Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.C 05/04/2015DATE: May 4, 2015 Agenda Item #4.0 �el TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Dan St. John, F.ASCE, Public Works and Utilities Director SUBJECT: Review of Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Services RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept the report prepared by R3 Consulting Group, Inc. entitled, "Review of Alternatives to Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Services — Letter Report" and provide direction to staff regarding its policy preferences, and completion of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency's decision-making matrix. BACKGROUND A brief review of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency's formation and major Agreement milestones may provide a helpful introduction: In February 1992, the City of Petaluma entered into a 25 -year agreement with the cities and County of Sonoma to form a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to deal with waste management issues including wood waste, yard waste, household hazardous waste (HHW), and public education. The JPA, called the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA, the Agency), is comprised of a ten member board of directors with a member and alternate from each of the ten member cities and county. The Agency is managed by an executive director and staff with expertise in solid waste and outreach activities. The JPA agreement will expire in February 2017. At this time, no successor agency has yet to be designated to fulfill the mission of the JPA, nor has a JPA extension agreement been approved. A unanimous vote of the members is required to extend the JPA. The Agency's Executive Director recently prepared a "white paper" to describe the Agency and its current challenges (Attachment 1). The White paper is included in this report as background information for the City Council, and represents the opinions of the Executive Director. Including Attachment 1 with this report should not suggest City staff is in full agreement with the statements made therein. On January 24, 1996, the JPA Agreement was amended to designate SCWMA as the Regional Agency under the terms of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (the Act) in order to create a regional agency for the purpose of implementing, monitoring and reporting programs to meet the goals established by the Act. On January 27, 2014, the City Council approved the second amendment to the JPA agreement which included an indemnity agreement for the Plastic Shopping Bag Ban program. The second ,amendment, which allowed the countywide "Bag Ban" program to take place, delegates regulatory and enforcement authority for implementation of City Council policy on regulating single -use carry out bags in the City and enables SCWMA to carry out new "non-core" programs in which member jurisdictions could elect to participate. During the past year, the Agency discussed extending the JPA beyond its current expiration date of February 2017. Discussion included a range of topics, and variety of reasons for extending the JPA raised by Agency staff at that time. The most recent relates to commitments made by the Agency in addressing the regional Water Quality Control Board's order (the Order) to curtail runoff from the composting facility into waters of the State. The Agency has also proposed construction of a new composting facility that, under one method of project delivery, would require financing to construct. The ability to finance will rely, in part, on Agency viability through a debt service period. The commitment to debt finance has not yet been approved by the Agency Board as part of a plan to build the new composting facility. In December 2014, the Agency Board failed to reach unanimous agreement on a proposed JPA Amendment that suggested changes including, but not limited to, governance structure, voting requirements, expenditure authorities, and eliminated a termination date. City attorneys representing a number of member agencies, including Petaluma's, voiced a variety of concerns with this approach, and began a dialog with Agency counsel. Agency counsel has recently changed; the dialog with the attorney's group is on-going. Earlier this year, concerned about the commitments it made to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Agency staff then proposed to the Agency Board an Amendment that extends the term, but leaves other issues to be addressed in the future. Based on the most vocal feedback from Petaluma and Rohnert Park, the Agency Board, in March, deferred its consideration of a third JPA Amendment and requested that each member agency respond to the questions included in the "Waste Management Decision Matrix", included as Attachment 2 to this report, to clarify the interests of the ten Agency members in extending the Agreement, and in other changes. The matrix is addressed in greater detail in the Discussion section of this report. It should be noted that in considering continued participation in the JPA, Petaluma's situation is unique among JPA members. Petaluma's solid waste (refuse), and green waste, are both directed to the Redwood Landfill. As such, Petaluma's need for the services provided by the Agency differs significantly from those of the other member agencies. The process of examining an extension of the JPA offers the City Council the opportunity to determine whether it is still beneficial to the City, two decades later, to participate in the Agency, and to explore alternatives to meeting our waste reduction and diversion goals. To assist the City Council in this consideration, staff commissioned the subject report to validate and expand upon Agency efforts to quantify the benefits of JPA membership. The subject report (Attachment 3) is intended to augment and provide a Petaluma perspective to a previous study prepared by R3 on behalf of the SCWMA dated May 13, 2014, that was entitled, "Evaluation of Current Activities and Service Delivery Options" (Attachment 4). In the report prepared for the Agency, R3 evaluated the four core areas of service and concluded that, "Based on our review, it does not appear that the Member Jurisdictions could realize an overall net cost savings by 2 pursuing alternative services to the four core programs provided by the Agency." The four core areas are: Composting of organic waste including yard waste, Household Hazardous Waste, Education and Outreach, and Reporting. That report, however, benchmarked costs of services to other service providers in the region and did not evaluate what it would cost a jurisdiction such as Petaluma to provide any of the core services independent of the Agency. R3's report for the City concentrates analysis on alternative delivery options and evaluates whether the funds currently coming from the City of Petaluma's service area to support the JPA could be better utilized by the City to operate the core programs on its own, or in cooperation with other like- minded cities. As previously noted, Petaluma does not participate in the composting program offered by SCWMA, but chose, instead, a cost effective program at the Redwood Landfill that composts food scraps in addition to vegetative green waste. Food waste (meats, fats, bones, waxed and food -impregnated paper products) is currently not accepted at the Agency's Central Landfill composting operation. The City has directed its refuse to the Redwood Landfill for more than a decade. The recent direction of green waste to the same location has allowed Petaluma Refuse and Recycling, Inc. (PR&R) to increase waste diversion and to operate more efficiently, allow Petaluma residents to compost foodstuffs in addition to yard waste, and reduces greenhouse gases and truck miles on the County roads. This change was approved and took effect in 2014. Last calendar year, City residents paid an estimated $218,800 to SCWMA to support the HHW, Education and Outreach, and Reporting Programs based on the surcharge paid for all refuse. About $40,000 of that amount was paid directly by "self -haulers" from the City at the Central Landfill while the majority of the fees were paid by the City, under a pass-through arrangement with PR&R based on the tons of refuse collected under their franchise agreement. On December 1, 2014, the Council approved the Ninth Amendment (Ninth Amendment) to the "Agreement between the City of Petaluma and the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency to provide Petaluma Citizens Continued Use of the County's Central Disposal Site for Household Hazardous Waste Disposal and Other AB 939 Required Services" which reduced the surcharge on refuse from $5.95 per ton to $4.85 per ton. (The new surcharge will be applied to green waste, as well as refuse, entering the Central site in the future.) The total surcharge paid by City residents and businesses, and City payments for Agency participation, are estimated in 2015 to be approximately $148,000. This does not include direct payment of the surcharge by "self - haulers" that take materials to the Central Landfill and composting facilities. The Agency's compost program is self-funded from tipping fees charged at the Central Landfill for green waste disposal. The current rate is $34.10 per ton for green waste; however, that rate will be going up for several reasons. The County is imposing fees of $19.10 per ton this spring once the Master Operations Agreement (MOA) with Republic Services goes into effect. These fees will cover the Agency surcharge that is currently not applied to green waste, a county concession fee, committed city contingent liability fee, and special concession payments. Second, the Agency is currently evaluating added costs to reduce the "footprint" of the compost pad, which will result in additional green waste to be hauled to out -of -county composting operations. The reduction in footprint and outhauling is a result of a current lawsuit involving stormwater being discharged into a nearby creek. Third, the cost of building a new composting facility is expected to cause a rate increase. Still undefined, it is possible this fee increase will replace or increase whatever fee increase is put into place to increase outhauling of green waste for the time it takes to build a new facility. The latter charge would remain in effect significantly longer than the former. Within the next several months, the green waste tipping fee could increase significantly at Agency's facility at Central. Pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, Petaluma is not subject to these increases. DISCUSSION A number of options exist to assure Petaluma remains compliant with AB 939 and its solid waste disposal and recycling goals beyond the current JPA sunset date of February 2017. These include: 1. Remain a part of the SCWMA if the JPA agreement is renewed. Under this option, the City would continue to direct the surcharge of $4.85 per ton on refuse collected within the City to the SCWMA to fund HHW, Education and Outreach, and Reporting. 2. Promote a shared services style agreement with another jurisdiction, such as the County or other agency(ies), to allow participation in a waste management partnership that provides a menu of the four core services. The difference between option one and option 2 is a different governance and management structure and the expectation that Petaluma would only participate in three of the four areas, excluding composting. Petaluma would expect to provide fair compensation for these services based on the current $4.85 per ton surcharge on refuse. Composting is expected to remain self-supporting and not subsidized by the surcharge. 3. Develop an independent program managed by the City to meet its responsibilities. 