HomeMy WebLinkAboutG- 9 Joint Consultant agreement for Solid Waste issues with Covina and Glendora The City ofAzusa
eee
0...,,,,,,,,,
AGENDA I
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �`
FROM: GINNY DADAIAN,ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Li
VIA: HENRY GARCIA,CITY ADMINISTRATOR ...A.1---
DATE: AUGUST 4,1997
SUBJECT: JOINT CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE
ISSUES WITH COVINA AND GLENDORA
Solid waste issues in the San Gabriel Valley have been a critical factor in regards to the closing of landfills,
rate increases and AB 939 compliance. Our neighboring cities, Glendora and Covina share the same trash
hauler, Athen's Disposal. Azusa has been working with these two cities in looking at the issues listed above
and believes that by a joint effort it is far more cost effective to perform many of the analyses that are related
to solid waste issues that we need to adhere to because of Ab 939.
More than seven consulting firms were asked to send a proposal for the scope of work which was asked to be
performed,exhibit A. EcoNomics was selected as the most responsible consultant to fulfill the work required.
Exhibit B describes the tasks that EcoNomics will fulfill. References were checked and a detailed evaluation
of the company was completed.
What the Tri-Cities Group is trying to accomplish is finding the cost-effective way of complying with AB 939
requirements. Please recall that in Azusa's 1995 annual reportto the California Integrated Waste Management
Board we had only reduced our waste by 11.5%, 13.5% short of the 25%we were supposed to meet. The
proposal has asked the consultant to look at other methods and programs.
A key element in the proposal is to look at the proposed material recovery facility(MRF)that Athens has asked
the City to consider,to evaluate the diversion potential of the waste processed through Athens MRF,and if it
is the most cost effective method for diversion.
EcoNomics will make a presentation to the Council in early October of their findings and recommendations.
From there staff and Council will need to make some policy decisions in cooperation with our waste hauler on
some of the programs that can be implemented, and possibly implemented with the cities of Glendora and
Covina to bring down costs. Exhibit C gives a detailed price outline.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposal from EcoNomics for$9,307 the total cost being v-J
$27,920 and to direct staff to work with the cities of Glendora and Covina.
E7 vhdv
Consultant Services
Scope of Work
GOAL:To inform city council members of AB939 compliance options for the year 2000.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Review AB939 current status and obligations.
2. Evaluate and research opportunities for joint programs.
3. Evaluate and research cost effectiveness of programs relative to quantities diverted.
4. Research waste transfer issues and options.
TASKS:
1. Define AB 939 compliance. Develop a complete and unbiased definition of what AB939
compliance means for our cities. Include possible fines and fine time lines facing cities that do
not comply with the regulation. Determine the CIWMB's definition for compliance and"good
faith effort"as they relate specifically to our SRREs and our waste diversion goals as stated in
Public Resources Code 41813 and 41850.
2. Assess the outlook of AB939. Given the history of other environmental mandates, many cities
are hesitant to commit to expensive long term contracts. The consultant should examine any
pending Legislative action and determine, if feasible, the possibility of future changes to the
mandate.
3. Analyze and Compare Contracts. Analyze and compare some of the contract issues with the
waste hauler of all four cities. Examples include:,scope of franchise and AB939 indemnification
clauses. Identify any special `Free" services. Identify the types of services provided i.e.
automated,unlimited pick-up,curbside greenwaste etc. Analyze and compare rates. Break out
service and tip fees.
4. Assess the current landfill situation in the local San Gabriel subregion. -Our main local landfill,
Spadra, is scheduled to close in 1998/99. Puente Hills is scheduled to close in 2003. These
closures will significantly impact cities. Review potential impacts for local cities with regard to
both waste and greenwaste. Determine possible alternative landfills and the .associated
transportation costs to them.
5. Tip Fee Projections-Analyze the cost per ton at local landfills,greenwaste facilities and transfer
stations and project what these fees will be in the next 5 to 10 years.
6. Develop evaluation criteria-Each City's SRRE contains a number of possible program options.
Determine the best criteria to evaluate possible options, such as cost effectiveness, expected
diversion amounts,feasibility,risk,cost avoidance, cost to rate payer, and others.
7. Material Recovery Facility(MRF)-Evaluate effectiveness of both mixed waste and commingled
MRF types with regard to diversion quantities,material quality,and costs.
8. Inventory - Compare what programs have been implemented by each city as well as what
programs are listed in our SRREs. _
9. Evaluate the current market for recycled materials-and the relationship between market demand
and compliance. Provide an historical perspective and the prospects for future demand of
recyclables.
10. Strategy Options. Including but not limited to:
MRF - Use of different local MRFs for all or certain portions of the waste streams. A
possible option would be to have Athens MRF process only the waste not disposed of at the
end of each day due to early landfill closures. Evaluate the diversion potential of waste
processed.
Greenwaste Program - Residential, multi-family and/or commercial greenwaste programs.
Options include automated vs. manual, voluntary vs. mandatory, curbside vs. -drop off.
Items to consider include: facility locations, compost vs. ADC, and processing, transfer of
green waste and optimal container size.
Commercial Programs - Source separated, A/B routing, mandatory, voluntary, the use of
outside recycling companies,multi-city program,MRF processing,ordinance development.
Multi-Family - Analyze the number of complexes in the cities. Source separated vs. MRF
processing. Complex wide distribution of collection containers. Educational programs, cost
incentives, split bins, and ordinance development. Identify/profile successful programs in
other cities. Identify opportunities for cooperative ventures.
Educational Programs - Media kits, printing flyers or brochures, displays, videos,
workshops,promotional give-aways etc.
Waste Transfer-Analyze the cost of using Athens transfer station in the City of Industry for
some or all of the waste streams in conjunction with other programs. Explore the use of
alternative transfer stations.
Residential Curbside Recycling - Evaluate diversion potential and cost effectiveness of a
residential program. Options include commingled collection using 90 gallon barrels, and
source separated program using 2 or 3 crates. Review collection implications including the
use of additional trucks and marketing issues.
