial development. Considering the limited space at this location ideas have been worked out in the past to expand the area with a land reclamation in the eastern part of the bay. In 2007 a Preparatory resolution has been taken for the development of St. Maarten West based on the Development Perspective St. Maarten West by Island Design (Lanjouw). Included in this Perspective was the zoning of the eastern part of the Cole bay for larger industrial activities. It is therefore an obvious location choice for a waste plant. However land must be created through a land reclamation and/or purchase and excavation of land. The realization of such will take time and extra money. The time and financial consequences of an eventual combination of both locations (Cole Bay and Pond island) will be worked out and presented to the Executive and Island Council, when the project dossier is finalized. The critical stage of the present landfill with a further rising summit and environmentally unacceptable method of waste processing will hereby be considered.
2. has the people of cole bay been consulted? And through which medium? Have the people of cole bay been briefed? A: Since the Exco has chosen for Pond Island as the most pragmatic location solution, no consultations have been taken place with the people of cole bay.
3. where would that electricity be generated through? A: From the waste facility through the pond island transformer house.
Answers to questions of P.L. de Weever:

1. Page 2, paragraph 1 at lines 5 and 6 state that "In 2008, the estimate for available
space was calculated with a result that only a few years were left prior to
achieving maximum capacity."

Please provide the Island Council with the details of this estimate and calculation
and also clarify exactly how many years is a "few years". Is it 2 or 10 years?
Also, please provide the name and background of the company that was
commissioned to provide the estimate and calculations.

1.
a. The life span of the sanitary landfill has reached it's life span and at present we're making the landfill higher as the available space presently is being reserved for the new solid waste processing plant. At present we will be able to continue for a maximum of about 1- 1.5 years. Further expansion in the Great salt pond is no option considering the minimum storage capacity of the pond as elucidated in the report on the storage capacity by Lievens of February 2nd 2009. Continuation of the present landfill will result in further raising of the level of the top of the landfill to undesirable heights. The situation at the landfill is critical.
b. The original company that made the "stortplan" was Afvalzorg Nederland together with Witteveen+Bos back in 1998 and then it's estimated lifespan was 10 years. We have already passed that lifespan and the latest change we made on the stortplan was done internally and we've been able to add on a couple of years to the present lifespan. That is now do coming to an end.

2. Page 2, paragraph 1 at lines 6 and 7 state that "Further expansion of the dump is
not possible in light of maintaining a minimum water surface in the pond for its
buffer function during heavy rains and hurricanes."

Please provide the exact date when it was determined what the required minimum
water surface should be.

2. The minimum water drainage surface was determined by the engineering firm Lievense in its storage capacity report of February 2nd 2009 and stands at 110.000 square meters surface area.

3. Page 2, Section 1.2 of the letter at paragraph 3 states that "Although efforts have
been made to tender and realize a combined facility with the French side of the
Island this could not be accomplished."

Please provide the Island Council with the evidence of the "efforts" to cooperate
with the French side.

Mr. Chairman, if no evidence can be shown that real efforts were made, in my
opinion this represents a complete disregard for the proper use of government
funds. If the government had the opportunity to work with the French side, the
cost of the project could have been drastically minimized in favor of the people of
St. Maarten.

3. Government has done all it could do to include the waste processing of the French side. Without the necessary cooperation from the relevant French services this could not materialize. To eventually make it possible to process waste from the French side the environmental requirements for the plant have been increased by making the EU requirements applicable in the tender documents. The following excerpt from Enviro News Magazine's November 2007 interview with the Vice president of Environmental Affairs and Sustainable Development of French St. Martin Mr. Pierre Aliotti, may serve as further information: "On the issue of cooperation with Dutch St. Martin, Aliotti has already met with new Environment Affairs Commissioner on Dutch St. Maarten Theo Heyliger last September on several issues including continuing exploratory talks to implement a joint waste disposal system. The two sides of the island have been working on such a system for quite some time already but nothing has materialized to date. Aliotti admitted that French St. Martin is probably not "in the same time frame" regarding implementing a joint system with Dutch St. Maarten. He argued that while both sides need to tackle the issue head on, French St. Martin has already made significant strides in this area in keeping with mandatory requirements from France. "A few years ago St. Martin's garbage system had been in a terrible state and the prefecture had summoned us to deal with the situation. We had to deal with it so there have been some major improvements in what used to be a complete shame on St. martin. " he said referring to the state of garbage disposal in the past. "So right now there is no immediate emergency for us because part of the problem has been taken care of already."
Furthermore the following activities has taken place in cooperation with the French side:
• A presentation to Mr. Roy Marlin, Commissioner in charge of Public Works, and his staff on February 15th, 2006;
• An official visit to West Indies Environnement Développement Recyclage SAS (WIDER) plant ECODEC in Guadeloupe of Mr. Ludwig Ouenniche of the Chamber of Commerce and Mrs. Jadira
Veen, President of Sint Maarten Pride Foundation, on October 4th, 2006;
• A presentation to several representatives from the Public and Private Sectors and the Environmental Organizations from both French and Dutch sides, on November 8th, 2006. In that meeting were present, Mr. Storeteller and Mr. Mooij.
• Visit to plants in France and Spain, September 10-12, 2007
• two meetings with Commissioner Theodore Heyliger and Dr. Max Ogoundélé-Tessi, head of Technical Services of the Collectivité of Saint-Martin with WIDER
.