4. Some other variation or hybrid of these options, as may be developed. Under the current terms and conditions, Petaluma will not want to withdraw from the Agency within the next two years. The existing Agreement imposes liability on members who withdraw from the JPA before the current termination date. While the penalties are not defined, the City's early withdrawal would arguably cause SCWMA to incur unexpected expenses associated with revising existing planning documents including the basis of reporting diversions to CalRecycle, the State agency charged with administering the requirements of AB 939. Furthermore, it is unlikely that an alternate management plan can be implemented much sooner than two years from now. As noted, the subject report was commissioned to provide the Council with a more in-depth and Petaluma -specific analysis than that commissioned by SCWMA in 2014. It also examines the costs and challenges of creating a City program as envisioned in option 3. The consultant concluded that providing a HHW program to City residents and businesses at a similar level of service to that currently provided by SCWMA would be difficult and much more costly than the City's costs to participate in the JPA. While it is possible to offer a reduced HHW program at a cost that might approximate the City's contribution to SCWMA, no outreach was conducted to determine how much value the public places in the current level of services and whether it would be satisfied with less service - at no reduction in cost. An impediment to the City assuming HHW responsibilities, singly or in cooperation with one or more municipal partners, is the permits needed to handle and dispose of Household Hazardous waste. Exploring alternatives, 4 staff inquired of PR&R if they could provide HHW services under the franchise agreement. PR&R indicated that they do not provide full HHW services to any of their customers. The City would also assume Education and Outreach, and Reporting functions under Option 3. Providing these services does not offer the same challenges as HHW because reasonably comparable services could be provided by PR&R under the Franchise Agreement. It would, however, require resources for start-up and on-going City administration. Start-up costs could be $100,000 or more, which reflects the effort involved in extracting Petaluma -specific data from the countywide waste stream planning documents developed by the Agency and previously submitted to CalRecycle, and establishing new Petaluma -specific reporting that would be consistent with requirements for waste stream diversion under CalRecycle rules. Option 3 does not appear to be a viable alternative for Petaluma from the perspective of cost effectiveness. Option 2, partnering with another jurisdiction in a shared services arrangement, has appeal in that it eliminates the City's participation in a time and resource intensive JPA. Currently, City staff spends several days per month on Agency business including preparation for and attending regular, special and closed session, board meetings, providing technical and management support to Agency staff for projects such as the new Compost Facility, and assisting to resolve legal and organizational challenges. Petaluma also chairs the Agency Board in 2015, and as such also attends Executive Committee meetings as those are held. Further, the JPA presents a challenging structure for problem solving, compounded by frequent board member changes. Problem solving at the board level is also complicated by the disparity in the backgrounds of the members relative to the technical and management challenges faced by waste management activities. There is no consistency between member cities as to when their governing bodies take action before their representatives vote on policy matters. This has not been a significant hindrance, as Agency business, for the most part, involves technical decisions that should be within the capability of its staff to make, but becomes more problematic when major changes, such as new programs and/JPA amendments, are at issue. It should be noted that the total Agency budget is typically less than $7,000,000 (although the current revenue budget is upwards to $8,100,000 due to the need to comply with the zero discharge requirements at the compost facility). An agency of such a moderate size and scope probably does not merit the robust governance structure of a county water or transportation agency, as has been proposed by Agency staff in at least one version of a third Amendment to the JPA Agreement. One of the expected benefits of a Joint Powers Authority is that it can provide services more effectively than any single member agency can perform. Another benefit is that the JPA should reduce the workload and involvement of member agencies — staff and decision makers. In the latter case, Petaluma's experience, it does not go far enough in that direction. It has been argued that the JPA form of governance allows the SCWMA to be the solid waste policy agency for the County and pass countywide ordinances such as the "Plastic Shopping Bag Ban". However, implementation of that ban ordinance underscored limitations to that approach due to legal differences between the members. The "Plastic Shopping Bag Ban" could have been more effectively instituted had the member agencies agreed on a model ordinance and then acted independently to pass it by each of the ten jurisdictions' governing bodies. All ten agencies ended up agreeing to the ban ordinance at their own forums including passage of the second JPA amendment addressed earlier. It should also be noted that the administrative cost of maintaining a JPA is not trivial, in part because of the costs associated with an executive director and a general counsel necessary to support a governance board structure. Neither of the attached R3 reports examines in any detail, the Agency's administrative costs. R3's report for the City seeks to benchmark administrative costs against those of similar agencies, but determines only that administrative costs are not out of line, where comparisons can be made. Based on program cost information provided in R3's 2014 report, staff feels that SCWMA's administrative costs should be lower, with any attendant savings passed on to member agencies. In staff's view, the most effective model in an Option 2 scenario is for the County to assume the JPA's responsibilities, and for the cities to contract with the County for services. Assuming composting and HHW remain at the Central Landfill location, the County appears to offer a more streamlined method of operation. While the final site selection decision for a future composting site has not been made, composting and HHW operations seem likely to remain at the Central Landfill. The Master Operating Agreement (MOA) recently approved between the County and Republic Services allows the County to request Republic to provide a proposal for compost operations. There is logic to consolidate all the site operations under the single longterm MOA. This option would obviate the need for a licensing agreement between the County and SCWMA for the use of County property for HHW and composting, and eliminate the need for the SCWMA to pay rent, provide indemnification and insurance, and other requirements associated with an agreement between two governmental bodies. It's envisioned, under Option 2, that the cities that choose to participate in such a shared services approach would contract from a menu of program alternatives, paying only for what they need. Before doing so, of course, acceptable service levels, costs, indemnification and responsibility for liability transfer would need to be evaluated/negotiated/agreed upon. This option relies on County willingness to provide this service, which remains to be determined. However, the option would streamline management decisions related to the Central Landfill site, and assure that all activities on that site were closely coordinated for the benefit of the ultimate customers, the residents and businesses of Sonoma County. The option would transfer policy decisions regarding regional solid waste matters to the County Board of Supervisors. However, should option 2 be pursued, the City would recommend that a technical advisory committee be formed, made up of staff managers from the participating agencies, to provide technical advice to the Supervisors. Option 2 also encompasses scenarios with two or more cities, working in partnership to provide necessary services. There is interest among some cities in examining that kind of model, although no analysis of how that might work has been conducted. It would seem, however, to substitute one regional model with another, with benefits that could be gained from management and governance efficiencies, but with start-up costs and HHW drawbacks as noted in Option 3. If the City and other agencies could not pursue contracting with the County, Option 1, as discussed below, appears to offer the most viable alternative. Option 1, continuing the JPA in some foin-i, includes the challenge of negotiating an acceptable new JPA agreement between all parties. That discussion, as mentioned above, has been ongoing at the Agency board level for a year without significant progress because of differences in G opinion as to what a new agreement should address, and because of still unresolved questions between the Agency and the County regarding current and future compost operations, among other issues. At the Agency's March 18, 2015 meeting, the Board approved a decision matrix to be offered to each member agency's governing body as a tool for distilling the key "deal points" that would need to be addressed in a new JPA agreement. It addresses details including Board composition (e.g. elected officials or staff or both), desirability of establishing a staff technical advisory committee, voting protocol including quorum and super majority issues, spending limits of the Executive Director, conditions of a new licensing agreement with the County, and services provided by the JPA. Petaluma representatives have spent significant time observing Agency dynamics, involving themselves in Agency business and providing support to Agency staff. As such, staff has developed recommendations for the Council as to how the various questions in the matrix should be addressed. Attachment 2 provides the matrix you have been asked to comment on, and includes staff's recommendations for completing the matrix. Staff will be available at the May 4, 2015 meeting to discuss each response in detail. Specifically, the Council is asked to review the proposed responses contained in the waste management decision matrix, and provide input to staff to take back to the Agency at its May board meeting. In addition to providing feedback and direction on the attached matrix, it is also requested that the Council provide input to staff as to the preferences they would like staff to pursue with respect to the options discussed in this report. Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the City should pursue option 2 and advocate for the SCWMA to discuss with the County the possibility of the County providing the four core service areas in the future under a shared service program. Alternatively, should the County be uninterested or unable to provide the same or better service for equal to or less than current costs, it would be recommended that the City pursue and support Option 1 to extend the JPA. This would include working to limit the scope of authority of the new JPA to provide for a menu of solid waste programs from which any member is free to choose as they deem best for their jurisdiction, within a cost structure that does not subsidize other program areas, and which protects participants from any current or future agency liabilities. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City's cost of participating in the JPA in FY 2014/15 is approximately $178,800, and is expected to decrease to approximately $140,000 in FY 2015/16. These funds are collected through the rates charged by PR&R and provided to the City for payment to the Agency to support HHW, reporting, and education and outreach. ATTACHMENTS 1. SCWMA "White Paper". 2. Waste Management Decision Matrix 3. Review of Alternatives to SCWMA Services - Letter Report, prepared by R3 Consulting Group, Inc., dated 2/25/15. 4. Evaluation of Current Activities and Service Delivery Options, prepared by R3 Consulting Group, Inc., dated 5/13/14. 7 Sonoma g rMMVIE [PAVE UMMAR` 2017 current ► i=0RMA71{;€,t 31: PR0r,i11AN1 i sunset date Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) was formed The JPA term was in 1992 as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of the nine incorporated set at 25 years; cities/town, and the County of Sonoma for the unincorporated areas, current end sunset date isto provide programs with regional consistency and efficiency to February 2017, comply with AB 939 waste diversion standards. Core programs are composting/organics, household hazardous waste (HHW), 8090 of education, and planning & reporting. surcharge ability to enter into necessary long-term revenue supports the ► ZERO DISICHARCE Ri_'QUIREMLN ' Household In March 2013, anew requirement was put in place for the Hazardous Waste compost facility to attain Zero Discharge status for compost program. storm contact water from rain events. t; A Zero Discharge Plan was submitted to the Water Board in May Core programs include., 2013, but several facets of the plan proved to be impractical. HHW program In July 2014, a redone Zero Discharge Plan was submitted to the _ Water Board, which has the Water Board's concurrence. + Several parallel tracks are described in the Plan. One track is to build a properly engineered facility constructed with the Zero Discharge requirement in mind. w Composting ►;rtFNt'�' ttltlJ;l program Constructing a new compost site is key to meeting the mandates in the Zero Discharge Plan—Compost storm contactwater containment as a key element constructing anew compost site configured to deal appropriately with this water. • The short Agency term limit affects its Education& ability to enter into necessary long-term outreach contracts, especially for new compost site construction— For construction to occur, the Agency must be able to contract beyond 2017 for a period of sufficient time to allow cost amortization that makes the project t; affordable. This time period has been shown to be 25 years. • Making a decision on the future of the Planning& Agency is needed by fall, 2015—Inorderfor reportingf h Care programs.