HomeMy WebLinkAboutWork shop Special Mtg. s""" The City of Azusa
AZUSA
_ G ti T & W A T E R
For Quality of Lire
AGENDA ITEM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOSEPH F. HSU, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER C
DATE: FEBRUARY 3,2000
SUBJECT: AB 939 WORKSHOP
SUMMARY: This workshop will update City Council on recent efforts to comply with AB 939,
which requires cities to divert 50% of their waste from landfills beginning January 1, 2000.
BACKGROUND: The City received approval from the California Integrated Waste
Management Board in September 1999, on figures which allow the City to estimate how much
waste must be diverted from landfills to reach the 50% goal. A proposal was received from
Athens Services in December 1999, which provides costs on different programs that may be
implemented by the City to reach the goal. Most of the options focus on diverting residential
waste from landfills. Athens Services' proposed program options will be presented at this
workshop.
ANALYSIS: While staff has begun the process of evaluating proposed costs, more time is
necessary to refine the costs with input from Athens' representatives. For purposes of this
workshop, staff have formulated some general PROS and CONS on the proposed options for
your consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Some future actions will be recommended at the workshop
which include: (1) finalizing a contract amendment; (2)refining presentation for public hearing
in March; (3) developing options targeting commercial waste; (4) continuing public education
activities; and(5) engaging in a second phase of public education following the March public
hearing.
Prepared and submitted by:
Cary Kalscheuer, Integrated Waste Management Coordinator
PI- 3Gv
Pielrl
V bAl'nlSilji—l°�
729 N. Azusa Avenue P.O. Box 9500 Azusa, California 91702
626/812-5208 (phone) 626/334-3163 (fax) utilitiescazusa.ca.gov (e-mail)
City of Azusa
AB 939 UPDATE
February 3, 2000
1
CIWMB Approval
September 1999
• Approved 1995 Base Year Generation
Tonnage Figure of 103,364 tons
• Figure resulted in following diversion:
— 17% for 1995
— 22% for 1996
— 34% for 1997
— 39% for 1998
2
1
Tons Needed to get to 50%
• Assuming 6% growth in waste stream...
...about 13, 000 tons per year must be
diverted to reach 50% goal
3
Notes & Observations
• Proposed costs are being refined
• Existing green waste tons of about 1,725
per year are included with diversion
estimates for all options--this affects cost
per ton diverted calculation as presented
• Franchisee pricing favors mixed waste
processing options and longer term contract
4
2
Notes & Observations (cont.)
• Source separated multifamily recycling
program was not pursued due to:
-High level of contamination found in
such programs
-High cost of continuous public
education program
-Usually limited space for additional
containers
-Availability of other options 5
Proposed Residential Programs
Mixed Waste Processing Options
OPTION: 1 2 3 4
Manual 2 Barrels 2 Barrels 2 Barrels
+MRF +Com MRF Res MRF Res MRF
Contract Term 12 Years 15 Years 15 Years 7 Years
Increase/HH/Mo. $4.58 $2.40 $3.40 $5.52
Annual Cost $372,409 $194,817 $276,129 $448,997
Diversion/Tons/Yr 5,009 6,045 6,045 6,045
Cost/Ton/Diverted $74.34 $32.23 $45.68 $74.27
6
3
Proposed Residential Programs
Source Separated Recycling Options
Option: 5 6 7
Existing+ 3 Barrels 3 Barrels
2 Crates Clean MRF Clean MRF
Contract Term 12 Years 15 Years 7 Years
Increase/HH/Mo. $1.78 $4.40 $6.82
Annual Cost $144,735 $357,783 $554,574
Diversion/Tons/Yr 2,764 4,836 4,836
Cost/Ton/Diverted $52.37 $73.98 $114.67
7
PROS and CONS
...some factors are...