4. Page 2, Section 1.2 of the letter at paragraph 4 states that "A five member
Advisory Committee was installed by the Executive Council in May."
Please advise the Island Council as to May of which year as it is not stated in the
letter.

Also, please advise the Island Council as to who the five member Advisory
Committee was made up of, as well as their backgrounds as it relates to solid
waste disposal and alternative energy generation.

4. In May of 2008 a committee consisting of 5 members was appointed by the executive council. The members are as follows:
• Mr. Sipke the Haan (advisor to the sector ROB with a broad experience in big projects including the rebuilding of St. Maarten after Hurricane Luis, former Interne Deskundige)
• Mr. Hiro Shigimoto, director of resources
• Ir. Gisbert Boekhoudt, director of the Ministry of Health and Environment of Aruba and environmental engineer
• ing. Joseph Dollison, sector director ROB (sits on the board of GEBE and is aware of the energy production method of GEBE)
• ing. Claudius Buncamper, department head of New Works and Infrastructural management. (Is presently in charge of the garbage processing and is a graduate of the mechanical engineering department of the university of the Netherlands Antilles with alternative energy as his mayor.

5. Page 2, Section 1.2 of the letter at paragraph 6 states that the two French
companies declared in writing to be unable to submit a proposal.
Please provide the Island Council with evidence of these written declarations as
well as the reasons why these two French companies decided not to submit
proposals.

5. The companies Veolia Proprete and Verde Sofunag each sent letters on October 16th and October 2nd 2008 informing us they would no longer participate in the tender.

6. Page 3, Paragraph I of the letter states that "The Advisory Committee reported
their findings to the Executive Council in an Evaluation Report of the received
proposals in December 2008. The Advisory Committee evaluated the (in total 4)
received proposals based on the criteria as stipulated in the RFP and unanimously
scored the proposal of the local company that included the waste to energy option
as the most favorable solution."

Please explain to the Island Council on what basis a unanimous decision was
made to select the local company.

Please explain to the Island Council why the Advisory Committee would still
bother to consider all four proposals in December 2008 if two of them (the French
companies) advised in writing prior to 23rd October, 2008 that they would be
unable to submit proposals.

I cannot fathom why the Advisory Committee would waste the time and resources
of the people of St. Maarten to evaluate two proposals from French companies if
these companies declared in writing that they would be unable to submit a
proposal.

Actually, Paragraph I of page 3 states that the Advisory Committee evaluated the
proposals of the French companies. Then exactly what did the Advisory
Committee evaluate since according to the letter, these two French companies
declared in writing that they were unable to submit proposals? Something is
clearly wrong here.

6. The unanimous decision was reached by the committee based on the scoring manner that was decided upon by the committee. The scoring mechanism with a maximum of 750 scoring points was based on the following criteria as included in annex C.1 of the tender documents (Request For Proposal) and in the advice of the committee:
• Various streams of garbage that can be processed
• Completeness of the offer
• Layout of the plan
• Description of the process
• Flexibility of the whole system
• Assistance with the start up process
• After sales of products
• Total price tag

a. The four (4) proposals that were mentioned in the letter did not include the proposals of the 2 French companies nor did the letter state so, but was build up of 3 proposals of Windward Roads B.V. and one (1) of the other company that remained. (Interstate Waste Technology)

7. Page 3, Section 1.3 paragraph 3 states that". . . it could be anticipated that most of
the proposals would consist of a combination of different processes including a
thermal processing component."

Please advise the Island Council which proposals received would consist of a
thermal processing unit. Did the American company's proposal include a thermal
processing unit?

Also, will any pollution or smoke will be created by these thermal processing
units?

7. a. The American company proposed to use the "thermoselect" method and the waste to energy method."
b. The plants will have emissions but it will not have any negative effect on the environment or it's surroundings. In the tender docs the requirement was included that the plant should live up to the EU standards. The Environmental Health Impact Assessment of October 2009 confirms that the emissions of the proposed plant will stay within the EU-standards. The Scottish Environment protection Agency has qualified the BOS plant in Dargavel Scotland as compliant with Best Available Techniques (BAT), according to the European Directive of Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control (IPPC). BAT is considered for both environmental issues and economical feasibility. KEMA will verify also if the BOS installation will meet the environmental EU-standards. The present landfill produces air emissions which are not in accordance with environmental requirements. Let alone the air emissions which are released during fires at the landfill. The present landfill is an eyesore and environmentally unacceptable (reference is made to court case against government with regard to the smoke and smell of the landfill). Compared to the air emissions from the present landfilling activities the new processing facility will be a great environmental improvement.

8. Page 3, Section 1.3 paragraph 5 states that "The present processing of solid waste via a sanitary landfill is clearly the cheapest solution."
Please advise the Island Council as to what other solutions were considered and
evaluated

8. The departure point of the tender was that all or as much garbage will be either recycled and/or treated. Also the sale of electricity was an option to drop the cost and make the sustainability of the plant possible. In this view we reviewed the proposals received and none of them had the simple method of coverage as an option. All proposals had a thermal aspect to the processing of garbage.

9. Page 3 paragraph 8 continuing onto page 4 paragraph I states that "Cost reduction
via re-use of residues and alternative energy production is therefore not only most
welcome but most probably a must.. ."

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to approve a project of this size with such drastic
ramifications on a "most probably" basis. We need absolute certainty.
Therefore, please advise if it is certain that this project is the best option.