- If the Agency is not renewed, these programs will become the responsibility of the Cities and the County. contracting or compost site construction activities to occur, t e Agency term extension would need to be resolved by fall 2015 for the Zero Discharge Plan timeline to be met. SONOMA COUNTY Waste Management Agency ATTACHMENT 1 March 23, 2015 CURRENT COMPOSTING PROGRAM SITE LIMITATIONS 2 Temporary location even though it has been operating for 20 years. Located on valuable air s p ace permitted for garbage. Operating at capacity. Environmentally preferable technology is now available and cost effective. Current permit limits diversion to vegetative items. Zero Discharge compliance c h a l l e n g e for contact water from rain storms. PROPOSED NEW SITE SUMMARY OF FEATURES e) Doubles the amount of organic ` waste materials r processed. <j Accepts all "Nin food waste, min i_:) Enhanced environmental measures to manage storm water and odors. The impact to rate payers of curbside collection service for a new compost site, estirnated at $54M amortized over 25 years, rs estimated at le;s thou $ T per month> x 41 S� L 0 �U D a., c C4) C 41 m ca c m G 41 N (4 E m 4) a 4- 0 'v W c 0 N r 61 Z � O L N ) U f C . o 3 � @ t ) U i a) i E O irm o Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y z z N 4- o C N a) a) 3 N{ v O N OC @ N) a) r N Y C >' U a _ O O m t m H a) O O Y V =� �' T �' +-' p N @ - @ -a I a N @ ; c 0 o 0 o m m o m mm 0 > m uoo E o m Y Y N V) @ Y o a a >> a) o0 a) '3 a) 0 a) 0 .Q L c ! T a 7 U c In 1 V) n w N 3 o @ O. O O •N N N Y a) O "p N 3 7 to a Y T > N CN @ G a/w @ s=V v U '3 L j G N ..1 C .Q iL+ 0 i vo o E � m 4 7E! c= o~ c a o v U ac @ o a - a —> @@ a > O' c c3 v i i @ L o z w Ou ON p_' v o) O m 7 @ U J N a >` G @ c N c a) a) y ,+o u a c a c C O O 'a+ Q@ N a O O O N a O i Q f k O O a) @ _ a) = al M O a) 3 U ('4 In. ifT a O O< o w a (Na E _ 0 0@ N as C iii Y @ v+ E 3 N C L O+ 6 N X O@ a Y w O Y f] v @' Y v a o { N L @ N c a a o > o v u m ii O O 0 c a) @ N 0 @ a L c 3 0 ,E Y U O V a= Ll c U S p" fl_ = @ S). O" 7@' p L C L O O CL ) E a) a N �-, 1 i V O C i a a o O C V Q U a O O @ m vY aNE a o O d N < O N U 2 p > @ a� i o u =� 3O 0 a -o a 3 as Q a 0 j or Q U W Q 0 vYj O J O. t\ O' O O a !Ei J tlo i o a m 3 0 v 0 a) E o s E E L E v o v v i N o Q L N N L N O J] X L C 7 N 4- 7 3 d_ 11 c 3 a m O a) a o a c@+ o c a) p YO O. •� -a al a s O N a) U O L L Y Y O C Y a U a) N Y Y 0 C al a) a1 L c c Y o o Y m U n 0 c a +' S 0 o a u a a v v a o 3= o ovn v v v @ Y o o-+ 0 L7 v- U U@ '� O I--' J] 0 a) Y v) 3 J U @ J ]4 Y :=J 12 V) U U v) O n W c 0 N r 61 Z � O L N ) U f C . o 3 � @ t ) U i a) i E O irm . fo v o Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y z z O O 0 O Y it v N) a, oA m CO cmm v m t m m w m C C C C @ - @ 4. c 0 o 0 o m m o m mm 0 > m m m o m Y Y N V) N @ Y a) 0 a) �,,, 01 a) a) 0 0 2 a) 0 a) 0 a) 0 a/ O U p 7 U c In 1 V) w N 3 o U Q T O h CL 0 . fo v 0 z V N ID n n n n n^ a° QS 0 r 3 7�� o O o z z O O 0 O c N) O O O t Y6 @ - @ 4. O O u Q O O 0 > a) N @ @ E a) d 7 E a O_ 3 oa — X @ U p 7 U c N @ y0.. a) N @ w v O. O N w N 3 o U Q T O L u L 3, CL 0 O. 0 02 m O (Oj m T a s=V v i v 5 _0 00 M1 1 3 O o E � O 3 O 3 Y I 01 a N I O a) U O w 0 O C O' c al -0 N E i? a) C @ a) v o) c @ 3 @ 3 a 0 0 @ oa c Y Q@ a) >o { b4 i, Y C O C O N ('4 In. a) d N @ N @ a a) c O v 3 na O Y a) a v(V v c @ Y o v a c L o N O O O a) L'3Iif O CL asz) a%psC= o3 o o v vY aNE a o — O yo aaTT 3O 0 = 00 `�' N or Q U W Q 0 vYj O J 0 z V N ID n n n n n^ a° QS 0 r 3 7�� Z3CONSULTING GROUP, INC. RESOURCES. RESPECT. RESPONSIBILITY. February 25, 2015 Mr. Dan St. John, F.ASCE, Director, City of Petaluma Public Works and Utilities Department 202 N. McDowell Blvd. Petaluma, CA 94954 ATTACHMENT 3 1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220 Roseville, CA 95661 Tel: 916-782-7821 Fax: 916-782-7824 www.r3cgi.com Re: Review of Alternatives to SCWMA Services - Letter Report Dear Mr. St. John: R3 Consulting Group (R3) was engaged by the City of Petaluma (City) to review City -specific alternatives to the solid waste services currently provided by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA or Agency) should the City decide to withdraw from the Agency and/or to provide those services outside of the Agency. This letter report presents R3's findings, and is organized into the following sections: ■ Background; ■ Summary Findings; ■ Recommendations; and ■ SCWMA Program Alternatives. Background The SCWMA was formed in 1992 as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in response to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). The Agency currently provides the following four (4) core services to its 10 Member Jurisdictions, including the City: ■ Composting/Organics - The Agency processes approximately 100,000 tons of wood waste, yard waste and organics per year at the Central Compost Site. ■ Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) — The Agency provides programs for the collection and disposal of toxic materials, chemicals, E -Waste, and used oil products. ■ Education and Outreach — The Agency produces an annual "Recycling Guide" and helps to coordinate County -wide educational efforts, among other outreach and education activities. ■ Planning and Reporting — The Agency completes all required planning and reporting documents for submission to CalRecycle on behalf of all the Member Jurisdictions. The Agency's Composting/Organics processing program is funded by yard waste and wood waste tipping fees charged at the Central. Compost Site, while the other three programs are funded through the Agency's per ton surcharge on solid waste disposed at the Central Disposal Site. A small amount of additional funding is received through contract revenues and grants. On October 15, 2014, the Agency Board lowered the surcharge from $5.95 to $4.85 per ton for the "committed cities" effective January 1, 2015 for mixed waste and organic waste (green Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 2 of 15 waste/vegetative waste) entering the Central Landfill.' Based on SCWMA Board action on December 17, 2014, the surcharge the City pays on solid waste tons taken to the Redwood Landfill was reduced to $4.85 on January 1, 2015 as well. Additionally, the City will continue to not pay a surcharge fee on the organic waste taken to the Redwood Landfill. Due to the lower fees, the City chose to use the Marin JPA's Redwood Landfill for $75.42 per ton', compared to SCWMA's $114.00 per ton cost.3 For 2013, the Redwood Landfill fees include Marin County JPA membership fees of $13.80 per ton for the 30,533 tons the City disposed of at the Redwood Landfill in 2013, for a total of approximately $492,000. Additionally, the City (including City residents who "self -haul" to Central) paid $5.95 in 2013 to SCWMA per ton disposed at the Redwood Landfill, for a total of $218,8244 for participation in the SCWMA's HHW, public education, and AB 939 reporting programs. Even though the City paid both JPAs for the above core services while only receiving them from SCWMA, the City has financially benefitted. Specifically, in 2013, the City's residents and businesses saved approximately $1.6 million using the Redwood Landfill while paying SCWMA for the above core services because of the much lower tipping fees for refuse at Redwood as compared to the Central Disposal Site. Summary Findings The following findings are based on analysis included in this Letter Report: • As a member of the Agency, the City appears to share liability for the "Treatment System" (compost site) operated by the Agency, regardless of whether the City actively participates in this program. However, if the City does not participate in the compost program by not delivering its wood and yard waste, it appears that it does not have a vote in the operation of the compost program; ■ The Agency is in the process of siting and constructing a new composting facility with costs in the range of $55 million. The JPA agreement requires a unanimous vote of all member agencies to approve capital expenditures greater than $50,000. ■ Upon withdrawal from SCWMA, the City could replace the Composting/Organics, Education and Outreach, and Planning and Reporting Services currently provided by SCWMA at little to no net additional cost; ■ The most efficient and cost effective option for an HHW program of the City would be to continue the current operation of using the Redwood Landfill for its organics and solid waste tonnages, while paying the SCWMA program fee by tonnage. Specifically, this option maintains the high level of service with the relatively low cost to the City that is not possible with any other option; ' Per the "Central Disposal Site and Former Landfills Settlement Agreement with the County of Sonoma the City did not sign and is not a "committed city". ' 2014 rate provided by Redwood Landfill, 1.8%, increase from previous rate of $72.60; using 2014 rates with 2013 tonnages as 2014 tonnages have not been calculated yet (based on agreement between PR&R and Redwood Landfill dated January 17, 2014). 3 Projected to increase to $126.45 effective January 1, 2015. 4 Includes City's direct payment for franchised tons taken to Redwood Landfill and self -haul tons taken to the Sonoma County Landfill by City residents, as reported by SCWMA (franchised tons at 30,533; self -haul tons at 6,244). Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 3 of 15 The City would continue to receive the existing level of services for HHW and AB 939 services for approximately $218,8245 by staying in the JPA. If the City were to withdraw, annual expenses would likely increase to approximately $520,000 (refer to Table 1 for calculation inputs), based on operating its own HHW and providing its own AB 939 services, not including the costs of siting and constructing a HHW facility. The capital cost of providing a new HHW facility is estimated to be over $1 million not including land purchase, if necessary; ■ If the City withdraws from SCWMA, it would have to update and resubmit its AB 939 planning documents (SRRE, HHWE, and NDFE), which could cost as much as $100,000 or more, although the cost could be less if the City's existing documents could be effectively updated 6; The penalty for withdrawal is unknown. The JPA agreement provides for a "penalty as set by the JPA and adjusted from time to time to reflect the impact on the JPA" for a member agency that withdraws from the Agency. The penalty has not been established, but could be as much as $100,000 if the cost related to updating the Agency documents and the portions of fixed Agency costs that the City current funds that would not be reduced are considered; If the City waited until February 2017 for the current JPA term to expire, they would not have to pay a penalty to SCWMA for withdrawing; and While it is difficult to compare the staffing and responsibilities of Joint Powers Authorities .since their roles and responsibilities vary significantly, the services and staffing levels of SCWMA are comparable to other agencies that offer the same services and have similar budgets. The following table outlines current costs, and the predicted costs for each alternative to current SCWMA services. Table 1- Cost:Gom arson Between Current SCWMA Services and -Alternative Services -� P .Service Composting and Organids Current Funding to SCWMA Predicted Cost of Alternative Service Programs* Do not currently Rate of increase in organic processing at Redwood is expected receive this service to be much less than that at Central over time, due to the cost from SCWMA of building a new compost facility at Central. 5 This is calculated from both the franchised and self -haul ton fees that are hauled within the City. 6 If the City decided to not continue as a member of the JPA at the end of the current term in 2017, it would also be required to update its planning documents. Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 4 of 15 Table 1; Cost Comparison Between _Current SCWMA Services and Alternative Services Current Funding_ Service to SCWMA Predicted Cost of Alternative Service Programs* Contract with SCWMA: $359,084 (per user cost calculated by SCWMA). Periodic Collection Events: $40,000 (not a high enough level of service, see Clean Harbors quote in Attachment B). 'Household Build and Maintain Own Facility:** Hazardous Waste $178,137 Approximately $388,000 per year in operating costs (contract labor, materials, hazardous materials disposal costs); and • Approximately $104,000 in HHW facility depreciation/debt service ($1 M for siting, permitting, building, and initial start-up depreciated over 10 years). Little to no extra cost, as franchise agreement with PR&R Public Education $37,877 provides for one (1) full time equivalent Recycling Coordinator for the City; possibly $5,000 for City specific outreach. $20,000-$25,000 per year, either through employee time or AB 93.9 Reporting $2,810 consultant fees plus $100,000 one-time cost of redoing required CalRecycle planning documents. *Used $218,824 to calculate HHW costs based on given costs of Public Education and AB 939 program; City pays SCWMA $178,137 for franchise tons with the remainder of the $218,824 paid by self haulers. **Used Novato Sanitary District (NSD) 2013 budget items for contractor, labor and material, and waste disposal costs; does not include periodic E -Waste and other collections. events. May need to contract with Clean Harbors to raise the'level of service of alternate to existing level of service provided by Agency. Recommendations Upon review of the City's options, R3 recommends the City continue their current participation in the JPA's provided HHW, Public Education, and AB 939 Reporting services and programs until the JPA agreement term is over in 2017. However, the City should discontinue its participation in the JPA -provided Composting program and continue directing its organics to Redwood Landfill for composting through its franchised hauler. While the City has replaced the Composting/Organics' services, the Education and Outreach, and Planning and Reporting Services of the Agency, the HHW program would be hard to replace at the current level of service and cost to the City. Additionally, the cost of updating the AB 939 planning documents and the unknown JPA withdrawal penalty amount should be considered in the City's decision. If the City decides to