Public Acceptance
Convenience
Disposal Capacity
Storage Space
Waste Diversion
Cost Effectiveness
Cost avoidance
8
4
No Program Change
PROS CONS
• Low monthly refuse • Likely face additional
service cost, diverts waste transfer costs
1,725 tons of green after Spadra closes
waste annually • No additional
• Large disposal diversion
capacity • Non-compliance with
• Retains flexibility to AB 939 possible
go out to bid
9
Manual MRF (1)
PROS CONS
• Large disposal • High cost program,
capacity 38% increase
• Moderate waste • Contractor seeking
diversion longer term contract
• No separation of • Sanitation District
recyclables required MRF may be available
• Avoids waste transfer in 2 years
costs ,o
5
Automated 2 Barrel System (2,3,4)
PROS CONS
• High diversion • Limits disposal
• No separation of capacity at the curb
recyclables required • Long term contract
• Lower cost than other required for moderate
proposed options increase of 29%
• Avoids waste transfer • Commercial rate hike
costs of 17%-37% required
to get lower increase
of 20%
11
2 Crate System (5)
PROS CONS
• Low cost recycling • Very little waste
program (15% diversion
increase) • Not cost effective
• Not much additional • Separation required
space needed using 2 crates
• Large disposal • Will not avoid future
capacity waste transfer costs
12
6
Automated 3 Barrel System (6,7)
PROS CONS
• Second highest • Highest proposed cost
diversion option at 58% increase
• High curbside with 7 year term
capacity, depending on • Residents must have
barrels (90 gallons) space for three 90 or
• Truck fleet can be 60 gallon barrels
routed to avoid most • Residents must
waste transfer costs separate recyclables
13
Multi-Family Incineration &
Commercial MRF Processing (2*)
Multifamily Commercial
Incineration MRF
Contract Term 7 Years 15 Years
Increase/HH/Mo. $3.17 N/A
Annual Cost $239,719 $324,350
Diversion/Tons/Yr 10,000 3,668
Cost/Ton/Diverted $23.97 $88.43
*Residential rate for Option 2 based on commitment to
MRF process commercial waste.
14
7
Multi-Family Incineration
PROS CONS
• Most cost effective • Access to Commerce
diversion facility first come, first
• Large quantity of serve
diversion possible • Demand for
• No separation required Commerce facility
expected to increase,
possibly causing it to
close early
15
Commercial MRF Processing
PROS CONS
• Facility fully • Not very cost effective
accessible waste diversion
• No separation required • Would result in rate
• Option avoids waste increases between
transfer costs 17% to 37% for
commercial rate
payers
16
8
Rank by Cost Per Ton Diverted
Based on Proposed Costs
Net Tons
Rank Options Years Cost/Ton Diversion
1 Incineration 7 $23.97 10,000
2 2 Barrels+Commercial MRF 15 $32.23 4,320
3 2 Barrels Res MRF 15 $45.68 4,320
4 Existing+2 Crates 12 $52.37 1,039
5 3 Barrels Clean MRF 15 $73.98 3,111
6 2 Barrels Res MRF 7 $74.27 4,320
7 Manual MRF 12 $74.34 3,284
8 Commercial MRF 15 $88.43 3,668
9 3 Barrels Clean MRF 7 $114.67 3,111
17
Future Actions
• Finalize contract amendment
• Refine presentation for public hearing in
March
• Develop additional options targeting
commercial waste
• Continue public education on AB 939
mandate
• 2nd phase education on option adopted after
public hearing
18
9
Public Education
• Barrow/Hoffman involved with following:
-Developed brochure on AB 939 that is
being mailed to 12,365 households
-Promoting a recycling education
program at schools
-Planning press releases to promote
more public awareness
-Producing interview to air on public
access channel
19
Program Specific Promotion
• Direct mailers
• Banners across streets
• Public workshops
• Press Releases
• Newsletter articles
• Barrel hangers
• Refrigerator magnets
20
10
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
21
11
02/01!00 15:20 ATHENS DISPOSAL 4 8120963 NO.320 P02
•
s Suess
Waste ColloctlomR.rycling•TrensterOispoaul•Street Sweeping
14048 Valley Blvd.
February 1,2000 P.o.Box 60009
City of Industry,CA 91716.0009
Fax(646)330-4686
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S.MAIL (646)336-3636
Cary Kalscheuer
City of Azusa
213 E.Foothill Blvd.
Azusa,CA 91702
Dear Cary:
During our January 26,2000 meeting,while discussing waste and recycling options for the City
of Azusa,you mentioned that if the City chose an automated system for residential,that a pilot
program might be requested. This letter is intended to respond to the potential request for such a
pilot program.