11. Analyze Strategies. Conduct a detailed analysis of the strategies by applying evaluation
criteria. Analysis should include joint programs with some or all of the four cities involved.
Analysis should consider existing demographics and current service levels and strategies for
each city.
•
12. Recommendations. Make recommendations as to how all four cities can best meet the
requirements of AB939. Include implementation suggestions including but not-limited to:
contract amendments vs. separate contracts,ordinances and other enforcement methods.
13. Presentations. Some or all of the cities may require a brief presentation to their City Councils.
Presentation should include audio/visual and a concise overview of the AB 939 compliance
issues.
Scope of Work
AB 939 COMPLIANCE OPTIONS SCOPE OF WORK
(UNDERLINED COPY) - STAFF USE
TASK 1. DEFINE AB 939 COMPLIANCE
a. Review Database and Obtain Updated Information Including Cities' SRRE's
and CIWMB Correspondence
EcoNomics, Inc. database contains relevant Public Resources Code Sections, State Regulations,
and analysis of AB 939 completed for other cities. EcoNomics will review the information
contained in our database, and obtain updated information from the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB)on AB 939 compliance, if necessary. EcoNomics will review the
CIWMB's recent definitions of "good faith effort" and compliance, as well as the most recent
information on fines and associated time lines.
EcoNomics, Inc. will obtain the Cities' SRRE's, and will review these documents with particular
attention to the proposed recycling, source reduction and green waste programs In addition, we
will obtain and review copies of correspondence from the CIWMB to the Cities regarding SRRE
approval, 1995 Annual Report approval, and base year adjustments. These documents will
identify potential compliance issues facing the Cities.
h Analyze CIWMB's Definitions of Compliance and Good Faith Effort
EcoNomics, Inc. will analyze the CIWMB's definitions of compliance and "good faith effort" as
related to the Cities' SRRE's and applicable Public Resource Code Sections. The CIWMB has
recently included'reasonable and feasible'efforts in the definition of good faith effort in achieving
compliance in order to avoid fines. We will evaluate'reasonable and feasible' efforts in achieving
compliance as related to the Cities' SRRE's and current program implementation efforts.
c. Obtain 1995 AB 939 Calculations and Calculate 1996 Diversion
The Cities were required by the CIWMB to include 1995 AB 939 calculations utilizing the CIWMB
State formula with each City's 1995 Annual Report. EcoNomics, Inc. will obtain the 1995 AB
939 calculations,and calculate the diversion achieved in 1996(if not yet calculated).
It is important to place the calculation results into the context of the AB 939 compliance discussion.
The calculation results give the Cities a numerical (quantitative)frame of reference concerning the
diversion percentage being achieved by each city. The regulations also provide a non-numerical
qualitative method of achieving compliance through good faith and 'reasonable and feasible'
efforts. It is important for the Cities to understand both the quantitative and qualitative
measurements used by the CIWMB to determine AB 939 compliance.
d. Evaluate CIWMB AB 939 Formula
There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the formula used by the CIWMB to
calculate diversion levels. In some cases,cities that do not have any recycling programs in place
surpassed the 25% AB 939 goal in 1995 when the Formula was used to calculate the cities'
diversion percentages. In other cases, cities with effective recycling programs in place did not
reach the 25%AB 939 goal in 1995 in utilizing the State Formula.
The factors included in the State Formula, including those for population growth and economic
growth, can over state a city's diversion percentage, or conversely under state a city's diversion
Page 1
Scope of Work
percentage. A discussion and evaluation of the CIWMB Formula will be included in the report on
AB 939 compliance.
e. Prepare Report Based on Research and Evaluations
EcoNomics Inc. will prepare a report with a complete definition of AB 939 compliance including
possible fines and associated time lines for cities not complying with the regulations. The report
will also evaluate and define "good faith effort" and "reasonable and feasible effort" as related
specifically to the Cities' SRRE's and waste diversion goals. Calculations of the 1995 and 1996
AB 939 Formula will also be included and evaluated, along with a discussion of the State Formula.
The CIWMB allows some flexibility for the Cities in reaching compliance with AB 939 including
petitioning for goal reduction, working as a regional group, requesting a time extension, and
requesting adjustments in goal achievement calculations. Each of these items will be discussed in
the report.
£ Prepare Summary Chart Listing Potential Fines and Fine Time Lines
EcoNomics Inc. will prepare a Summary Chart to accompany the report listing potential fines and
associated fine time lines. We have found that summary charts of critical information often assists
staff in relaying this information to decision makers,including City Managers and elected officials.
The Summary Chart provides a quick and easy-to-understand method of communication,with the
back up documentation included in the accompanying report.
Task 1 Deliverables:
• Report
• Chart listing possible fines and fine time lines
TASK 2. ASSESS THE OUTLOOK FOR AB 939
EcoNomics, Inc. constantly monitors proposed legislation, regulations, and trends continually
assesses the outlook of AB 939 for our California city clients. EcoNomics frequently authors
comment letters on draft legislation for cities. EcoNomics also submits written comments on
regulations in verbally presents comments at CIWMB workshops on behalf of our city clients.
a. Research and Review Pending Legislation and Regulations
Currently, there are several bills that could affect AB 939 compliance. For example, AB 705
(Strom-Martin) would require State facilities to comply with AB 939 diversion mandates. SB
1179 would prohibit waste haulers from indemnifying cities from AB 939 penalties. In addition to
pending legislation, for approximately two years there has been discussion of merging the
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the Department of Conservation
(DOC) which would impact AB 939. In the past six months, this discussion has evolved into a
proposal to disband Cal-EPA, which would affect AB 939.
In addition to legislation and regulations linked to AB 939, there is pending legislation that would
affect the recycling industry,which in turn could affect the Cities ability to comply with AB 939.
For example, S. 207, introduced in the U. S. Senate, would reform and/or eliminate federal
subsidies to private industry, including the mining, timber, and petroleum industries. Reforming
or eliminating the timber industry's federal subsidy would make it much less attractive to cut down
Pane 2
Scope of Work
trees for use in making paper products, and greatly increase markets for recycled paper to
manufacture paper products.