remain in the Agency as currently configured, or as part of a successor agency post 2017, it should consider reducing its exposure to any long-term indebtedness or Currently the City is directing its franchised hauler to use the Redwood Landfill for Composting/Organics Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 5.of 15 adverse environmental impacts related to a new composting site if it opts not to participate in this program. Specifically, the City should require that a "program opt out" provision be included in any revised or new JPA agreement whereby the City would not be liable for debt or adverse environmental exposure incurred by the Agency for programs it does not participate in. SCWMA Program Alternatives If the City were to withdraw from the SCWMA, it would need to implement alternatives for each of the Agency's four core services. In addition, the City would be required to update the required AB 939 planning documents required by CalRecycle. A discussion of City -specific alternatives to the Agency's core services and required planning document updates is provided below. Composting Current Activities The City's hauler, Petaluma Refuse ,and Recycling (PR&R), has recently started hauling organics to the Redwood Landfill in northern Marin County, due to the increased capabilities of the facility to process food waste. As per the franchise agreement, PR&R is taking the City's organics to the Redwood Landfill at no additional cost to the City, even though the hauler is incurring an additional cost of approximately $16,000 annually that will not be passed on to rate payers per commitments from PR&R. The current organics tipping fee is $41.77 per ton at Redwood Landfill, Available Alternatives The best alternative to using the Redwood Landfill would be to take organics to the County's Central Compost Site, as the City had done prior to using the Redwood Landfill. The Central Compost Site is the only permitted large capacity compost facility within Sonoma County, with a maximum permitted capacity of 612 tons per day (tpd) and average throughput of approximately 300 tons per day. The site processes around 100,000, tons of wood waste, yard waste and organics per year. The Central Compost Site is owned by Sonoma County, with supervision of operations provided through the Agency. The Agency in turn contracts with Sonoma Compost Company for operation of the facility. Accordingly, while the Central Compost Site property is owned by Sonoma County, the County does not have any direct control over the site's operations. The Composting/Organics processing operations at the Central Compost Site are funded by compostable materials tipping fees paid by program customers and by revenue shared between the Agency and its contractor, Sonoma Compost Company. The current yard waste tipping fee at the Central Disposal Site is $34.10 per ton (transfer stations charge $36.20 per ton). The current wood waste tipping fee is $27.60 per ton (transfer stations charge $29.70). The Agency's Composting/Organics program is self-sustaining and does not receive any funding from the Agency's $4.85 per ton surcharge on solid waste tons. However, the Agency is committed to building a new composting facility and has completed a recent engineering study that estimates those costs in the range of $55 million.$ The cost to finance the new facility will undoubtedly increase the cost of tipping fees for organics at Central or at an alternate site to well above what is currently charged at Redwood. 6 The JPA agreement requires a unanimous vote of the total membership for capital expenditures greater than $50,000 (Section 4 of the JPA agreement). Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 6 of 15 Effectiveness/Efficiency The Central Compost Site is currently only permitted to accept "vegetative material," while Redwood Landfill's composting operation has a full food waste permit. The delivery of organics to the Redwood Landfill provides the City with the ability to incorporate a wider range of food waste composting services (e.g., meat scraps and dairy) into the residential organics program and implement a full scale commercial food waste program. The incorporation of commercial food waste composting is necessary because of the recently passed State mandate AB 1826, which requires commercial organics recycling starting in 2016. This increases the service levels available to residents and businesses, with an associated increase in the potential diversion of food waste from both the residential and commercial waste streams. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Current Activities The Agency operates a Toxics Collection Facility at the Central Disposal Site through a contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, and conducts weekly Community Toxic Collection Events and 'monthly Community E -Waste Collection Events.9 Additionally, SCWMA partners with two used oil collection locations and offers a "Toxic Rover" on-call pickup program. Member jurisdiction residents and businesses dispose of HHW materials through these services free of charge, with the exception of the Toxic Rover service that has a fee of $50 per pickup (or free for seniors over 80 and housebound residents). In FY 2012-13, over 24;000 residents/businesses participated in the Agency's HHW programs by using the Toxics Collection Facility and related programs.10 It should also be noted that the State of California has recently introduced legislation (AB 45, Mullin, introduced December 1, 2014) that expresses the intent to "enact legislation that would establish curbside household hazardous waste collection programs, door-to-door household hazardous waste collection programs, and household hazardous waste residential pickup services as the principal means of collecting household hazardous waste and diverting it from California's landfills and waterways." This legislation appears to suggest a potential shift towards requiring jurisdictions to provide high levels of-HHW collection services in the near future. However, at this point there is no timeline or implementation schedule for enacting any specific requirements on jurisdictions. Available Alternatives Alternative HHW program options for the City include: ■ Contracting with an existing HHW program: o Novato Sanitary District; o Marin County JPA; o SCWMA (as a non-member agency); ■ Developing and operating its own facility; A total of four Community Toxic Collection Events have been scheduled in Petaluma between January 2014 and April 2015. No Community E -Waste Collection Events are scheduled in Petaluma between October 2014 and May 2015. 10 Based on Table 8 "FY 2012-2013 HHW Program Participation" from R3 report to SCWMA: "Evaluation of Current Activities and Service Delivery Options." Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 7 of 15 ■ Partnering with another jurisdiction(s) (e.g., the City of Santa Rosa) to develop an alternative facility; and ■ Contracting with an HHW service provider (e.g., Stericycle, Clean Harbors, Curbside Inc.) to provide on-call and/or periodic collection events." Cost Comparison Current Program Value Based on the Agency's average cost of $66 per participant and 5,417 City participants, the City's calculated "value" from the program was $359,084 in 2013.12 Actual costs as a portion of what the City paid the Agency in fees in 2014 is estimated to be $178,137, as presented in Table 1. Contracting with an Existing Program The closest available alternative facility is located in the City of Novato and operated by the Novato Sanitary District (NSD). The facility is open 4 days per month from 8:30 am to 1:30 pm on the first and third Sunday and Monday of each month. NSD uses Philip Services as their hazardous waste contractor for a majority of the operations. Residents arrive at the facility and are lined up outside of the receiving area while one car is serviced at a time. The HHW technician handles the unloading, testing, and administrative processing of the item, which takes a total of around 15 minutes per program participant. The residents are not allowed out of the car during the processing. After the items have been processed, the car exits the receiving area and leaves through the front facility gates. There are specific signs posted to direct traffic within the site. After the participant leaves, the items are taken to the Control Room, a state and federal Department of Transportation certified room, for the sorting and labpacking process. There are also two hazardous material storage bins used to contain the material prior to it being transported to its final destination. The facility also has an office area, which is used as a break room for the staff and an office for record keeping and administrative duties. Additionally, there is a Battery, Oil, and Paint collection center that is operated Tuesday through Sunday, 10am- 4pm. Some products, such as antifreeze, are collected by Evergreen Environmental, while all types of batteries, paint, and fluorescent tubes and bulbs are packaged and shipped by Philip Services. The average cost for the Novato Hazardous Waste Program for 2013 was more than $90 per participant, which is $24 more per participant than the SCWMA. Based on a site visit and operator interview at the Novato facility, these costs do not include any cost of the facility which is provided free of charge for the purpose. While it is not clear if this figure includes costs attributed to the 19 small quantity commercial generators that used the facility in 2013, it does not appear that the Novato facility would be a more cost effective option on a per -participant basis. Additionally, when asked about the potential of the City contracting with NSD for HHW services, the program manager was not open to the opportunity. While contracting with the Marin JPA HHW program was considered, the JPA was not open to contracting with the City for HHW services because their agreement does not allow for it, even if the City is paying for the program through their tipping fees at the Redwood Landfill. " Stericycle (based in San Jose) reported that there would be a base charge of $450 per pickup plus disposal and that their service is geared toward commercial generators. Planning level budget information for on-call and periodic collection events has been requested from Clean Harbors and Curbside Inc. 12 Based on Table 7 "FY 2012-2013 HHW Program Costs by Member Jurisdiction" from R3 report to SCWMA: "Evaluation of Current Activities and Service Delivery Options." Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 8 of 15 The option of contracting back to SCWMA for HHW services has yet to be reviewed, however it is reasonable to assume that the cost for the program will be higher for non- Agency members. The SCWMA calculated "value" of their program is $359,084, which provides for a, good starting point for an estimate if the City were to contract back to SCWMA. A review of the costs for more than 20 permanent household hazardous waste facilities found an average cost of more than $80 per participant. 13 This comparative information tends to support the reasonableness of the Agency's current program, particularly given the high level of service provided to the City's residents. In addition, NSD's HHW program and other potential existing program options (e.g., Marin County) would not provide the Community Toxic Collection Events that the City currently receives through the Agency's HHW program. Developinq Facilitv Developing the City's own HHW facility would require major financial, educational, and time commitments by the City. Similarly, partnering with another city would likely require similar commitments. Siting and permitting a permanent HHW facility can be time consuming and may be controversial, especially given that the Agency's current HHW facility is within close proximity to the City, which would create a redundancy in services provided. The construction and operation of a HHW collection facility requires numerous permits from some or all of the following entities, which are also listed in Attachment A: ■ Planning Department; ■ City/County Clerk; ■ Building Department; ■ Utility Company; ■ Local Enforcement Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board; ■ Air Pollution Control District/Air Quality Management Board; ■ California Highway Patrol; ■ Department of Toxic Substances Control; ■ California Department of Health Services; ■ Coordinated Unified Program Administrator (COPA); • Occupational Health and Safety Certification; and ■ State Board of Equalization — Environmental Fee Division. The basic development stages are: ■ Facility sizing and design; ■ Siting and permitting; ■ Bid preparation/selection of vendors and contactors; ■ CEQA analysis; ■ Facility construction; 13 CIWMB; Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility Project Development Guide, May 2008; Attachment B: Profile Sheets of Existing HHW Facilities. Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 9 of 15 ■ Facility startup/acceptance; and ■ Full-scale operations. In addition to annual operating costs, capital costs for a permanent facility can be as much as $1.0 million or more, not including property costs. Relatively simple facilities (e.g., pole barn facilities open on some or all sides) could cost significantly less. Based on the most recent annual financial report provided by Novato HHW, around $387,000 is spent per year in operating costs. These operating costs would be similar if the City operated a similarly sized facility. If the City were to maintain an HHW facility similar to NSD, the City residents would receive a lower service level at a higher annual cost to the City as compared to the current arrangement with the Agency, due to less hours of operation and less community collection events than currently offered by the Agency's HHW program. Periodic Collection Events Some form of permanent HHW facility has become a typical component of HHW programs in California, particularly in Northern California. An alternative option to developing a permanent facility or contracting with another existing facility for use by the City's residents would be for the City to provide periodic collection events, with or without an on-call collection option. This option is similar to the Community Toxic Collection Events currently provided periodically in the City through the Agency's program. Clean Harbors reported that they could provide that service at a cost in the range of $45,000 per an event (see Attachment B). Clean Harbors estimates that 2 percent of residents (households) will participate in a well-publicized one -day event. Based on a total of 21,737 household S14, this would translate to approximately 430 participants per event. SCWMA estimated 5,417 total City of Petaluma program participants. To achieve a level of service comparable to SCWMA's events, the City would have to host around 13 events annually, for a total of $585,000. To maintain the current level of service, this option alone would not be enough. Effectiveness/Efficiency The Sonoma County Central Landfill is located within the County, approximately 9 miles (15 minutes) 'from downtown Petaluma, and the facility is open 3 days per week (Thursday, Friday and Saturday from 7:30 am to 2:30 pm). NSD's facility is approximately 10 miles (13 minutes), however that facility is only open on the first and third Sunday and Monday of the month from 8:30 am to 1:30 pm. The more limited hours of NSD's facility, however, would result in reduced convenience for the City's residents. Marin County JPA's facility in San Rafael is more than 22 miles (25 minutes), although that facility is open Tuesday through Saturday from 8:00 am to 3:30 pm. Even if the City could reach an agreement with NSD or Marin County JPA for the use of their facilities, this would represent a decrease in the current service level. In order to maintain the current level of services, the City would have to reach an agreement with NSD or Marin County JPA for the use of their facilities and contract for periodic Community Toxic Collection Events, similar to those currently provided by SCWMA. Siting a facility within City limits is the most costly and time-consuming option. Additionally, siting a second facility close to the current facility would be a redundancy, as the Agency's facility at the Sonoma County Landfill and NSD's facility are within a reasonable distance to provide convenient options for the City's residents. t4 Source: http://suburbanstats.org/population/california/how-many-people-live-in-petaluma Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 10 of 15 Overall Assessment If the City wishes to continue to provide residents with the current level of service they receive through SCWMA for HHW, it appears unlikely that it will be able to find an existing program or develop a facility at a cost that is comparable to the level of service currently provided by the Agency. Additionally, as discussed above, contracting with an alternative existing facility would represent a decrease in the current service level, unless the City were to also contract for periodic Community Toxic Collection Events similar to those currently provided by the Agency. It appears that the most convenient, comprehensive and cost effective option would be for the City to remain a member of the Agency, as the cost is lower than the other options for a higher level of service. While the City could contract back to the Agency as a non-member, the cost for a non-member would be expected to be much higher than what the City is currently paying per a program participant. Public Education Current Activities Education and outreach programs provided by the Agency include: ■ Organizing and coordinating County -wide education efforts; ■ Publishing an annual "Recycling Guide"; ■ Maintaining the Agency's website at www.recvclenow,ora; ■ Answering questions,via the "Eco -desk" telephone and email address; ■ Attending and staffing booths at local events such as fairs, symposiums, farmers' markets and conferences; ■ Home composting education by UC Cooperative Extension; ■ Used Motor Oil/Filter Recycling education; ■ Spanish Language Outreach (all Agency education programs have English and Spanish language components); and ■ Mandatory 'Commercial Recycling Outreach program — includes database that lists the commercial entities in Sonoma County subject to State recycling requirements. Available Alternatives If the City were to pull out of the Agency, it appears that PR&R could satisfy many, if not ,all, of the City's public education requirements. In reviewing the City's franchise agreement with PR&R, specifically "Section 9 - Customer Service, Billing, and Public Education" (Attachment C), the hauler has certain existing responsibilities for public education, including employing one full time equivalent residential and commercial education coordinator. In addition, the Agreement also specifies various Residential and Commercial Education Program requirements. Cost- Comparison Based on population, the City's current "value" for SCWMA's public education program is $37,877, which is 11 % of the SCWMA's total public education program cost.15 In the case that 15 Based on Table 10 "FY 2012- 2013 Education and Outreach Program Costs by Member Jurisdiction" from R3 report to SCWMA: "Evaluation of Current Activities and Service Delivery Options." Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 11 of 15 the City decides to leave the SCWMA, it appears likely that the City's franchised hauler could provide generally comparable public education and outreach through the full time equivalent residential and commercial education coordinator, as stated in the City's franchise agreement, at little additional cost. Effectiveness/Efficiency Shifting from the Agency's public education and outreach program to one managed and operated by PR&R is unlikely to have a significant impact on the effectiveness or efficiency of City public education and outreach efforts. A case could be made that by making effective use of the required PR&R full time education coordinator; public education and outreach efforts could be more effectively tailored and focused to the needs to the City's residents and businesses than the Agency's current program. AB 939 Reporting Current Activities The Agency currently completes all required planning and reporting documents for submission to CalRecycle on behalf of all of the Member Jurisdictions. This includes: ■ Electronic Annual Report (EAR); ■ HHW Program Reports (HHW Annual Report and E -Waste Annual Report); ■ Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE); ■ Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE); ■ Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE); and ■ Five=Year Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Available Alternatives If the City were to pull out of the Agency it would be responsible for its own AB 939 recording and reporting. This could be completed by City staff and/or a consultant, or contracted to another agency (e.g., contracted back to the Agency). Cost Comparison The City and each of the other Agency member jurisdictions receive this service at a "value" of $2,810 per year, as the cost to the Agency does not differ based on the jurisdiction size. Because SCWMA is a regional reporting agency, they can submit one report on behalf of all the member jurisdictions, which provides economies of scale and results in an overall lower cost. If the City were to separate from SCWMA, they would have to track their diversion rates throughout the year in order to prepare the Annual Report for CalRecycle. Additionally, if the City were to contract out for Annual Report preparation services, R3 estimates, based on experience elsewhere, that the cost would be in the range of $20,000 to $25,000. However, if the City withdraws from SCWMA, it would have to update and resubmit its AB 939 planning documents (SRRE, HHWE, and NDFE), which could cost as much as $100,000 or more, although the cost could be less if the City's existing documents could be effectively updated. Effectiveness/Efficiency While the City could take over AB 939 reporting requirements from the Agency, regardless of whether it did so with City staff or using a consultant, it would not be able to match the cost efficiency or effectiveness of the Agency's reporting services given the lack of economies of scale, especially considering the costs to re -do the AB 939 planning documents. Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 12 of 15 Document Updates According to CalRecycle (Attachment D), if the City were to leave the Agency: ■ The Agency would have to submit an amended agreement to CalRecycle for approval of the Agency's Board of Directors; ■ The City would have to submit individual SRREs, HHWEs and NDFEs to CalRecycle for approval since the regional SRRE, HHWE and NDFE, as well as CIWMB's approving resolution expressively indicate that these documents will supersede the individual SRREs, HHWEs and NDFEs for all members; • The City would have to complete and submit a Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR) Plan; and ■ The City would not need to re -do its Base Year Study. CalRecycle would calculate new target for the individual cities leaving the Agency as well as for the Agency. The most recent disposal would be used as a proxy to determine which percentage of the Agency's base generation belonged to the individual cities leaving the Agency as well as the Agency. The level of effort required to produce these documents would depend in part on the extent to which the City's original AB 939 planning documents could be effectively updated. In any case R3 would anticipate'that the associated costs would be perhaps $100,000 or more if performed by a consultant. If the Agency terminates in 2017 with no successor agency taking its place, the City may be faced with these costs. Penalty for Withdrawing from Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Based on the SCWMA agreement that the City entered in, 1992, there is a penalty fee of an undetermined amount for withdrawal. Specifically, Section 20 (Term of This Agreement) (Attachment E) states that: "Should any city desire to withdraw from the JPA a ninety (90) day notice shall be submitted in writing to the Agency. A penalty as set by the JPA and adjusted from time to time to reflect the impact on the JPA shall be paid by the City to the . Agency for the withdrawal." While the amount of the penalty, has not been determined, costs that may factor into the calculation of any such penalty could include any portion of fixed capital or operating costs that the City is currently covering that would not be reduced or eliminated as a result oft the City withdrawing from the JPA, such as: ■ Professional services; ■ Contract services, including any composting or HHW facility capital costs; ■ Administrative costs; ■ Legal services; and ■ Enforcement agency fees. A copy of the JPA's FY 2013-14 budget is provided as Attachment F. Additionally, if the City were to withdraw from the Agency, the Agency be required to update its planning documents, which might add to the withdrawal penalty amount. It is certainly conceivable that all such costs Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 13 of 15 could be as much as $100,000 or more. If the City were to not sign up when the current JPA term is over in February 2017, the City would not have to the withdrawal penalty. Fees: Out -of -County Charges and Rate Adjustments to Customers Under the current system, the City's hauler pays for the HHW and AB 939 programs offered by SCWMA, as well as the fees for using an out -of -County landfill. Section 11.2 "HHW and AB 939 Program Fees" of the City's franchise agreement with PR&R states: "Contractor shall pay the City an amount equal to the applicable fee levied by the Sonoma County Waste Management Authority for providing the HHW and AB 939 programs to the City. In addition, if the Approved Disposal Site is an out- of - County landfill, or if the Contractor directs any waste out of the County for disposal for any reason, the Contractor shall be responsible for the payment of any Joint Powers Authority (JPA) fees associated with the out- of- County disposal. " Based on SCWMA's calculation of the fee on 2012-2013 out -of -County franchised tons, the City/PR&R paid the SCWMA $181,654.16 Based on the surcharge of $5.95/ton being lowered to $4.85/ton by the SCWMA Board at their meeting on October 15, 2014, and the same total tonnage, the total fees to SCWMA would be $148,071. In order to reflect the decrease in fees paid to SCWMA, City customer rates would be lowered accordingly. As stated in Section 11.5 "Adjustment to Fees", if the City directs a change to the fee paid by PR&R, there will be an adjustment to service rates: "City may adjust the fees established in this Section 11 annually at any tune during the Term of this Agreement. Any City directed changes (increases or decreases) to the Fees in this Section 11 will require an adjustment in the Maximum Service Rates in an amount equal to any such City directed change." In staying a member of SCWMA, the City's residents would experience a minor decrease in their garbage rates due to the drop in the surcharge rate on refuse while maintaining their current level of service for HHW, education and reporting. Benchmarking The SCWMA is a CalRecycle-approved Regional Agency responsible for submitting annual reports, disposal reports, and other reporting data on behalf of its member agencies. According to CalRecycle, there are 28 approved Regional Agencies established throughout California. In addition, there are various solid waste management JPAs that are not CalRecycle-approved Regional Agencies, including the Humboldt Waste Management Authority. The JPA benchmarking table, located in Attachment G, outlines major JPAs in Northern California with varying levels of responsibilities, such as solely administrative, AB 939 reporting and program administration, and facility operation and management. Staffing Levels As shown in the table, the number of staff for each JPA ranges from 4.5 to 27 depending on the services offered by the JPA and funding. Both SCWMA and the Marin County JPA are comparable in services offered and staffing levels, whereas the Central Contra Costa Solid 16 Based on calculations from correspondence with Patrick Carter (SCWMA) via email on 10/29/14: 30,530 (franchised tons -only tons subject to Out -of -County fee) x $5.95 /ton (Out -of -County fee) _ $181,654. Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 14 of 15 Waste Authority has a similar number of staff but oversees less member agencies and has a smaller budget. Both the Humboldt Waste Management Authority and the South Bayside Waste Management Agency have similar services, as far as operating multiple facilities, but differ in their staffing levels, number of member jurisdictions, and funding. For the predominately administrative activities undertaken by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, they have a high level of staffing and a large budget. Activities All of the JPAs included in Attachment G offer basic administrative assistance for their member jurisdictions, including public outreach and education. Not all JPAs complete the AB 939 reporting for their member agencies, as they are not all recognized as reporting agencies by CalRecycle. SCWMA, the Marin JPA, and the Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority all complete the annual reporting for their member jurisdictions. Additionally, all of the JPAs in the table except for the Central Contra Costa. Solid Waste Authority and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority provide HHW services. Facility Operation/Management Of the JPAs included in the, table, only the Humboldt Waste Management Authority and the South Bayside Waste Management Authority own and manage their own facilities. For this reason, their budgets are higher than the other JPAs (with the exception of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority): The other JPAs either contract out for services or are solely administrative organizations. Mr. Dan St. John February 25, 2015 Page 15 of 15 We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to the City. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact me by phone at (916) 782-7821, or by email at rterwin@r3cgi.com. Sincerely, R3 CONSULTING GROUP Richard Tagore-Erwin Principal Attachments: Attachment A List of Potential HHW Permit Requirements Attachment B Clean Harbors Quote Attachment C PR&R Franchise Agreement Section 9 - Customer Service, Billing, and Public Education Attachment D CalRecycle Correspondence Attachment E Section 20 of SCWMA Agreement Attachment F JPA FY 13-14 Budget Summary Attachment G JPA Benchmarking Table This page is intentionally blank. Attachment A List of Potential HHW Permit Requirements �Mft-M-MIMM This page intentionally left blank. w 6. ReLyulatory Requirements and Permits The construction and operation of a HHW collection facility requires numerous permits. Local ordinances and regulations may be much stricter than State or federal requirements. In the case of conflicting local/State/federal regulations, generally the strictest requirements should be followed. Being that regulations constantly change, make sure that you are referencing the most recent applicable standards and requirements. The following is a basic list of some of potentially applicable permits. Some permits are listed under several organizations because both agencies need to grant an approval or permit. After working with the Planning Department to identify potential sites for the facility and determining the applicable local land use requirements of the jurisdiction, calling the appropriate Coordinated Unified Program Administrator (CUPA) contact person is the first step in starting the permitting process. A list of CUPA contacts can be found at www.caleDa.ca.Rov/CUPA/Directory/default.asvx. The following is not an -all inclusive list of approvals and permits. Please check with your local regulatory agencies for any additional requirements that may apply to your specific project site and facility design. Plannin5z Department • Applicable zoning designation • Conditional land use permit • Coastal permit (if applicable; within 1000 yards of California coast) • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/enviromnental review and approval • Requirements for special designated zones (e:g. Environmental Justice Zone) • Planning Department notification to local enforcement if HHW facility is proposed to be located at an existing solid waste facility site Citv/County Clerk • Business permit • Business tax registration Building Department • Clearing and grubbing permit • Tree removal permit (check local requirements) • Street tree permit • Sign permit • Grading/excavation permit • Trenching permit • Plumbing permit • Water heater permit • Building/structure permit • Utility hookup permit • Construction inspection/approvals • Operator and trade licenses • Building occupancy permit • Methane Zone (methane mitigation approval; must also receive Local Enforcement Agency approval of methane mitigation plan) • Sewer connection permit • Uniform Building Code Utilitv Company • Utility hookup permits • Water, gas, and/or electrical permit Public Works Department • Industrial wastewater discharge permit • Storm water treatment and discharge/runoff plan permit Local Enforcement Agencv/California Integrated Waste Management Board • Solid Waste Facilities permit revision (if at an existing permitted facility) • Methane mitigation approval (if on or near a landfill) • Revision/modification to the facility's technical document (e,g. Transfer Processing Report for Transfer Station, etc.) Regional Water Oualitv Control Board (RWOCB) • Waste discharge requirement (permit) if at a facility regulated by RWQCB (at a landfill or at any location where groundwater may be impacted) • Industrial wastewater discharge permit • NPDES Permit • Also notify the "watermaster" (any location where groundwater may be impacted and the location is under the jurisdiction of a court-appointed "watermaster") Air Pollution Control District/Air Ouality Management Board or eauivalent agencv • Permit for equipment that generates emissions (backup diesel, generator, etc.) • Landfill xxcavation permit (for construction at a landfill where solid waste may be encountered or removed for the foundation of a HHW facility) Fire Department • Fire permit • Fine prevention plan • Hazardous materials business plan • Underground storage tank permit • Uniform Fire Code and National Fire Protection Regulations California Hii�hwav Patrol • Transportation of hazardous materials permit Department of Toxic Substances Control • EPA ID number • Treatment, storage, disposal facilities permit (if applicable) • Notification of operation/changes in operations • Underground storage tank permit • Transportation of hazardous materials permit • California waste exchange (California hazardous waste recycling laws) • Hazardous waste manifest registration • Copy of PBR permit California Department of Health Services—Radioloizical Health Branch • Registration and licensing for radioactive materials (e.g. smoke alarms, etc.) Coordinated Unified Program Administrator (CUPA) • Hazardous waste generator permit • Permit by rule notification • Hazardous materials business plan • Operations-plan/illness and injury prevention program • Closure plan • Fire permit • Emergency and contingency plan • Financial Assurance Occupational Health and Safety Certification • 24-hour hazardous waste training requirement for staff • Annual refresher courses/training • Illness and injury prevention program • Employee hazard communication requirements • Prop. 65 notification requirements State Board of Equalization—Environmental Fee Division • Property and special taxes department environmental fee (if applicable) U.S. Armv Corp of Engineers • Wetland regulations: 402 Permit (if impacting wetland(s) or navigable waterway) Each jurisdiction's permitting requirements are unique. Many of these regulatory requirements may be processed and reviewed in a combined manner. Sometimes the same regulatory requirement may require review and approval by multiple agencies before the condition is considered satisfied. The CUPA contact should be your initial starting point contact. The most time-consuming regulatory requirement is likely related to' land use. The documentation related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may be substantial, especially if an environmental impact report is required. If there is opposition to the siting of the facility, the project may be challenged on the grounds that the environmental impact was not fully disclosed. CEQA requirements must be met before many of the other regulatory permits can be issued. A recent development in CEQA documentation is the required analysis of the project impact on global warming. City planning departments, State agencies, and environmental interest groups are requiring an analysis of a project's construction and operational impacts on greenhouse gases due to the increase traffic to and from the facility, and the generation of greenhouse gases from the operations of the facility. Part of the analysis is the estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on global warming if the HHW was disposed in the landfill. Public hearing associated with any of the permits may result in delays in the project timeline if relevant issues are raised. The project developer should take an, active proactive role in conducting education and outreach to the potentially impacted community as an integral part of addressing "Environmental Justice" so that community issues and concerns can be addressed early on in the overall project development process. If the proposed HHW collection facility is to be part of an existing solid waste facility such as a transfer station or as part of a landfill operation, the existing Solid Waste Facilities Permit must be revised to incorporate the proposed operations. There are statutory procedures and timelines for revising solid waste facility permits, as well as required Environmental Justiee.informational hearing meetings that have to be held in the local community. For HHW collection facility buildings on or near landfills, special methane mitigation and detection plans have to be submitted not only to the local jurisdiction's Building and Safety Department, but also for approval by the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). The CUPA contact can provide a list of the applicable local regulatory entities m This page intentionally left blank. w Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. 