9. Because of the importance of this project for the community of St. Maarten it is proposed to commission KEMA with an independent cost quality engineering analysis of the project. Not only government considers it important to look for a second opinion. Also the financing institution has commissioned a similar analysis of the project. This study will be carried out by the American consultancy firm R.W. Beck. Besides the Environmental Impact Assessment two independent analysis of the project will be executed. The Island Council is not requested to approve the project, only to ratify the pursued process until present. When the KEMA study is finalized the project dossier will be presented for approval by the Island Council.

10. Page 4, paragraph 2 states that "The RFP (request for proposal) documents
require the facility to be in accordance with EU standards with regard to air, water
and soil pollution."

Please provide details on these EU Standards.
How is the government planning to monitor these EU standards going forward?
Has a company already been formed to independently evaluate these EU
Standards going forward?

10. * For the EU standards is referred to the attached Directive 2000/76EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 december 2000
• The government can monitor the EU standards that will be measurable.
• At present that hasn't been finalized yet but we're looking at an independent monitoring authority or monitoring committee to be installed by government. This monitoring authority or committee will be supported by the necessary expertise with regard to monitoring EU standards.

11. Page 5, paragraph 4 under Section II states that "WWR had submitted an
alternative proposal for the SWMPF to be located on a land reclamation in the
eastern section of the Cole bay. However it has become clear that WWR had not
included the necessary financing for the realization ofthis alternative location."
Please explain to the Island Council how the financing would be different if the
project was built in Cole Bay.

11. Building the project in Cole Bay means an extra investment of at least $ 20 million for the realization of the needed land via land reclamation and/or land purchase and excavation, as explained in the letter and VROM's elucidation.

12.Page paragraph 5 under Section II states that VROM is considering the
feasibility of two facilities on two locations, one on Pond Island for the mining of
the landfill and one in Cole Bay for the processing of regular waste.
Please explain and provide details as to how the financial model of this project is
impacted by having two separate facilities on two separate locations.

12. For now the waste facility is located at Pond island as included in the tender documents. The time and financial consequences of the two separate facilities will be evaluated and presented to the Island Council when the project dossier of the project is presented for approval. It can be expected that the realization of two facilities on two locations shall cause the investment and operational costs and consequently the annual cost (service fee) to increase to an unrealistic level.

13. Page 6, paragraph 2 under the Section "Selection of law firm" states that "HBN
Law has a proven record of relevant experience in this field and were a.o.
involved in the recent implementation of the fee structure for the harbor of St.
Maarten."

Please provide the Island Council with evidence ofHBN Law's relevant
experience and also clarify how their work on the fee structure of the harbor of St.
Maarten is relevant to this waste management project.

13. HBN Law has presented a list of recent legislative work and financing projects that HBN Law has conducted (see attachment). Furthermore, HBN Law has a cooperation agreement with the Dutch "Landsadvocaat" Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn in The Netherlands, which acts as legal counsel to the State of The Netherlands and is as such involved in all major governmental projects in The Netherlands. This cooperation allows HBN Law to draw on the knowledge and experience of the attorneys of Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn. The legislation that was drafted for the present waste management project was a joint work product between HBN Law and Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn (in particular mr A.B. van Rijn).

14. Page 6, paragraph 2 under the Section "Selection oflaw firm" states that
"Because ofHBN Law's relevant expertise and experience in he field, HBN Law
can offer the services relatively cheap."

First of all, in my opinion, terminology such as "relatively cheap" is not
appropriate for a document of this nature.

Also, please explain the rationale behind HBN Law being able to provide services
on a less expensive basis solely because they are experienced in the area, as
specialist typically command a higher fee.

Also, which other law firms have provided a legal fee quote that was compared to
the quote from HBN Law?

14. The fee charged by HBN Law, which includes the fee payable to Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn, was calculated on the basis of the expected time to be dedicated to the agreed scope of work multiplied with the applicable hourly fee. Since these law firms are experienced in the work performed, they have been able to deliver within a tight budget and thus a tight fixed fee. Any firm that would have lacked the needed experience would probably not have been able to deliver within the time frames needed, not with the quality of work that was delivered, or would have spend (and charged) a multiple of what was charged for legal services. As such having experienced lawyers work on this project did not result in more expenses. No other legal fee quotes were requested nor received.

15. Page 6, paragraph 2 under the Section "Selection of law firm" states that "HBN
Law presented a unique solution for the problem of the collectability of the solid
waste fees."

Please advise the Island Council as to the details of this "unique solution" and
explain if it will increase the current electrical and water bills for the people of St.
Maarten.

Also, please advise the Island Council if any other law firms were given the
opportunity to submit a proposal on a solution for the collectivity of the solid
waste fees and if so provide evidence of this.

15. The solution comprises of a legal connection between the collectability of the fee to be paid for waste processing and the electricity bill to secure the payment of the waste fees. This means that if the consumer does not pay the fee for waste processing while paying the electricity bill, GEBE has the right to disconnect the electricity to the consumer. Based on this solution HBN Law was invited to submit a proposal for the legal services. No other law firms were invited to submit a proposal. Certain other law firms are already engaged by parties involved in the project.

16. Page 6, paragraph 5 under Section IV states that "KPMG Corporate Finance was
requested to submit a proposal for these services in November, 2008."

Please advise the Island Council if any other auditors or advisory firms were
requested to submit proposals and if so which ones.