Since AB 939 was enacted there have been legislative efforts by cities and counties to soften the
effect of the mandate and efforts by environmental groups to strengthen the law. EcoNomics will
provide the cities with a brief history of these efforts as well as a projection of the likely
requirements that the cities must meet in the year 2000.
EcoNomics,Inc. will research and review pending legislation and regulations that would affect the
future of AB 939, both directly through legislation and regulations specifically written for and
about AB 939,and indirectly through legislation and regulations affecting the recycling and solid
waste industries. We will obtain updated information on the status of pending legislation and new
regulations from the League of California Cities,environmental groups,lobbyists for haulers, and
other stakeholders on the projected future of AB 939.
b. Prepare Report Memo on Possible Future Changes to AB 939
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a report on pending legislation,draft regulations, and possible future
changes to AB 939. EcoNomics will include copies of relevant pending legislation and draft
regulations along with the bill's or regulations'current status.
Based upon current changes in the solid waste and recycling industry, it is understandable that the
Cities are hesitant to commit to expensive long term contracts for solid waste and recycling
services. The largest solid waste companies in the United States are consolidating, and divesting
themselves of smaller, less profitable divisions. For example,over the past few months BFI has
sold many divisions in California,Arizona and Hawaii. With this type of change in the industry,
long term contracts would not be recommended.
The report for this task will provide suggestions for alternate methods for the cities to contract for
recycling services including short term contracts and will provide parameters for reasonable
contract duration given the useful life of equipment, trucks, etc.
Task 2 Deliverables:
• Report
• Copies of relevant pending legislation with current status (i.e. in committee, on the
floor of the Senate or Assembly,etc.)
TASK 3. ANALYZE AND COMPARE CONTRACTS
a. Obtain and Review Contracts and Rates
EcoNomics,Inc. will obtain copies of the Cities'current franchise and recycling agreements,along
with any franchise or contract amendments. We will also obtain the Cities' current garbage and
recycling rates.
EcoNomics,Inc. will review the Cities' franchise agreements,recycling agreements, and contract
amendments with particular attention to significant contract issues and services provided in each
City by the hauler.
EcoNomics, Inc. has extensive knowledge of, and experience in, working with franchise and
recycling agreements through assisting the Cities of Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City,Napa,and La
Page 3
Scope of Work
Quinta in writing and negotiating franchise and recycling agreements and amendments. We also
have worked with these cities through the various processes of calculating, setting, and adjusting
garbage and recycling rates.
h Compile Significant Issues and Services List and Prepare Comparison Matrix
EcoNomics, Inc. will compile a list of significant issues and services provided by the hauler for
each of the three cities. We will prepare a summary bulleted list of the significant issues and
services provided by the hauler for each of the franchise and recycling agreements. 'Free services'
as well as other services and provisions which are particularly beneficial to the cities will be
identified in the bulleted list.
EcoNomics, Inc. will use the summary bulleted lists to prepare a comparison matrix of the
franchise and recycling agreements. The matrix will compare the Cities' franchise and recycling
agreements, and identify services and issues found in all three franchise agreements, those found
in two of the three agreements,and those found in only one of the agreements.
Our experience in developing and negotiating franchise and recycling agreements will enable
EcoNomics, Inc. to analyze the Cities' contracts swiftly and determine the provisions included in
the agreements and those not included in the agreements that can assist the Cities in achieving AB
939 compliance.
In addition,comparison of the contracts will provide a useful overview of potential programs that
could be jointly implemented by the Cities in order to reduce costs through economies of scale.
c. Prepare Rate Comparison Spreadsheets
EcoNomics, Inc. will review the Cities' current rates and prepare a spreadsheet comparing the
Cities'rates. The rate comparison will compare services and costs as all of the services provided
for one of the Cities may not be provided in another. EcoNomics, Inc. will note reasons for
discrepancies between the rates which may include differing service levels or merely different
rates. The spreadsheet will also contain break outs of the service and tip fees included in the rates,
and the associated comparisons between the Cities.
Again,EcoNomics, Inc.experience in assisting other cities with calculating, setting and adjusting
rates will enable us to determine what factors are driving the rates.There are many factors that can
affect the rates, including the average annual pounds per household disposed, the predominant
business types located in the City, the level of service provided by the hauler, the number and type
of'free' services provided by the hauler, etc.
d. Prepare Report on Comparison of Cities' Contracts and Rates
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a report comparing the Cities' significant contract issues, such as the
scope of the franchise and AB 939 indemnification clauses, and services provided by the hauler,
such as automated, unlimited pick-up,public outreach, and curbside green waste collection. The
report will also compare'free' services found in each of the contracts, along with a comparison of
these services.
EcoNomics, Inc. will analyze and compare the Cities' current garbage and recycling rates in the
report,EcoNomics will include a comparison of the rates breaking out the service and tip fees. A
discussion of differences in the rates and reasons for the differences in rates will be included in the
report. The report will also describe areas of overlap between the cities. This will provide a basis
Page 4
Scope of Work
for later analysis of joint programs which could be implemented by the cities to achieve economies
of scale and reduce costs.
Task 3 Deliverables:
• Report memo
• Summary bullet list of each franchise
• Contract comparison matrix
• Spreadsheet comparison of rates,including breaking out service and tip fees
TASK 4. TIP FEE PROJECTIONS
a. Obtain Current and Historical Tip Fee Data
EcoNomics, Inc. will obtain historical tip fee data for local landfills, transfer stations and green
waste facilities. Current tip fee data will have been collected by the City of Covina's consultant. A
copy of the report will be forwarded to EcoNomics for use in completing this scope of work.