1010 Commercial Street San Jose, CA 95112 www.cleanharbors.com October 28, 2014 Attn: Ms. Natasha Singh Quote #2012216 Dear Ms. Singh: Thank you for considering Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. (Clean Harbors) for your household hazardous waste management needs. We are pleased to provide you with the following pricing. Additionally, Clean Harbors has the appropriate permits and licenses for the acceptance and disposal of the waste streams identified within this quotation. In addition to providing household hazardous waste management services and disposal to our company owned and operated facilities, Clean Harbors offers a broad range of environmental services including: • Waste Transportation & Disposal • 24 -Hour Environmental Emergency Response • Laboratory Chemical Packing • Industrial Services • Field Services InSite Services I look forward to continuing to service your environmental needs. To place an order, please contact our Customer Service group at 800.444.4244. If you have any questions or need further assistance, you may reach me at the number below. Sincerely, Curt W Lock Account Manager Phone: 408.451.5000 ,', "People and Technology Creating a Safer, Cleaner Environment " October 28, 2014 Clean Harbors, Quote #2012216 TASK 1: LABOR TASK 2: DISPOSAL QUOTE SUMMARY Subtotal Estimated Recovery Fee Estimated Waste Fee QUOTE TOTAL ,'� "People and Technology Creating a Safer, Cleaner• Environment" Page 2 of 7 $24,558.00 $14,108.50 $38,666.50 $6,186.64 $33.28 $44,886.42 Cleanhrbo5 October 28, 2014 Clean Harbors, Quote #2012216 TASK 1: LABOR LABOR, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIPMENT Page 3 of 7 12 Equipment Operator, Overtime 12 hour 11 124 Field Technician Overtime 12 hour 1 1 Project Manager Overtime 12 hour 11 11 Box Truck 1 day n/a1 1 Forklift, 2,000Lb Capacity 12 hour' 1 132 Modified Level D (Tyvec, Gloves and Boots) 1 each n/a 13 Pickup/Van/Car/Crew Cab 1 day n/a 12 Tractor w/Box Van 1 day n/a1 132 Per Diem / Subsistence 1 day n/a 13 Personnel Staging Tent, 20'x 30' 1 day n/a1 I Portable Toilets 1 day ii/a1 Includes portal-to-portal travel time TASK 1: TOTAL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIAL $24,558.00 Estimated Recovery Fee $3,929.28 Estimated total, including Fees $28,487.28 TASK 2: DISPOSAL DISPOSAL A31 SPECIFICATION OILS 1 55 gallon drum $105.00 $105.00 IB35 GLYCOLS 1 55 gallon drum $152.00 $152.001 ICFL1 MERCURY BULBS FOR 200 feet $0.11 $22.001 RECLAMATION LBBGB SMALL SEALED CELL BATTERIES 1 each $100.00, $100.00 AND PORTABLE ELECTRONICS FOR REC 1 LBD 1 ALKALINE DRY CELL BATTERIES 250 pounds $0.70 $175.001 ;'s "People and Technology Creating a Safer, Cleaner Environment " lean,Harbo' October 28, 2014 Clean Harbors, Quote #2012216 LABOR, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIPMENT pounds pallet 5 gallon pail 16 gallon drum 30 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum flex bin 5 gallon pail medium cylinder flex bin pounds Page 4 of 7 $0.70 $157.50 $0.00 $0.00 $74.00 $592.00 $137.00 $274.00 $166.00 $664.00 $180.00 $1,620.00 $184.00 $552.00 $184.00 $552.00 $180.00 $2,700.00 $266.00 $532.00 $520.00 $2,080.001 $368.00 $368.001 $10.50 $210.00 $336.00 FOR RECLAMATION (MERCURY $5.65 '$565.001 FREE) $14,108.501 LBD2 NI -CAD BATTERIES WET OR DRY FOR 225 RECLAMATION LBLA LEAD ACID BATTERIES FOR 5 RECLAMATION LCCR LABPACK FOR INCINERATION 8 1 LCCR LABPACK FOR INCINERATION 2 I LCCR LABPACK FOR INCINERATION 4 1 LCCR LABPACK FOR INCINERATION 9 JLCCRA LABPACK ACID & ACID 3 COMPATIBLES FOR INCINERATION LCCRB LABPACK BASIC & BASIC 3 COMPATIBLES FOR INCINERATION LCCRC LABPACK ORGANICS FOR 15 INCINERATION LCCRO LABPACK OXIDIZERS FOR 2 INCINERATION ILCCRQ AEROSOLS FOR INCINERATION 4 LCHG2 LABPACK ELEMENTAL MERCURY 1 FOR RETORT LCY 1 PROPANE CYLINDERS FOR 20 RECYCLING LPTN NON-PROCESSABLE PAINT & PAINT 8 RELATED MTRL FOR INCINERATION LRCT LABPACK REACTIVES FOR 100 I INCINERATION Transportation price is included in the disposal price. The following minimum price(s) will apply: Profile/Waste Code UOM Minimum Price LRCT 5 gallon pail $105.00 LABOR, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIPMENT pounds pallet 5 gallon pail 16 gallon drum 30 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum 55 gallon drum flex bin 5 gallon pail medium cylinder flex bin pounds Page 4 of 7 $0.70 $157.50 $0.00 $0.00 $74.00 $592.00 $137.00 $274.00 $166.00 $664.00 $180.00 $1,620.00 $184.00 $552.00 $184.00 $552.00 $180.00 $2,700.00 $266.00 $532.00 $520.00 $2,080.001 $368.00 $368.001 $10.50 $210.00 $336.00 $2,688.00 $5.65 '$565.001 Total $14,108.501 1 16 Gal / 70 L Poly Drum 1 each n/a $0.00 $0.00 1 H2/Y56/S 4 30 Gal / 120 Litre Poly Drum 1 each n/a $0.00 $0.00 1 H 2/Y 142/S J -, "People and Technology Creating a Safer, Cleaner Environment " Cleadarbo[5 October 28, 2014 Page 5 of 7 Clean Harbors, Quote #2012216 13 5 Gal / 20 Litre Poly Drum I each n/a $0.00 $0.00 1 H2/Y 1.5/60 J 14 55 G / 205 L Steel Drum, 1 each n/a $0.00 $0.00 Reconditioned lA2/Y1.2/100 (17-H) 8 55 Gal / 205 Litre Open Head 1 each n/a $0.00 $0.00 Poly, Reconditioned Drum 1H2/Y2 10 Flexbin, 1 Cubic Yard Flexbin 1 each n/a $0.00 $0.00 11 G/Y/2022/1122 l 5 Speedi Dry 1 bag n/a $0.00 $0.00 40 Venniculite 4 cuft 1 bag n/a $0.00 $0.001 Total $0.001 TASK 2: TOTAL ESTIMATE $14,108.50 Estimated Recovery Fee $2,257.36 Estimated Waste Fee $33.28 Estimated total, including Fees $16,399.14 WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS A31 Specification Oils Solids Content less than 6% Ash less than 5% PCB less than 2 VOCs less than 1% if lighter than mineral spirits Less than 10% medium boiling hydrocarbons less than 90% high boiling hydrocarbons Viscosity less than 1,000 CPS Organic Chlorine (organic phase) less than 5,000 PPM Flashpoint greater than 141F pH=4-=11 Caustic Coagulation Must pass Total Arsenic less than 5 ppm Total Lead less than 100 ppm PRIMARY DISPOSAL METHOD: OIL RECOVERY PRIMARY DISPOSAL METHOD: OIL RE -REFINING B35 Glycols Ethylene or propylene glycols Minimum yield 25% ,", `People and Technology Creating a Safer, Cleaner Environment " October 28, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Clean Harbors, Quote #2012216 WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS Waste Code ' Desc►iption B35 Glycols Must be non hazardous pH 3-11 Flash point greater than 140°F Less than 1 inch solids in drum No pesticides Less than 5 percent oils PCB's non detectable Must be amenable to aqueous treatment Must be compatible with oil and water Must be compatible with oil and water CFL1 Mercury Bulbs For Reclamation Less than 5 percent broken bulbs Intact 4 foot or 8 foot bulbs Packaged in original bulb boxes or specialty containers Shrink wrapped to pallets No free mercury PRIMARY DISPOSAL METHOD: RECLAMATION GENERAL CONDITIONS • Except where superseded by an existing services agreement the following terms and conditions apply to this quoted business. • Prices firm for 30 days. • Terms: Net 15 Days • Interest will be charged at 1.5% per month or the maximum allowed by law for all past due amounts. • Local, state and federal fees/taxes applying to the generating location/receiving facilities are not included in disposal pricing and will be added to each invoice as applicable. • Materials subject to additional charges if they do not conform to the listed specifications. • Electronically submitted profiles will be approved at no charge. Paper profiles will be charged at $75.00 each. • Compressed gas cylinders requiring special handling due to inoperable valves will be assessed an additional charge of $400.00 per cylinder. Cylinders larger than medium size will be quoted case by case. This charge may be sent as supplemental invoice. • A variable Recovery Fee (that fluctuates with the DOE national average diesel price), currently at 16.0%, will be applied to the total invoice. For more information regarding our recovery fee calculation please go to: www.cleanharbors.com/recoveiyfee. • Pickups that require same day or next day service may be subject to additional charges. r*', "People and Technology Creating a Safer, Cleaner Environment " October 28, 2014 Page 7 of 7 Clean Harbors, Quote #2012216 GENERAL CONDITIONS • Pickups cancelled within 72 hours of scheduling will be subject to cancellation charges. • Transportation charges to the final disposal facility will be charged in addition to local transportation to our truck to truck hub/local facility and will vary with logistics and routing. • Time over eight (8) hours in the normal workday and all day Saturday is considered overtime and will be billed at 1.5 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel unless otherwise quoted. Sunday and Holidays are considered premium time and will be billed at 2.0 times the applicable straight time rate for all billable personnel unless otherwise quoted. • Standard disposal conversions (excluding minimums) apply to containers other than 5 gallon drums unless otherwise quoted: 6-20g 60%, 21-30g 75%, 31-55g 100%, 56-85g 145%, FBIN 350%, TOT2(<300ga1 TOTE) 500%, TOTE 630%. • In the event that legal or other action is required to collect unpaid invoice balances, Customer agrees to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and agrees to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Your signature below indicates your acceptance of the pricing and terms detailed in the quote above. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Signature PO# Date Print Name Quote # 2012216 , "People and Technology Creating a Safer, Cleaner Environment " This page is intentionally blank. Attachment C PR&R Franchise Agreement Section 9 — Customer Service, Billing, and Public Education 5 This page intentionally left blank. Franchise Agreement Between the City of Petaluma and PR&R 11/19/2012 SECTION 9 —CUSTOMER SERVICE, BILLING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION 2 9.1. Public Education 3 Contractor's public education program shall focus on providing information to Customers in accordance urith 4 the specific requirements described in this Section and Exhibit 6. Educational media shall include, but not be 5 liraaited to:.biannual newsletters, flyers,,door hangers, notification tags, and direct contact. Information shall 6 be provided to solicit feedback about the service and suggested improvements/changes, and to educate 7 Customers about source reduction, re -use, and Recycling opportunities. Materials shall be printed on paper 8 containing the highest levels of Recycled content material as is reasonably practical with a minimum 9 requirement of 30% post -consumer content based on Federal standards. 10 All public education materials required in this Section and Exhibit 6 shall be,printed in English and Spanish, 11 with reference to where Spanish language materials can be obtained included as part of Contractor's web site, 12 made available at Contractor's Petaluma business office, and made available for mailing to a Customer a upon 13 request by a Customer. 14 Contractor shall alloxv the City to review and approve all public education materials. 15 During the Term of the Agreement, the Contractor shall employ at least one (1) hill -time equivalent 16 residential and convnercial education coordinator. 17 If Contractor:fails to perform some or all of the requirements of the public education program described in 18 this Section, and in Exhibit 6, the Contractor shall pay the City Ligi�idated :Daiz�lges as described in Section; 19 14.4. 20 9.1.1 Residential Education Program 21 Contractor shall perform the following public education activities throughout the Term of the Agreement: 22 9.1.1.1 As necessary, Contractor's outreach coordinator will prepare and distribute a 23 brochure describing: hoilkto prepare OrgaruirMaterzals-for Collection. This brochure shall instruct Customers 24 as to any necessary preparation of Organic Materials, such as the cutting,of items, placement of materials 25 outside a Cart (provided such material is bundled in lengths less than three feet and bundles that weigh less 26 than 30 pounds), and the appropriate use and placement of Organic Materials Carts. 27 9,1.1.2 As necessary Contractor's Outreach Coordinator -will prepare and distribute a 28 brochure describing how to prepare Recyclable Materials for Collection. Contractor shall inform Residents as 29 to the acceptable materials that can be included in the Recyclable Materials Carts and any common 30 contaminants to be excluded from Collection. 31 9.1.1.3. Prior to the holiday season, the Outreach Coordinator shall prepare a bill insert 32 describing the dates, time, and places of all holiday tree Collection Drop Boxes. The same information shall 33 also be advertised in the Press Democrat and the Argus Courier. 34 9.1.1.4 Contractor's Outreach Coordinator shall prepare and distribute a flyer describing 35 the Residential annual clean-ups as described ul Section 5.4. Public education materials for the annual clean - 36 ups shall include preparation, printing, and mailing of a flyer announcing and describing the services and 37 advertising in the Press Democrat and die Argus Courier. 38 9.1.1.5 Contractor's Outreach Coordinator shall visit homeowner associations or other 39 groups to promote and explain the program throughout the Term of the Agreement, as requested by the 40 associations or scheduled by the City. Page 47 of 109 �yr Franchise Agreement Between the City of Petaluma and PR&R 11/19/2012 1 9.1.1.6 A corrective actions notice shall be prepared and used in instances where waste 2 Generators set out inappropriate materials prior to start-up. 3 9.1.1.7 School education programs to teach students about source reduction, re -use, and 4 Recyclable Materials shall be prepared and made Available to'schools by Contractor's outreach coordinator. 5 9.1.1.8 Non -program related tion on source reduction; re -use and Recyclable 6 Materials (e.g, junk mail reduction, Household Hazardous `—ante events, grass cycling, Composting, etc) shall 7 be made available by the outreach coordinator. This information will also be included in the "Petaluma 8 Refuse & Recycling News" newslettei. 9 9.1.1.9 Contractor's outreach coordinator will annually prepare a mailing to Residents 10 describing the Street Sweeping schedule and map. 11 9.1.1.10 Contractor's biannual newsletter "PetAluma''Refuse & Recycling News" shall be 12 sent to all Residential and Commercial accounts in Petaluma. The newsletter shall be reviewed and approved 13 by City staff prior to distribution. A Spanish language version of this newsletter shall be made available 14 electronically on the Contractor's website, and shall also be made available for pickup from Contractor's 15 business office in the City, The Spanish language version of the newsletter shall be mailed free -of -charge to 16 those Customers who have requested it, and Contractor shall maintain amailing list of those Customers 17 requesting this service. - 18 9.1.2 Commercial Education Program 19 Contractor shall perform the following public education activities throughout the Term of the Agreement: 20 9.1.2.1 The outreach coordinator will prepare, and distribute a Recyclable Materials 21 resource guide to,provide -vendors' names; numbers and contacts for purchasing Recycled products, re -use 22 donation locations, and other Recyclable Materials companies; to be updated annually. 