16. No other corporate finance firms were requested to give a quote.

17. Page 7, Paragraph 2 states that KPMG Corporate Finance "were a.o. involved in
the recent implementation of the structuring and financing of large infrastructure
concessions like the Airport in Curacao and the Cruise Port Facilities in St.
Maarten."

Please advise the Island Council as to how involvement in these projects provides
experience in the area of solid waste management.

17. This statement is about structuring of large infrastructure concessions. This relates to the knowledge and expertise of managing large and complicated projects with complicated contracts like concession agreements, direct agreements, shareholders agreement. The project for airport of Curacao and the Port of St. Maarten have similar complicated structures and are therefore used as references of KPMG's expertise.

18. Page 7, Paragraph 1 under the Section "Selection of Corporate finance advisory
firm" it states that "For the first half of 2008 KPMG Corporate Finance was the
leading PPP financial advisor internationally, having closed 17 transactions with a
capital value of EURO 10.8 billion."

Please advise if KPMG has been given the mandate to raise capital for this
project?

18. No, KPMG has not been given mandate to raise capital for this project as the project is a Design Built Finance Maintain Operate contract which means that the contractor has to provide the finance (capital). KPMG proposed to support the Island of St. Maarten with the review of the contracts (including the finance component) as KPMG have vast experience with these kind of contracts and therefore are able to recognize the (financial) risks of the contractor's proposal and in discussing with the work/steering group, advise the Government of St. Maarten how to mitigate those risks.

19. Page 7, Paragraph 1 under the Section "Selection of Corporate finance advisory
firm" states that "They (KPMG) have experience with large and complex waste
projects."

Please provide the Island Council with evidence of this experience in large and
complex waste projects.

19. KPMG submitted a list of references with regard to experience in the field of waste projects (see attachment).

20. Please provide the Island Council with complete details of the proposed land
ownership in the area where the solid waste management facility will be located.

20. The land is owned by the island government of St. Maarten.

21. In the "Elucidation" document prepared by VROM mention is made that the
project should not impact the health of the people of St. Maarten as it meets the
requirements of the EU norms.
In that regard, please provide the Island Council with the details of this study
relating specifically to the health risks to the population of St. Maarten.

21. In the tender documents requirements it was stated that the installation should meet the European norms. To have this confirmed an Environmental Health Impact Assessment was carried out by Ecovision, Royal Haskoning and WtTZ. The Environmental Health Impact Assessment of October 2009, which will be presented to the Island Council in the second half of May, confirms that the emissions of the proposed plant will stay within the EU-standards. The Scottish Environment protection Agency has qualified the BOS plant in Dargavel Scotland as compliant with Best Available Techniques (BAT), according to the European Directive of Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control (IPPC). BAT is considered for both environmental issues and economical feasibility. KEMA will verify also if the BOS installation will meet the environmental EU-standards. Also a second independent consultancy firm will review if the installation is in accordance with the EU standards. The present landfill produces air emissions which are not in accordance with environmental requirements. Let alone the air emissions which are released during fires at the landfill. The present landfill is an eyesore and environmentally unacceptable (reference is made to court case against government with regard to the smoke and smell of the landfill). Compared to the air emissions from the present landfilling activities the new processing facility will be a great environmental improvement.

22. Please provide the Island Council with a detailed analysis of the total debt as well
as the latest audited and/or unaudited financial statements of all government
owned companies (Harbor Group of Companies, P JIA Group of Companies,
Telem, Telcel, Smitcoms, Telnet, GEBE etc.) including this proposed solid waste
management facility.

22. The total debt of the solid waste management facility will be established when the final project dossier is presented for approval to the Island Council.

23. Please provide us with the latest figures ofSt. Maarten's Gross Domestic Product
and ratio of debt to gross domestic product.

24. What role if any will the current local garbage collection companies play in the
pro sed waste disposal facility?

24. At present the sector ROB is busy finalizing an advice to the executive council which will handle the garbage collection process on the island. The collection process will also be very instrumental in pre sorting certain streams of garbage. Also all residents, businesses and other entities will be part of the collection program. In the garbage processing itself the present haulers will have no say.

Island Council Meeting April 26th 2010

Answers to Questions in writing IC members

Answers to questions of M. Buncamper Molanus

In paragraph 1.2 of your letter ref 2155/10 dated April 14, 2010 it states that on page 3 3rd paragraph: "In May 2009 the negotiations started with the Windward Roads N.V. (WWR) to negotiate a Design Built Finance Maintain and operate (DBFMO) contract for the SWMPF. In view of the requirements of art. 17 "Eilandsverordening Financieel Beheer", the island council is hereby requested to ratify the procedure that has been followed".
1. Was the present tender procedure used for the public tender of February 2008 not correct and if so please explain what transpired leading to the present course of action whereby the Island Council is requested to ratify the decision of the Executive Council?
A: In the opinion of the steering committee appointed by the executive council to handle the public tender and in the opinion of the department of legal affairs of the island territory the tender procedure was in accordance with the island ordinance financial management. The department of legal affairs concluded that: Quote: "Alhoewel er geen procedure heeft plaatsgevonden zoals gebruikelijk bij het eilandgebied wordt verstaan onder een openbare aanbesteding, kan naar huidige maatstaven en praktijk in Nederland en internationaal, worden geconcludeerd dat er geen ongebruikelijke invulling is gegeven aan het begrip openbare aanbesteding als bedoeld in artikel 17 van de Eilandsverordening financieel beheer.
Of en in hoeverre er additionele stappen wenselijk waren geweest valt buiten de reikwijdte van het verzoek om advies van uw college." Unquote.