EcoNomics, Inc. will review the Cities' franchise agreements and rate setting resolutions to
determine if the Cities' have any control over the increases in tip fees. Most Cities do not have
control over tip fee increases. Most Cities "pass through" the increase in tip fees during the annual
rate setting process.
b. Research Potential Increases in Future Tip Fees
EcoNomics will research potential increases in future tip fees at local landfills, transfer stations,
and green waste facilities through phone calls with representatives of the facilities to verify plans
for tip fee increases. For the landfills, we will verify whether closure, post-closure and
remediation have been fully funded for the local landfills. A large increase in tip fees often occurs
when a landfill is underfunded for closure, post closure maintenance and remediation and needs to
collect additional funds for these purposes.
EcoNomics, Inc. has a network of contacts throughout the solid waste and recycling industries.
We will place phone calls to industry contacts to determine the potential for increases in tip fees at
local landfills,transfer stations,and green waste facilities. In addition,EcoNomics, Inc. will place
phone calls to our contacts at the CIWMB to determine whether there are any anticipated changes at
the State level that would impact tip fees at local landfills, transfer stations, and green waste
facilities.
In addition, EcoNomics, Inc. will compare the Cities' current landfill situation with other cities'
experiences to assist in projecting future tip fees. For example, in other regions,cities have found
tip fee increases at their local landfill when other nearby landfills are closed. Due to supply and
demand,with only one near by landfill,the tip fees increase due to lack of competition.
c. Prepare Report and Spreadsheet
EcoNomics,Inc.will prepare a report on historical,current, and projected tip fees at local landfills,
transfer stations, and green waste facilities over the next 5 to 10 years. The report will include
projected tip fees based on information gathered from local landfills and industry contacts, as well
as our past experience.
Page 5
Scope of Work
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a spreadsheet listing and comparing the historical, current, and
projected tip fees at local landfills,transfer stations, and green waste facilities over the next 5 to 10
years.
Task 4 Deliverables:
• Report
• Spreadsheets comparing cost per ton at local landfills, green waste facilities and transfer
stations,with 5 to 10 year projections
TASK 5. DEVELOP EVALUATION CRITERIA
a. Review Cities' SRRE Program Options
EcoNomics, Inc. will have obtained the Cities' SRRE's to complete work in Task 1. We will
review the Cities' SRRE program options and create criteria to evaluate the program options.
EcoNomics,Inc. is very familiar with SRRE program options through our work in writing several
SRRE's. We understand that implementing programs listed in SRRE's may not be the best
method for the Cities to obtain AB 939 mandates.
It has been 5-6 years since the SRRE's have been written. Since that time, markets have changed,
waste composition has changed,and the context of AB 939 mandates has changed. It is important
for the Cities to evaluate the programs listed in the SRRE's based on a set of evaluation criteria
approved by the cities, before implementing the programs. The criteria will assist the Cities in
determining whether to implement program options listed in the SRRE's or to create other
programs that would be more cost effective and/or create increased diversion. In addition, the
criteria will assist the Cities in prioritizing the selected programs.
lx Develop Evaluation Criteria
EcoNomics, Inc. will develop criteria to evaluate possible program options. The criteria will
include cost effectiveness, expected diversion amounts, feasibility, risk, cost avoidance, cost to
rate payers, consistency with legal decisions, city administrative time/costs, impact on franchise
fees,implementation time,flexibility of the option to adapt to changes in the types of recyclables
available in the waste stream over time, and the ability of the option to continue meeting the AB
939 mandates under different and fluctuating market conditions. A set of draft criteria will be
prepared for review and comment by the cities. Based upon EcoNomics' experience, the
development of the criteria is a very important step toward formulating a practical and successful
strategy to comply with AB 939 because it identifies the importance of each criterion to each city.
EcoNomics will meet with representatives of the three cities to discuss the draft evaluation criteria
and will then finalize the criteria and apply the criteria to the identified programs and options to
comply with AB 939.
EcoNomics utilized a similar set of evaluation criteria for the City of Mountain View in 1995. The
City wanted to implement a number of commercial/industrial recycling programs in order to
comply with AB 939. Several programs were listed in the SRRE but the City was unsure as to
which programs would really meet their needs. EcoNomics was retained to develop evaluation
criteria, to evaluate potential commercial/industrial programs and to develop a comprehensive
commercial/industrial recycling strategy for the City. This work was accomplished and the
recycling plan was adopted by the Mountain View City Council. The City is now in the process of
implementing and monitoring the programs contained in that con mercial/ndustrial recycling plan.
Page 6
Scope of Work
EcoNomics is currently working with the City to develop a sophisticated database to track the
quantities of recyclables being diverted from landfills and to track the costs of each
commercial/Industrial recycling program.
c. Prepare Report and Bulleted List of Final Evaluation Criteria
EcoNomics,Inc. will prepare a report listing the final evaluation criteria approved by the cities and
explaining the relevancy of the criteria in evaluating the Cities' program options. We will also
prepare a summary bulleted list of the evaluation criteria to accompany the report.
Task 5Deliverables:
• Report
• Bulleted list of final evaluation criteria
TASK 6. MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY(MRF)
a. Prepare Descriptions of MRF Types
EcoNomics, Inc. has extensive knowledge of MRFs and transfer stations through our work with
the CVAG MRF/Transfer Station Task Force in the Palm Springs area, the Sunnyvale SMART
Station, and with the Placer County MRF. EcoNomics has previously prepared reports describing
the different MRF types, including "clean" and "dirty" MRFs, MRF's accepting mixed waste,
MRFs accepting commingled recyclables,and MRF's accepting source separated recyclables.
EcoNomics, Inc. will review our previous reports on different MRF types, and update the MRF
descriptions based on the Cities' local situation. Use our EcoNomics' extensive database will
greatly reduce the cost of providing this information for the three cities.
1. Evaluate, Compare and Prepare a Report on the Effectiveness of MRF Types
EcoNomics,Inc. will evaluate,compare and prepare a report on the effectiveness of different MRF
types in relation to diversion quantities, material quality, materials marketing costs, and other
factors such as tonnage throughput, waste characterization data, and facility cost. Our recent work
with the Coachella Valley jurisdictions will ensure that the information presented in the report will
be up-to-date and reliable. EcoNomics, Inc. will also produce a summary comparison chart of
MRF types.