There was a time when cities embarked upon pilot programs to test curbside recycling
participation or automated systems. This made sense when the collection systems were new and
no reliable data existed on the success or failure of these programs. However,today,data is
available on two and three container automated systems. The results in Azusa will not be much
different than the existing programs in the Los Angeles basin.
Considering the small customer base of 6,500 or so residential customers,it would be costly and
difficult to phase in an automated system. The two container system contemplates use of three
trucks and the three container system will utilize four trucks.
The economy of scale does not exist to pilot as new trucks and containers would need to be
purchased at the same time as the manual system would still be in place using all of the existing
equipment and manpower. No savings would be realized.billing would be a problem and if the
test was not satisfactory,the capital cost of new equipment would still need to be recovered.
For the reasons listed above,we do not believe it is necessary or viable to pilot test automated.
Please call me if you have any questions on this response at(626) 336-3636.
Sincerely,
1, )0(0„„0„-----
-s M.Chiappetta
Chief Operating Officer
DMC:bw
Ms....4Woken)
Attachment A
Azusa Proposed Rates
Residential: Existing Proposed
Existing Manual2 can 2 can 3 can 3 can
Manual MRF plus 2 crates 2 can 7 years
Service7 years 10 + 5 years
Contract term 12 years 12 years 12 years 10 + 5years 10 + 5years
8/31/2007 8/31/2007 8/31/2007 w/comm'1 MRF No comm'1 MRF
Net Rate $11.85 $16.43 $13.63 $14.25 $15.25 $17.37 $16.25 $18.67
Commercial:
Existing Quoted MRF
Gross Rate
Bin: 3-Yard 1 day/week pickup 76.26 92.75
2 day/week pickup 111.36 143.11
3 day/week pickup 146.47 193.49
4 day/week pickup 181.48 243.75
5 day/week pickup 216.69 294.24
Bin: 2-Yard 1 day/week pickup 68.82 80.35
2 day/week pickup 97.89 119.78
3 day/week pickup 126.83 159.05
4 day/week pickup 156.52 199.09
5 day/week pickup 185.30 238.21
Bin: 1.5-Yard 1 day/week pickup 52.52 61.20
2 day/week pickup 87.33 104.17
3 day/week pickup 121.63 146.61
CITY OF AZUSA
WORKSHOP ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
FEBRUARY 3, 2000
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
1. Introductions
2. Presentation on AB 939:
-Approval by State of Base Year Tons
-Diversion needed to reach 50% goal of AB 939
-Proposal by Athens Services
-Costs of Proposed Options
-PROS and CONS
-Multifamily and Commercial Programs
-Future Actions
-Public Education Activities
3. Discussion and Questions & Answers
4. Public Participation
DECLARATION OF POSTING CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA
I, �JU f�nf A 14-e-16,) A n1 D Z declare that:
I am an employee of the City of Azusa.
On f= bKuAR'/ ° 01-000 I posted copies of the Agenda, as stated above
for the meeting-ef c,Uo2Ksrt*P of F ie= 3, ?-coo , in the City Clerk's office, 213 E.
Foothill Blvd.; the lobby of the Police Department, 725 N. Alameda Ave.;
; the City Library, 729 N. Dalton Ave.; and the Light and
Water Department, 729 N. Azusa Ave. A true, correct and complete copy of the agenda
which I posted is attached hereto as "Exhibit A."
I completed posting of the agendas as described in Paragraph two, at 3o FY1
on the date of posting.
The lobby of the Police Department and access to the agenda posted therein is available
to members of the public 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, including all weekends
and holidays.
The foregoing is within my personal knowledge and if called as a witness in a court of law,
I could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED on AR. k/ 02, 2,000 , at Azusa, California.
STA F MEMBER
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF AZUSA