2. Who approved the initial public tender procedure that has been followed thus far? Please indicate which legal bases was used? A: The executive council, with the approval of the cabinet of the lt. governor, approved the different steps of the tender procedure on February 2nd 2008, June 3rd 2008, December 17th 2008 and on May 5th 2009. .
3. Did the department of judicial affairs provide a legal opinion on the tender procedure followed back in February 2008, if this is the case please provide the Island Council with this legal opinion. A: Yes the legal department provided the executive council with an opinion on the matter.The following text is an excerpt from the advice of legal affairs with regard to the tender procedure: Quote: "Openbare aanbesteding?
In de huidige praktijk wordt artikel 17 anders toegepast dan door het Kabinet van de Gezaghebber is voorgesteld. Het bestuurscollege bereidt een onderhandse aanbesteding voor en legt vervolgens het resultaat van deze aanbesteding aan de eilandsraad voor goedkeuring voor. Dit betekent dat de gunning wordt voorbereid onder voorbehoud van goedkeuring van de eilandsraad. De memorie van toelichting bij de Eilandsverordening financieel beheer biedt geen toelichting voor artikel 17.
De Comptabiliteitslandsverordening bevat geen vergelijkbare bepaling voor het Land de Nederlandse Antillen. Op basis van artikel 27 kan de minister van financiën besluiten dat het in het belang is van het Land om af te wijken van de regel van de openbare aanbesteding.
Navraag bij de afdeling Juridische Zaken van het eilandgebied Curaçao heeft uitgewezen dat daar wél eerst instemming voor een onderhandse aanbesteding wordt verzocht, alvorens met de selectieprocedure te starten. Of deze werkwijze in de praktijk ook consequent wordt toegepast is niet nader onderzocht in verband met de tijdsdruk.

Door de sector ROB is aangegeven dat de vragen gesteld door het Kabinet van de Gezaghebber niet relevant zijn, aangezien er wél een openbare aanbesteding heeft plaatsgevonden en wel een openbare aanbesteding met voorselectie. Zoals hierboven is aangegeven bevat de Eilandsverordening financieel beheer weinig aanknopingspunten voor de invulling van aanbestedingsprocedures. De huidige regeling voorziet niet in de aanbesteding van complexe projecten. Inmiddels wordt internationaal en ook in Nederland met verschillende vormen van aanbesteding gewerkt, waarbij de verschillende elementen van een project (w.o. ontwerp, bouw, onderhoud, financiering) in verschillende combinaties in pakketten worden uitbesteed. Daarbij is ook de voorselectie van mogelijke aannemers niet ongebruikelijk.

(Uit Worldbank Guidelines Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA credits, 2004:
"Prequalification of Bidders
Prequalification is usually necessary for large or complex works, or in any other circumstances in which the high costs of preparing detailed bids could discourage competition, such as custom-designed equipment, industrial plant, specialized services, some complex information and technology and contracts to be let under turnkey, design and build, or management contracting. This also ensures that invitations to bid are extended only to those who have adequate capabilities and resources. Prequalification shall be based entirely upon the capability and resources of prospective bidders to perform the particular contract satisfactorily, taking into account their (a) experience and past performance on similar contracts, (b) capabilities with respect to personnel, equipment, and construction or manufacturing facilities, and (c) financial position."
In het Besluit aanbestedingsregels voor overheidsopdrachten dat geldt voor Nederland wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen diverse vormen van aanbesteding, waarbij de complexiteit van de opdracht doorslaggevend is voor de vorm die kan worden gekozen voor de aanbesteding.

Concluderend: Alhoewel er geen procedure heeft plaatsgevonden zoals gebruikelijk bij het eilandgebied wordt verstaan onder een openbare aanbesteding, kan naar huidige maatstaven en praktijk in Nederland en internationaal, worden geconcludeerd dat er geen ongebruikelijke invulling is gegeven aan het begrip openbare aanbesteding als bedoeld in artikel 17 van de Eilandsverordening financieel beheer.
Of en in hoeverre er additionele stappen wenselijk waren geweest valt buiten de reikwijdte van het verzoek om advies van uw college." Unquote