Task 6 Deliverables:
• Report evaluating MRF types
• Comparison chart of MRF types
TASK 7. INVENTORY
a. Obtain and Review Cities' SRRE's, Annual Reports, Hauler, and Recyclers'
Reports
EcoNomics, Inc. will obtain copies of the Cities' SRRE's, Annual Reports, past consultant's AB
939 implementation reports,and reports provided by the waste hauler and local recyclers. We will
Page 7
Scope of Work
review the materials available to verify which programs have been implemented by each City and
create an inventory list of programs.
b. Review Program Checklist with Cities' Representatives
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a checklist of each City's implemented programs comparing the
implemented programs to those in the SRRE's and noting overlaps or opportunities for joint
program implementation between the three cities. EcoNomics will meet with the three City
representative to review the checklist to verify the list of implemented programs.
c. Prepare Report and Summary Chart Comparing Cities' Programs
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a report listing and comparing the programs that have been
implemented by each City. In addition,the report will compare each City's implemented programs
with those listed each City's SRRE. The report will compare the programs listed in each City's
SRRE to the programs listed in the other two Cities' SRRE's. The report will also identify non-
implemented programs that could be jointly implemented by the three cities.
We will complete a summary chart comparing each City's implemented programs to the programs
implemented by the other two Cities, each City's implemented programs with their SRRE
programs, each City's SRRE programs to the other two Cities' SRRE programs and listing
opportunities for joint program implementation.
Task 7 Deliverables:
• Report memo
• Comparison chart inventory of implemented programs and SRRE programs
TASK 8. EVALUATE THE CURRENT MARKET FOR RECYCLED MATERIALS
a. Update Recycled Materials Market Data
EcoNomics,Inc. has over ten years of experience in hands-on marketing of recycled materials and
secondary materials markets analysis. EcoNomics served as the recycled materials market
consultant for the City of Los Angeles' Bureau of Sanitation (BOS) from 1990-1993. In this
capacity,our work included the following projects:
• Analyzed commodity market's price ranges and supply and demand trends for both
domestic and export markets.Developed a recyclable materials tracking system to chart
commodity prices and show market and industry trends.
• Researched the possibility of establishing a municipal cooperative marketing group.
The information obtained resulted in the creation of the Southern California Marketing
Round Table.
• Prepared a complete analysis of the recycling markets accessible for materials recovered
in Southern California.
In addition, we have researched recycling markets for San Diego, Orange, Riverside, and Santa
Clara counties, and cities in the San Francisco Bay Area.These projects involved the tracking and
verification of recycled tonnage for AB 939 plans and market development projects.
Page 8
Scope of Work
We are in regular contact with the major domestic and export markets for our clients.This active
market involvement keeps us current on market changes in both price and selling specifications.
EcoNomics, Inc. will be able to obtain historical and current market data for recyclable materials
from our database. EcoNomics will evaluate the historical and current market data for recycled
materials in relation to the Cities' waste diversion goals. As noted above, EcoNomics has
previously analyzed secondary materials markets supply and demand trends. We will update our
analysis to include the relationship between recyclable materials market demand and compliance
with AB 939 and include it in a report to the Cities.
In monitoring domestic and export markets for recyclable materials,EcoNomics,Inc. is constantly
evaluating prospects for the future demand of recyclables. The report memo will contain
evaluations of the future demand of recyclables and the affect this demand (or lack of demand)
would have on the cities' compliance with AB 939. A chart will be included with the report
providing historical and current market data.
Task 8 Deliverables:
• Report memo
• Chart providing historical and current market data
TASK 9. STRATEGY OPTIONS
a. MRF
EcoNomics, Inc. will obtain and analyze the Cities' 1996 tonnage data, including daily tonnages,
tonnage amounts not disposed at end of day due to early landfill closures,franchised commercial
tonnage,cash/credit commercial tonnage, self haul tonnage, single family residential tonnage,and
multi-family residential tonnage. EcoNomics,Inc. will obtain SIC code data to determine the types
of businesses in the Cities. Using a database created through EcoNomics'.waste characterization
work,we will determine the approximate amount and categories of waste generated in the Cities by
looking at the amount and categories of waste generated by similar businesses with the same SIC
codes whose waste was characterized and stored in the database.
Using the tonnages,categories of waste (including recyclables),and the approximate quantities of
waste generated in each category in the Cities, EcoNomics, Inc. will evaluate the use of different
local MRFs to process all or certain portions of the city waste streams. (Data on the local MRFs,
including tip fees, average daily tonnage, maximum daily tonnage, will be received from the City
of Covina's consultant.) We will evaluate the diversion potential of the waste processed and
assess the potential cost effectiveness of the potential waste diversion. One of the possible options
to be evaluated includes having the Athens MRF process only the waste not disposed of at the end
of each day due to early landfill closures.
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a position paper evaluating the use of different local MRFs. The
report will include the analyzing the feasibility of utilizing different local MRFs,the transportation
and tip fee costs, diversion potential, cost effectiveness of the diversion potential, and the
feasibility of using different MRFs for certain portions of the waste stream.
Pane 9
Scope of Work
b. Green Waste Program
EcoNomics, Inc. has experience in designing, implementing and monitoring residential single
family home green waste programs for the Cities of Napa, Cathedral City, La Quinta and
Sunnyvale. We have designed, implemented and monitored a multi-family green waste program
for the City of Mountain View. We are currently designing and implementing a commercial green
waste program for the Cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, and Cathedral City. We have
prepared position papers on the pros and cons of automated versus manual green waste collection.
EcoNomics, Inc. will review our database of green waste programs, and prepare a position paper
describing the Cities' options in designing and implementing residential, multi-family and
commercial green waste programs. Issues to be analyzed and reviewed include automated vs.
manual collection, voluntary vs. mandatory green waste collection, subscription programs, and
curbside collection vs. drop off centers for green waste. Drop off centers will be analyzed with
attention to program implementation alternatives, including voluntary usage promoted through
public education and adoption of an ordinance banning green waste at the landfill,
In presenting green waste program options, EcoNomics, Inc. will also review and include green
waste tonnage data. Knowing the amount of green waste tonnage in each sector of the waste
stream, including commercial, single family residential and multi-family residential, assists in
determining the green waste options for each sector of the waste stream.