4. Please inform the Island Council who (and their expertise) sit in the advisory committee that reported their findings to the executive council in the evaluation report of the public tender? A: Sipke de Haan, Hiro Shigemoto, Gisbert Boekhoudt, Joseph Dollison and Claudius Buncamper (see also answer #4 to Mr. Petrus de Weever)
5. Which companies participated in what is referred to by government as the expression of interest that was published in the local papers?
A: The following ten (10) companies participated in the Expression of Interest
1. Windward Roads N.V.
2. Interstate Waste Technology
3. Verde Sofunag Environnement & Suez Environment
4. Ashtrom International Ltd
5. Liccom & Visser & Smit & Hanab & Jupiter Holding
6. FS Investment BV
7. Green Conservation Systems LLC
8. Ecoserve Holding 7 Faber Recycling
9. Global Green International
10. Veolia Proprete
6. Which four (4) qualified companies based on the selection criteria were to be invited by government, to request for a proposal in a tender procedure for the solid waste facility?
A: The following four (4) companies qualified to be invited for the public tender by the government:
1. Windward Roads N.V.
2. Interstate Waste Technology
3. Verde Sofunag Environnement & Suez Environment
4. Veolia Proprete
7. Why didn't a combined venture with the French side materialize to process garbage? A: Government has done all it could do to include the waste processing of the French side. Without the necessary cooperation from the relevant French services this could not materialize. To eventually make it possible to process waste from the French side the environmental requirements for the plant have been increased by making the EU requirements applicable in the tender documents. The following excerpt from Enviro News Magazine's November 2007 interview with the Vice president of Environmental Affairs and Sustainable Development of French St. Martin Mr. Pierre Aliotti, may serve as further information: "On the issue of cooperation with Dutch St. Martin, Aliotti has already met with new Environment Affairs Commissioner on Dutch St. Maarten Theo Heyliger last September on several issues including continuing exploratory talks to implement a joint waste disposal system. The two sides of the island have been working on such a system for quite some time already but nothing has materialized to date. Aliotti admitted that French St. Martin is probably not "in the same time frame" regarding implementing a joint system with Dutch St. Maarten. He argued that while both sides need to tackle the issue head on, French St. Martin has already made significant strides in this area in keeping with mandatory requirements from France. "A few years ago St. Martin's garbage system had been in a terrible state and the prefecture had summoned us to deal with the situation. We had to deal with it so there have been some major improvements in what used to be a complete shame on St. martin. " he said referring to the state of garbage disposal in the past. "So right now there is no immediate emergency for us because part of the problem has been taken care of already."
Furthermore the following activities has taken place in cooperation with the French side:
• A presentation to Mr. Roy Marlin, Commissioner in charge of Public Works, and his staff on February 15th, 2006;
• An official visit to West Indies Environnement Développement Recyclage SAS (WIDER) plant ECODEC in Guadeloupe of Mr. Ludwig Ouenniche of the Chamber of Commerce and Mrs. Jadira
Veen, President of Sint Maarten Pride Foundation, on October 4th, 2006;
• A presentation to several representatives from the Public and Private Sectors and the Environmental Organizations from both French and Dutch sides, on November 8th, 2006. In that meeting were present, Mr. Storeteller and Mr. Mooij.
• Visit to plants in France and Spain, September 10-12, 2007
• two meetings with Commissioner Theodore Heyliger and Dr. Max Ogoundélé-Tessi, head of Technical Services of the Collectivité of Saint-Martin with WIDER

In paragraph 1.3 we read that the project has various objectives:
1. Waste reduction to 95%;
2. Cost reduction;
3. Environmentally good;
4. Consequences of energy from waste for Gebe's power production;

8. Is the waste reduction really going to be 95% of the total garbage produced on this island, because in paragraph 1.4 in the description of the operation of the SWMPF that doesn't seem to be the case, considering that there will be no sorting of any garbage that doesn't go through the C&D (construction and demolition) plant? A: Contractually the waste reduction degree shall be more than 95% (to be reached within 3 years). The Batch Oxidation System (BOS) itself does not require any presorting (of the household and commercial waste). Even more: that is exactly why the technology is suitable for small territories like Sint Maarten. It destroys all burnable material by an average of 96%.
The Solid Waste Management & Processing Facility does not only treat household and commercial waste in the BOS, it also processes a considerable amount of Construction and Demolition waste (C&D waste). Another very important part of the Facility is a C&D Recycling/Sorting Plant. This C&D recycling plant:
1. separates the combustible materials from to C&D: this materials are subsequently gasified in the BOS plant
2. separates the recyclables from the C&D waste: this recyclables such as aluminum and ferro's will be exported to the recycling market
3. separates the aggregates (stones, sand) from the C&D waste in order to re-use them locally as foundation material
4. separates the aggregates, ferro's and non-ferro's from the BOS ashes
9. Is there any recycling taking place and if so where will this take place in this plant? A: Yes, at several locations:
• C&D plant where ferro's, non-ferro's, aggregates, sand is separated and subsequently recycled
• Car dismantling location to recycle car parts (combustible parts go to cBOS, non combustible parts are being exported to the recycling market)
• Bulky Domenstic Waste segregation Area (computers, washing machines, fridges etc..): combustible parts go to BOS, non combustible parts are being exported to the recycling market
10. How many persons will work in the processing facility? Will it provide considerable employment and if so on which levels. A: The project will provide considerable employment. Total number of persons working will be app. 55 full time equivalent (fte):
• Management 4 fte
• Administrative 4 fte
• Supervisor level 8 fte
• Mechanic level 5 fte
• Equipment operator 10 fte
• Unskilled labor level 24 fte
11. The cost reduction will be found in which area for the consumer as presently we aren't paying for garbage collection and I would believe that we must pay in the future for garbage collection and processing? A: Seeing that there will be an income generating measure from the sale of electricity one can conclude that the reduction will come in that area. Also a significant part of the garbage processing cost will be carried by the business community making the overall cost for the consumer quite moderate seeing that besides the garbage collection also district improvements and cleaning will take place. In the areas of the public greenery and beaches also significant cleaning will be done for the same fee.
12. How much will this garbage processing facility cost the public of St. Maarten per year? A: The income sources to pay for the waste processing are: 1) the income from the energy produced from waste to be sold to and paid by GEBE, 2) the variable concession allowance based on electricity consumption GEBE has to pay to government and GEBE can pass on to the consumers. The income sources 1 and 2 are included in the new ordinance and concession for electricity. The precise numbers will be presented in the final project dossier.
13. How much will the facility cost to build and who's financing that? A: At this time the total investment costs will be +/- $ 115 million. KEMA will verify these investment costs. Financing will be by Windward Roads through bank financing.
14. Have any conclusive studies been done by a reputable company that ensures that there are no environmental flaws with this facility or that would at least give us a credible impression of the environmental impact? A: In the tender documents requirements it was stated that the installation should meet the European norms. To have this confirmed an Environmental Health Impact Assessment was carried out by Ecovision, Royal Haskoning and WtTZ. The Environmental Health Impact Assessment of October 2009, which will be presented to the Island Council in the second half of May, confirms that the emissions of the proposed plant will stay within the EU-standards. The Scottish Environment protection Agency has qualified the BOS plant in Dargavel Scotland as compliant with Best Available Techniques (BAT), according to the European Directive of Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control (IPPC). BAT is considered for both environmental issues and economical feasibility. KEMA will verify also if the BOS installation will meet the environmental EU-standards. Also a second independent consultancy firm will review if the installation is in accordance with the EU standards. The present landfill produces air emissions which are not in accordance with environmental requirements. Let alone the air emissions which are released during fires at the landfill. The present landfill is an eyesore and environmentally unacceptable (reference is made to court case against government with regard to the smoke and smell of the landfill). Compared to the air emissions from the present landfilling activities the new processing facility will be a great environmental improvement.