EcoNomics, Inc. will evaluate the residential green waste program options according to criteria
including cost,potential percentage of waste stream diverted,certainty of the end use for the green
waste,potential for increased liability to the Cities,reliability of the collection method,technical
viability of the diversion method, and the ability of the Cities to obtain diversion credit under AB
939 and AB 2494. The position paper will include a written evaluation of the green waste
diversion options describing the pros and cons of each.
Additional issues to be evaluated in the position paper include the green waste facility location,
transportation costs, tip fee,composting,alternative daily cover, green waste processing,potential
transfer of green waste, and the optimal container size for the green waste program options.
c. Commercial Programs
EcoNomics, Inc. has extensive experience in implementing commercial recycling programs
including analyzing the contents of the waste stream,designing the commercial recycling program,
preparing recycling program educational materials for the commercial establishment's employees,
designing and presenting an employee training program,ordering commercial recycling containers,
implementing the commercial recycling program, and performing on-going monitoring and
maintenance of the commercial recycling program.
EcoNomics,Inc. designed and is currently assisting the City of Rancho Mirage in implementing a
food/paper waste special routing system to collect food and paper waste from resorts and
restaurants and transport it to a composting facility. In addition, EcoNomics, Inc. is currently
implementing a joint three-city program for small business office paper recycling.
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a position paper for the Cities outlining and evaluating commercial
solid waste and recycling programs including source separated commercial recycling,A/B muting,
wet/dry collection, mandatory commercial recycling, voluntary commercial recycling,multi-city
programs,MRF processing,and ordinance development.
Page 10
Scope of Work
The position paper will include a description of potential commercial recycling program options
that have the optimum configurations to meet the Cities' goals of cost effectiveness and increased
diversion potential. The descriptions will also include the entity or entities that would provide the
services, such as a single franchised hauler, two franchisees, multiple licensees,etc. The options
will be compared and contrasted in terms of cost effectiveness and ease of implementation,
including a brief analysis of pros and cons.
Each commercial recycling program option will be listed in a matrix which describes the positive
and negative aspects of the alternative in categories such as the following:
• Cost of program
• Tonnage diverted
• City administrative time/costs
• Consistency with legal decisions
• Service levels to businesses
• Service to small generators
• Impact on solid waste collection and disposal rates
• Impact on Cities' franchise fees
• Implementation time
• Flexibility of the option to adapt to changes in the types of recyclables available in the
waste stream over time
• Ability of the option to continue meeting the AB 939 diversion mandates under different
and fluctuating market conditions
EcoNomics,Inc.will consult with the Cities'representatives as we prepare the matrix and develop
the program options. Based on the input received, we will refine the selected program options for
final consideration and evaluation.
d. Multi-Family
EcoNomics, Inc. will obtain and analyze data from the Cities on the number of multi-family
complexes located in each City and the amount of multi-family tonnage generated in each City. We
will evaluate program options including source separating recyclables, MRF processing of
commingled recyclables, and MRF processing of multi-family mixed waste.
EcoNomics,Inc. will present the program options in a position paper which will include evaluation
of the cost effectiveness,diversion potential,and potential for joint-city programs. Other issues to
be included and evaluated in the position paper include complex wide distribution of collection
containers,education programs,cost incentives, split bins,and ordinance development.
EcoNomics,Inc. will research, identify and profile successful multi-family recycling programs in
other cities,especially groups of other cities. The position paper will evaluate the potential for the
Cities to model a program after one or more of the profiled programs. We will identify
opportunities for cooperative ventures.
Page it
Scope of Work
e. Educational Programs
EcoNomics, Inc. has extensive experience in educational programs to encourage recycling,
including design and development of brochures, flyers, media kits and displays for groups of
cities. We have written and distributed press releases, arranged for media events, and written and
distributed public service announcements. We have coordinated recycling workshops including
drafting the workshop agenda topics, arranging for speakers, coordinating facility and food
arrangements,developing and mailing of workshop invitations,ordering promotional give-aways,
preparing workshop handouts, and facilitating workshop. We have developed and produced
videos on recycling including a video following a newspaper from the recycling bin all the way
through the recycling process and back to the newsstand, EcoNomics also recently produced a
video showcasing children's recycling activities in the Palm Springs area.
EcoNomics, Inc. will evaluate and determine program options in a position paper on educational
programs, including media kits, printing flyers or brochures, displays, videos, workshops, and
promotional give-aways, in relation to achieving compliance with AB 939 goals. Particular
attention will be given to developing program options that could be implemented by the three Cities
as a group.
f. Waste Transfer
The information received from the City of Covina's consultant will include the cost of utilizing the
Athens transfer station in the City of Industry. EcoNomics, Inc. will use this information to
determine and analyze the cost of using the Athens transfer station for some or all of the waste
stream in conjunction with program options developed as part of this task.
The information received from the City of Covina's consultant will also include the cost of utilizing
alternative transfer stations. EcoNomics, Inc. will use this information to determine and analyze
the cost of using these alternative transfer stations for some or all of the waste stream in
conjunction with program options developed as part of this task.
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a position paper outlining waste transfer program options including
the costs to utilize the Athens and alternative transfer stations, as well as the costs to utilize the
stations in conjunction with other program options. A spreadsheet will be prepared to compare the
costs.
& Residential Curbside Recycling
EcoNomics, Inc. will prepare a position paper outlining and evaluating residential curbside
recycling options including source separated using 2 or 3 crates versus commingled collection
using 90 gallon barrels. EcoNomics, Inc. recently prepared a position paper identifying the pros
and cons of source separated versus commingled curbside collection. We will review the position
paper, and update it based on the Cities' specific characteristics.
The position paper will include an evaluation of diversion potential and cost effectiveness of these
types of curbside residential recycling programs. EcoNomics, Inc. will review the collection
implications of a curbside residential recycling program including the use of additional trucks and
marketing issues.
Page 12
Scope of Work
h. Construction/Demolition and Self-Haul Sectors of the Waste Stream
The options for the construction/demolition and self-haul sectors of the waste stream will be
presented and evaluated in a position paper to the Cities. Construction/demolition waste materials
are the heaviest materials: therefore are the most expensive materials to dispose of. In addition,
due to the heavy weight.these materials are the most difficult to process through a transfer station.
Program options to be evaluated include routing the materials to a construction/demolition recycling
facility or landfill, siting a construction/demolition recycling facility (possibly at the inert landfill in
Azusa). diversion of construction/demolition materials at a transfer station. and on-site recycling
programs including grinding of concrete at the site and using it in the new concrete mix.
The self-haul sector of the waste stream is primarily comprised of landscaping firms hauling yard
waste and small construction firms (e.g. roofing contractors) hauling construction/demolition
materials. The self-haul sector adds significantly to the truck count at a landfill or transfer facility,
but little to the volume of waste disposed of at the landfill or transfer station. Self-haulers
generally pay cash, and are more sensitive to tipping fee costs than the refuse haulers. Due to their
high number,the self-haul vehicles should be kept separate from the refuse haulers'truck lanes at a
transfer station. Program options for the self-haul sector will be included in the position paper,
including public education targeted at landscaping firms (e.g. Asplund) and small construction
firms regarding the availability of green waste and construction/demolition diversion facilities.
Drop-off centers for the self-haul sector will be evaluated due to the potential increase in illegal
dumping as local landfills close.
The construction/demolition and self-haul program options will be evaluated for cost effectiveness
and increased diversion potential.
Task 9 Deliverables:
• MRF position paper
• Green waste position paper
• Commercial program position paper
• Multi-family program position paper
• Educational programs position paper
• Waste transfer position paper (include spreadsheet analyzing cost of Athens transfer
station and alternative transfer stations)
• Residential curbside recycling position paper
• Construction/demolition and self-haul programs position paper
TASK 10. ANALYZE STRATEGIES
In this Task EcoNomics will utilize the final evaluation criteria prepared in Task 5 to evaluate all of
the recycling options described in Task 9. This comprehensive evaluation matrix will provide the
cities with a comparison of the options available. The evaluation matrix will be used to determine
those recycling programs that most meet the cities' needs. A report will be prepared which
evaluates each potential program under the MRF, green waste programs, commercial programs,
multifamily programs, educational programs, waste transfer and residential curbside recycling
program options according to the evaluation criteria prepared in Task 5. The report will include a
conclusion summarizing the top rated programs.
Page 13
Scope of Work
Task 10 Deliverables:
• Summary list of top ranked program options
• Report
TASK 11. RECOMMENDATIONS
a. Review Data, Memo Reports, and Evaluation of Strategies
The top ranked programs options will have been identified in Task 10. These programs will be
used to create a strategy that will maximize diversion and minimize costs(possibly through joint 3-
city implementation of programs). This strategy will be developed and described in a report to the
cities. The report will reference and summarize the results of work on other tasks that is relevant to
the evaluation of program options. This report can then serve as a blueprint for the cities to
implement programs that will enable them to comply with AB 939 and cost effectively manage their
solid waste when the Spadra and Puente Hills Landfills close.
EcoNomics, Inc. will include implementation suggestions including but not limited to, contract
amendments, separate contracts, ordinances, other enforcement methods, and joint 3-City
programs. We will include the most cost effective programs for the Cities to comply with AB 939.
h Meet with Cities' Representatives
Once EcoNomics has developed draft recommendations as to how all three Cities can best meet the
requirements of AB 939, EcoNomics, Inc. will arrange to meet with the Cities' representatives.
EcoNomics, Inc. will present the draft recommendations to the Cities' representatives for review
and input.
c. Prepare Report and Summary Chart of Recommendations
EcoNomics, Inc.will finalize the final report and recommendations, and develop a summary chart
listing the final recommendations.
Task 11 Deliverables:
• Final Report
• Summary chart or list
TASK 12. PRESENTATIONS
a. Meet with Cities' Representatives
EcoNomics, Inc. will meet with the Cities'representatives to determine the parameters for the City
Council presentations. For example,we will determine the approximate length of the presentation,
whether the presentation take place at a study session or at a regular city council meeting. Working
with city staff EcoNomics will determine the type of audio-visual presentations that are preferred-
overheads,video, or slides.
Page 14
Scope of Work
b. Prepare Draft Presentation Outline on AB 939 Compliance Issues
Based on the presentation parameters,EcoNomics,Inc.will prepare a draft presentation outline on
AB 939 compliance issues and a list of accompanying visual graphics (charts, graphs). This draft
will be forwarded to the Cities'representatives for review and comment.
c. Finalize Presentation Outline and Prepare Presentation Overheads or Slides
EcoNomics, Inc. will finalize the presentation outline on AB 939 compliance issues and prepare
presentation overheads or slides, including charts and/or graphs to visually assist in
communicating the information to the City Councils.
d. Assist with or Complete Presentation
EcoNomics, Inc.will make presentations to each of the three City Councils (if so requested). The
presentation will provide a concise overview of AB 939 compliance issues. We will provide
printed copies of the audio-visual presentations as handouts.
EcoNomics, Inc. has extensive experience in making City Council Meeting and Study Session
presentations. We are experienced in taking complex solid waste and recycling issues, breaking
them down, and making them simple to understand. Most City Council Members do not have in
depth knowledge of solid waste or recycling issues, and these issues are not often discussion
topics at meetings. When making City Council presentations,we are able to familiarize the elected
officials with the solid waste issues and communicate a complex message in a brief presentation.