15. Have the local environmentalist like Rueben Thompson and his colleagues been able to give their input in this document from an ecological point of view? A: The various environmental groups have been heard by the independent authors of the report.
16. What does it mean for GEBE's personnel in the power production plant when I read that about 8 megawatts will be produced by the garbage processing facility? Will there be job cuts down there as they need about 12% less electricity to be produced? A: There shouldn't be any job cuts at present when the 7.5 megawatts are produced by the garbage processing company and sold to GEBE. The additional power capacity from the waste facility increases the present capacity of GEBE and is a welcome addition considering the steady growth of the demand for electricity
17. Will the purchase of Green energy by GEBE lead to at least a 12% reduction on the bills of the consumers when it comes to the fuel clause? A: This will be determined when the final project dossier is finalized. For this dossier the KEMA study must be finalized.
18. Will government still have to subsidize the new garbage processing facility in any form or fashion once it's operational? If yes why and for how much? A: Government will use the variable concession allowance from GEBE to pay for the remaining cost of the waste processing.
19. The reduction of the green house gases by 70.000 ton CO2 per year means anything with respect to savings for the consumer or is that an environmental savings? A: this should be seen as an environmental savings as we don't pollute the air. Also an amount of monies can be made by the selling of these carbon credits to other countries like the Netherlands that surpassed their amount of carbon credits they may legally produce.
In paragraph 1.4 the most favorable proposal is given for the SWMPF
20. What financial consequences does changing the amount of BOS (Batch Oxidation System) - trains and adding of shredders have towards the gross and net service fee and in particular for the end consumer? A: Reducing the number of BOS trains and adding shredders will result in improved caloric value and waste density for the batches to be burned in the BOS installation which will lead to a better production of energy. More energy means more income from electricity and a lower net service fee.
In paragraph 1.5 government states that as soon as KEMA has submitted the report, the draft DBFMO contract can be finalized and the entire project can be presented for approval to the executive and island councils.
21. What exactly is the scope of works of KEMA for the island government with reference to the SWMPF (Solid Waste Management and Processing Facility)? A: the scope of works is worked out in chapter #6 of the attached Terms of Reference (TOR).
22. Was there a public tender for the services of KEMA? If yes please provide these documents? A: NO.
23. If there was no public tender for the KEMA services why isn't it part of this request for approval from the island council as is the requested for HBN and KPMG? A: See letter to the Island Council of January 26th 2010 and separate letter with regard to the answers to posed questions by the Central Committee pertaining to KEMA.
24. Who will evaluate the work of KEMA to ensure that they are the appropriate experts for this project? A: KEMA will form a team of appropriate experts as required in the TOR and elucidated in KEMA's proposal. KEMA will submit an independent "second opinion" with regard to the chosen system. KEMA is a worldwide renowned consultancy firm which has all the required know-how with regard to waste gasification, waste processing, waste to energy production, electricity production as well as the relevant legal and environmental issues and local knowledge. KEMA is a global, leading authority in energy consulting and testing & certification, active throughout the entire energy value-chain. In a world of increasing demand for energy, KEMA plays a major role in ensuring the availability, reliability, sustainability and profitability of energy and related products and processes. KEMA, having more than 1,900 employees, operates from 50 offices in 20 countries around the globe and exists for more than 80 years. For more extensive elucidation on the expertise of KEMA is referred to the letter to the island Council dated January 26th 2010.
25. When will KEMA start their work and how long will it take? A: As soon as possible after the Island Council has approved the private tender with KEMA, KEMA will be commissioned to execute the works. KEMA will need 2-3 months to finalize the report. See also separate letter with regard to the answers to posed questions pertaining to KEMA.
26. Why has it taken 5 months for a selection to be made of KEMA as the Terms of reference for services of an independent cost quality controlling engineer for the SWMPF in St. Maarten was done on November 10, 2009? A: The delay is caused by a disagreement between the civil service (the advisory committee, legal affairs) and the cabinet of the lt. governor with regard to the public character of the since February 2008 pursued tender procedure in relation to article 17 of the island ordinance "Financieel beheer".