Task 12 Deliverables:
• Draft staff report
• Presentation overheads or slides&printed copies of same to distribute as handouts
• Presentation(s)
Page 15
'fJ F.:.•:ii
\'T�. fr: r 44.
lOp �,ycf. �Sx1 \ $ I8 1 IIU
>:::1 : !p
-8ili ;,< • a_ ' /', .; \ws
FJ 31 :?f• y:':w, 7f m ::.Itfi
'•s 32 33 C • 111;w•. O 'f;JU ' 1L :1 g
. E is :;%• •0. 33 A'::; • \. < a m <:: 2:• • <_ :`. g :>J`:< ' E -::: m 1 , :fjv a N i ii .,' w:`;
;�: •.� C • :ki2 3 7 w ,C 3 •^� 1:.. !jy ti:.�w`ti-
f:yrw 8 fr • "'.,`,• • : 2 o z ; 0 S i::g p— • t :a Q• `+ h a 2 g r ?, :'4\
'%f ,. `M« 311 ;c.%1m ? '9 O .. ;:3 — 70 C g g , \s.;:
: T. . ? '.';e : ?#? + • />,' },1:5; p a . \? :h.41 n%,l2
Iii,
Ni 1 %
o11111111111111111111111 J
v•v =
O
N
.:!.i..11.•:m '..."!... 0 ::!........:1_, ::.;_ L,„, .,„..:... 11,„::::: 11 I
•w
® `� is
s
j
• :. •
�e
..... ;Ili 1.1.1 Ai .::]:::: .-:-::..
..
' ::::::e::: ::::.:..i ..:......;.....
•.•. .,.•.:.1..i..i:...1" 1.1;i::;.:"...;:
M
I
T
. ..:.:.....,..., Ili;...s.::::
;iI
t::
II •
O rr:rr>
— 3
a
c
•
•
• i
::
o:::..:::..:::° 'a :>v w o
IIIIIIII
:.::.:.::"..:.i.
• a:4vy' 14Ni H :y . .H H
IN) tN A
cViiO 17►:A N:CO :N
V w 0. r tl:N
:0 W:N - N0WOw
11111
iO OO O • • :::•
:dW O 0O O O' O iao
�p
•
........,::::: . .lv ,, 'i:'•ii '.:v. .i.:..:.'
• :..::. ,.t•: :: ;.::,:. '. ;.vi
\ , , > is (:' c,;t,,. .si;..
v ;: ,, .sz.:: :,, a.:::.::«:aaz:,......a,.,.,zt.rr.: -
Budget for AB 939 Compliance Options-FINAL
TASK 9 STRATEGY OPTIONS ----� ".„,. „...
Task 9a MRFU ! 4 8 12- $2 480 $2,480 ,,,r
Task 9b Green Waste Pro•ram 4 6-= $960 $960
Task Sc Commercial Pr•• ams 2 9 12- $2 380 $2,380
Task 9d Multi-Famll 3 2 4- 1 $970 $970 :. ::::::;, ;... ::
Task 9e Educational Pr••rams 1 6 12 2 $1,760 $1,760 ,
1 $690 $690-
Task 9f Waste Transfer 1 2 4 :.:::'`%
=M_Residential Curbside Rec Ii . 1 2 6- 1 $830
1 3 4 2 $840 $840 >c? z'>i
Task 9h
3 Self•Haul Pro rams .°`�'!•�^ �
fes.r ..r..r...:.:r...:..:........... .............................................S
.... ......................f.... .
TASK 10 ANALYZE STRATEGIES -------- ' ..
Summa Re ort of To Ranked O dons 2 6 8
4 $1,680 $1,680 `
Task10a P ......... ::::.::.: . :::.::::::::::.. •:•::>:«•;•:»:>;:•»:•.>::::•> .......... ................. ...... .... .. �.......a
i��,.�r....................r:.....:.:::./{ ::::::::::::::..........r........;;u�raTAt.:xASK.:�.n,::::............................................,..::::: :..::.:.................................... ... . ,.:..>..,,,,;,.,.>:.;�:.
.............
TASK 11 RECOM.ENDATIONS -_------: > '?i» z:%
Task lie RevIew date Memo Re••its and Evaluation 2 4 12- 8 $1,840 $1,840 ?>�? ;' i;<;;: 'k
Task 11 b Meedn• with Cities'Re•rasentatives : ,"''`?s; `\\
4 4 4- 1 51,350 $1,350 `:`>;:;:;•,c
Task 11c Finalize Report 1 2 4 2 $720 $720 ::«<#:Nc:::>#>:::
finignaMiii:: :::MiliiiMg::::;i::::M:.:.•ii.'ilgegiNiniManigNiiiiiii].::1;1$L110.OTACIABICti
,
TASK 12 PRESENTATIONS ----_----'<'"'`: 'i .`:;y;!.
Task 12a Meet with Cities Re•resentatives 2 2 $380 $380
,
Task 12b Pre•ere Draft Presentation Outline 1 2 1 $290
Task 12c Finalize Presentation 1 1 2_ 4 $520 $520
i {
i:::•: :i: 2 ; : 4
:.:.:.:. : :....:.:.:.:.:.:.
:%% %
Task 12d Council Presentations 2 2 2 $660 $660 <' `* ... a
ff/ ff ? ii4 .iiiY :{ Fiviyiii.: wi .i. ii ; •: �:vijsi:: YLivi { : ij: Yii?':iii { iY :it. ^ '�:r .y{: 4 :> ' : : : . . . V Ip `
...................:.. .:. . ............. ................................. :._::: ::::................._................._ _ 27 970..
_._............ ....................... 3'7920.: Ses.Note.a. : ;...,.::,:..; :,:::: $
:.>,:.:::.:::.:::.::.::.::;.:<.::.:;.:.::.::.::.::::::::.:::.>::.::.:<;•;.:.::. .:;:<.. ;.::.:::.:.;: :.:;..:.<::.;::.::.::.:.:.;::.;:...:: . :TOZALS ::::::::::.32.5.::.:.,.......8.6.............'i.65..................
...................................................
7-17-97 Page 2 of 2