In chapter II the location of the SWMPF is briefly described.
27. The advice of VROM states to investigate 2 locations to carry out garbage processing. One on Pond Island for the purpose of landfill mining and one in Colebay for the processing of regular waste. Is this advice going to be followed? A: When the projectdossier is presented for approval to the Island Council the evaluation of the location alternatives will be included . For now the project is based on the location on Pond Island as included in the tender documents.
28. What are the cost involved towards the consumer and government to have 2 locations operational at the same time for garbage processing and garbage mining? A: When the projectdossier is presented for approval to the Island Council the evaluation of the location alternatives will be included .
29. Where in Colebay is it the intention to have this garbage processing facility considering that not much land is available to handle such a facility and in the elucidation of VROM it only mentions the Bell's land, filling the sea behind GEBE or the relocation of buildings on GEBE's land? A: the intention was to check out the possibility to have land reclamation done in the Cole bay bay in front of the GEBE and Shell property. The Cole Bay area with its present large companies is a more appropriate location for a concentration of large scale industries. In many governmental studies and plans the present industrial area along the coast of the Cole Bay has been indicated as the most favourable location for further extension of larger scale commercial development. Considering the limited space at this location ideas have been worked out in the past to expand the area with a land reclamation in the eastern part of the bay. In 2007 a Preparatory resolution has been taken for the development of St. Maarten West based on the Development Perspective St. Maarten West by Island Design (Lanjouw). Included in this Perspective was the zoning of the eastern part of the Cole bay for larger industrial activities. It is therefore an obvious location choice for a waste plant. However land must be created through a land reclamation and/or purchase and excavation of land. The realization of such will take time and extra money. The time and financial consequences of an eventual combination of both locations (Cole Bay and Pond island) will be worked out and presented to the Executive and Island Council, when the project dossier is finalized. The critical stage of the present landfill with a further rising summit and environmentally unacceptable method of waste processing will hereby be considered.
In Chapter III the private tender with HBN Law for legal services is described.
30. Has the drafting of the model agreement for the sale of electricity already been signed by GEBE? If not why not? A: The PPA (power purchase agreement) has been prepared by HBN but isn't finalized for signature as yet. The PPA can only be signed after the Island Council has approved the project dossier.
31. In the proposal of HBN Law the fee of Naf 226.500,- is tied to various conditions. One of them is that no services shall be provided in the period after June 30, 2008. What exactly does this mean as the proposal only came in on November 18, 2008 to the government? A: HBN Law has accepted the time extension without consequences. It is customary to limit the contract period in a proposal.
32. Has HBN Law done any work for government already based on this strangely dated proposal and if so what exactly and at what cost? A: Yes HBN has started his work and worked out documents as described in their proposal such as ordinance, concession as well as various agreements like the power purchase agreements with GEBE and assisted in the legal framework and text of the DFMBO contract.
33. Has any payments been made to HBN Law for any of the services provided in connection with the proposal at hand that now approval is being requested for here in the Island Council? If yes is this in keeping with good financial governance as stipulated by the law? A: Invoices have been submitted by HBN Law for the works carried out, based on the contract awarded to HBN Law in January 2009. Payment of part of the contract sum has taken place in November 2009 in accordance with the contract and works executed..
34. What is the total HBN Law contract going to cost the island Government? A: The total contract price is fixed at Naf 252,000,- including all costs.
35. Has GEBE agreed to an amendment to their general terms and conditions as is needed for the legal frame work so that HBN Law can make the proposed amendments? A: Yes. GEBE will amend the general terms and conditions in accordance with the new to be established ordinance for electricity.

In Chapter IV the private tender with KPMG Corporate Finance is described.
37. One of the services rendered to government will be to provide support with the evaluation of the proposal selected by the advisory committee. Was that done and what was the outcome of their evaluation? A: KPMG verified and advised on the proposal received from Windward Roads and assisted in working out the clarification questions.
38. Why did it take the government 17 months to bring the proposal of KPMG to the island council floor for approval knowing that they were the company of choice based on their past experience in the harbor? A: The private tenders with KPMG and HBN Law took place in the 4th quarter of 2008. By the end of 2008 the new rules with regard to good governance were introduced. The private tender procedures with HBN Law and KPMG were based on the working procedures customary in the past. According to the good governance rules, stringent adherence to the valid ordinances such as the ordinance "Financieel beheer" (even when outdated) must take place. The approval of the private tenders with HBN Law and KPMG took place in the transitional period between old and new rules. Legal affairs has advised in his recent advice to the Executive Council of April 2010 with regard to the tender procedure of the solid waste project, to have both private tenders with HBN Law and KPMG presented for ratification by the Island Council to still bring these tenders in accordance with the new rules for good governance as introduced at the end of 2008.

In general I would like to know the following
39. What is the role of the cabinet of the Lt Governor in this whole process? A: the role of the (cabinet of the) Lt. Governor's is to oversee the process and to assess if the rules of good governance are being adhered to.
40. Has the Lt. Governor's cabinet provided an opinion on matters related to the tender and if so what was it? A: Yes. For the content of this opinion please refer to the attached memo oktober 22nd 2009.
41. Does the Cabinet of the Lt. Governor have in house technical and environmental expertise with respect to Waste Management? If yes we might be more cost efficient if we used these expertise. A: The cabinet of the Lt. Governor has no technical expertise with respect to waste management.
42. Are there any other opinions from entities mentioned or not mentioned that might be relevant for this debate? If yes please provide these to the Island Council. A: No.