23 9.1.2.2 Contractor's :biatiiivalewsleter 'ti i "Petaluma Refi►se & Recycling News" shall be 24 sen, t' f to all Residential, iall and Comr'erclal accounts in; Petaluma. The newsletter shall be reviewed and approved 25 by City staff prior . to , distribution: � Aspa w!"sh language version of this newsletterI shall be made available 26 electronically on the Contractor's website, and shall also be made available for pickup from Contractor's 27 business office in the City. The Spanish language version of the newsletter shall be mailed free -of -charge to 28 those Customers who have requested it, and Contractor shall maintain a mailing Est of those Customers 29 requesting this service. 30 9.1.2.3 A corrective actions notice shall be prepared and used in instances where waste 31 Generators set out inappropriate materials prior to start-up. 32 9.1.3 All Customers 33 Contractor, through its "Petaluma Refuse and Recycling News" newsletter or, other public education 34 materials, shall educate Generator,,; regarding proper methods of handling and Disposing of Hazardous 35 Waste. 36 9.2 Billing 37 9.2.1 General 38 . The City shall establish the maximum Rates and fees that Contractor may Charge Customers for Collection 39 services pursuant to Section 10. Contractor shall bill all Customers and collect Billings at Rates not to exceed 40 City -Approved Maximum Service Rates. Contractor shall not Charge Customers in excess of City -Approved Page 48 of 109 Attachment D CalRecycle Correspondence This page intentionally left blank. m Natasha Singh .i... .,.. ......e........n.+, ." .....,. .......... i ...... ., ..... . ... ......... . . . ... .....i.. . .. . .... .i.... wi i. ... .. ...n...u��i���m��i� From: Ferrero, Samuel @CalRecycle <Samuel.Ferrero @calrecycle.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:26 AM To: Natasha Singh Subject: RE: Follow Up Questions Hi Natasha, here are the answers to your questions highlighted in blue. I believe that the jurisdiction submitted planning documents in the early 90s, right before the JPA was formed. Could these be updated to fulfilling the planning document requirement? If the jurisdiction submitted its own planning documents and got approval from the previous Board prior to joining the JPA (all of Sonoma Js submitted its individual SRRE and HHWE and got approved documents in 1995), they do not need to submit a new set of planning documents, assuming the same programs will be implemented (program implementation will be status quo or better) after separating from the JPA. Other than the effect of the JPA having to redo their base year study, what other effects might there be on the member jurisdictions if one decides to leave? The jurisdiction will not redo their base year study. CalRecycle staff will re -calculate the Jurisdiction's target rate based on the available data in DRS. • Would the update of documents be able to be submitted directly to the Waste Board for approval or would they have to complete the whole process of submission including JPA comment, CEQA, etc? Again, ifthe jurisdiction has approved planning, documents and .will implement the same programs that were implemented while in JPA, the jurisdiction do not need to develop and submit�new: planning documents. The jurisdiction needs - -to provide us MCRplan.like JPA did as JPA has been taking care of the MCR,for member agencies. Any other program update can be done via Electronic:Annual Report, EAR has been developed so that,the, jurisdiction does not have,to use much time and,rosources..lf NDFE was prepared and approved as a regional agency and not by individual jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction needs to prepare one. Sant Ferrero I CalRecycle the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery I Local Assistance Market Development 1 916.341.6294 Ifax 916.319.7582110011 Streets Sacramento, CA 95812 I samuel.ferrero@calrecvcle.ca.govlwww.calrecvcle.ca.gov From: Natasha Singh fmailto:nsin.Qh(@r3c2i.com1 Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:57 AM To: Ferrero, Samuel@CalRecycle Subject: RE: Follow Up Questions HI Sam, For now, the jurisdiction has asked that their inquiries are confidential. If this information is necessary, please give me a call and we can talk to my boss. Sorry for the inconvenience! Natasha Singh R3 Consulting Group, Inc. 1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220 Roseville, CA 95661 916-782-7821 —office 916-782-7824 - fax From: Ferrero, Samuel@CalRecycle rmaiIto: Samuel.Ferrero(ucalrecvcle.ca. cIovj Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:49 AM To: Natasha Singh Subject: RE: Follow Up Questions Hi Natasha, I'm sorry but I didn't get what city and contact person you said was interested in leaving the SCWMA? Could I please get that thanks. Sam Ferrero CalRecycle the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery I Local Assistance Market Development 916.341.6294 1fax 916.319.7582110011Street I Sacramento,CA95812 I samuel.ferreropcalrecvcle.ca.govlwww.calrecvcle.ca.eov From: Natasha Singh [mailto:nsinRh(@r3cgi.comj Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Ferrero, Samuel@CalRecycle Subject: Follow Up Questions Hi Samuel,. Thank you for answering a few of my questions. The follow up questions I had are:. • 1 believe that the jurisdiction submitted planning documents in the early 90s, right before the IPA was formed. Could these be updated to fulfilling the planning document requirement? • Other than the effect of the JPA having to redo their base year study, what other effects might there be on the member jurisdictions if one decides to leave? • Would the update of documents be able to be submitted directly to the Waste Board for approval or would they have to complete the whole process of submission including JPA comment, CEQA, etc? Thank you again for your help, Natasha Singh R3 Consulting Group, Inc. 1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220 Roseville, CA 95661 916-782-7821— office 916-782-7824 - fax From: Ferrero, Samuel@CalRecycle rmailto:Samuel. Ferrerotc-bcalrecvcle.ca.aovl Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:34 PM To: Natasha Singh Subject: hello Hi natasha Natasha Sin h From: Ferrero, Samuel@CalRecycle <Samuel.Ferrero@calrecycle.ca.gov> Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 11:27 AM To: Natasha Singh Cc: Cruz, Kaoru@CalRecycle Subject: FW: Supersession of SCWMA planning documents Hi Natasha, below is the email my supervisor sent you but for some reason it bounced back so I am forwarding the email below. I hope this helps you, if you have any further questions feel free to contact us. Thank you and have a great weekend. From: Cruz, Kaoru@CalRecycle Sent: Friday, September 05, 201411:15 AM To: 'diribarne@ci.petal uma.ca.us'; 'nsingh@r3cgi.comand' Cc: Ferrero, Samuel@CalRecycle Subject: Supersession of SCWMA planning documents Hi David and Natasha, I'm Kaoru Cruz, a Bay Area Unit 2 supervisor. Sam told me that you requested a document specifying about supersession of SCWNIA planning documents over Petaluma's previously approved document. We consulted with our legal counsel and got the following guidance: . Although the initial RA in 1992 was formed solely for the purpose of household hazardous waste issues, in 1996, the RA agreement was amended. Upon review of the amendment, it was apparently unclear as to whether the planning documents of the individual jurisdictions applied to the regional agency members because we posed Question #6 which stated: "The Agency should expressly incorporate by reference the various planning elements that describe the duties of the member jurisdictions in order to comply with Public Resources Code 4000975(b)(4) & (5)." In response, the RA replied "The Agency believes that this was sufficiently addressed in the Amendment— Each jurisdiction understands that the existing CIWMP documents are now the Regional Agency documents. The Amendment was written to be inclusive of future documents." (Emphasis added). The amendment provisions referenced state as follows: Participant's Duties and Responsibilities,: Each Participant is responsible for implementing the programs set forth in the Regional Agency documents as they apply to individual jurisdictions, and each Participant is responsible for meeting the diversion requirements of the Act within its jurisdictional boundaries. Planning and Monitoring Documents:. The [SRRE, HHWEs, NDFEs, and the COIWMP Summary and Siting Element] shall serve as the planning and monitoring documents for the Regional Agency until such time as they are replaced by renional planning documents. The County's document shall serve as the document for the City of Windsor, Henceforth, all necessary documentation shall be created by the Recgional Aaency. (Emphasis added) The CIWMP adopted in 2003 specifically says (See page 4-1) that: As a Regional Agency, the SCWMA is responsible for maintaining all of the solid waste planning documents required by AS 939, and as such, the regional SRRE is a multi -jurisdictional document. The SRRE addresses regional programs in addition to those programs that each jurisdiction has implemented independently of the other SCWMA members. Therefore, after the ClWMP was adopted, it replaced the individual planning documents that had previously been adopted asthe Regional Agency documents. Therefore, Peta|unoawill have ioprovide new documents ifhwants toleave the Regional Agency because ofthe adoption ofthe [iVVK8P. Let omknow ifyou have any further questions. Ib:ukyou. Kq,oj-Li Cruz (916)341-6249 Bay Area Dnit 2 Local Assistance and Market Developinent Branch Cu —Pznmo6ogozozesustainable CuD6zumiu Attachment E Section 20 of SCWMA Agreement This page intentionally left blank. activities of the Agency. Such costs include, but are not limited to, the followings (1) the cost of obtaining required permits from regulatory agencies and the cost of complying with the requirements and conditions of those permits; (2) cost of operating a storm water treatment facility, if needed to prevent excess nitrogen from entering the water from the compost. (3) any cleanup costs (including monitoring costs) incurred as a result of Agency activities for as long as required. ,Section 20. Term of This Aareement The term of this Agreement shall be for twenty-five (25) years. This Agreement shall take effect and begin on the date the Agreement is executed by the last Participant to execute the Agreement. This Agreement may be extended from year to year thereafter by mutual agreement of the Participants. Should any city desire to withdraw from the JPA a, ninety (90) day notice shall be submitted in writing.to the Agency. A,penalty as set by the JPA and adjusted from time to time to reflect the impact on the JPA shall be paid by the City to the Agency for the withdrawal. .Section 21. Records and Accounts Agency will keep proper books and records including, but not limited to, types and quantities of wastes received from each jurisdiction which, upon written request, shall be subject to inspection by any duly authorized representative of Participants. Agency will cause the books and records to be kept, and audit to be made, in accordance with the statutory requirements for Joint Powers Agencies. The Agency will make quarterly reports of System operations and of all receipts to and disbursements from the Agency. One copy of the report shall be given to each Participant. The expense of these audits and reports and all recordkeeping and accounting costs shall be an operation and maintenance cost of the Joint Powers Agency. Section 22. 1,iabilities and Limitations of -Parties Agency agrees to maintain and operate the Treatment System in a competent and diligent manner to the end that requirements set by the California Integrated' Waste Management Board and any other agency having jurisdiction thereof are met. In the event of litigation concerning alleged failure to meet performance requirements, Participants and Agency shall cooperate in the defense. Agency shall assume liability for cost of litigation, settlement of claim, and of any penalty unless it is determined by a court of law, arbitration, or other legal process, that the alleged failure was caused by the negligence, malfeasance, or other culpable act(s) of another. Liabilities of Participants, due to their own acts or negligence prior to creation of Agency, will not be assumed by the Agency. This page is intentionally blank. m This page intentionally left blank. o -o C o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O n o 0 o p G 0 0 0 0 C') C? OD: rh MM (0r r-, 0)00)0 'f)t'O 0 to 00Mt 00 O W OMM rN ' C? �N t NN ' ' r r NN OCOr W WN i r r'o 8, 0 t 0) m000 (00'000000 000000000 O m t MM CO (D 'o 00'0 CON M OOO OO t t- OOCo C) 0 t OO'O O OO N CON M .-- r C a V C C O C'C, p Q) O O O N t o M O C O I. OCM t 0 t O'O O r Lq N t- O N (V 0) N N Lo 0 n rnLo O t t- CO N r t- M 0 CO 0 O N N O0 0 r N M N 0 N ' O N00 O r.a tt�ONNO m N NN MSN tON i- N r CN Lo �M 0) 0)M O 0 M o r t N N M 0 W r C'N t LL m t r h t 0 r h y 'o M 0000 toM 0) O O O( NN� O N M O O 0000 to O O O O OO n to t 0)to M+ Y °a t0 n V: O O 0 V: N --- 0� ( co (0 C CD W N to O t 'Oo C CD Gi O O t (NO 'Q: IQ V O M tO V: IN`. N CO N� {a M._- 1, to to to to 0)(0"m _(n Lt) LO CD h n N Cin N O) NN(O t()r NM 00 C0 (DN 0)M N' •� t00 r- r.- to - rNrN OCD 0. N MM_ .'`-'(M tO ,�WD M; p d r M t L r U) rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT O O O O O O O O O O O O (D It 0 0 C) t CO C t- O n O O (D O O (D (0 0 O M N O O n C t0 N N 6) r-- (D h N O (D N r t- h O O 6) tO Un CC) 00000.0--, oo-00000,0000000000000o0 o000 M U') (7) - - -_ -- - - - - - 43) CDXL , m00000000 0000000000000000000000 O000 Co N O O O O 0 04 t t t .0 O 6) (Q-0) IL U n 0 0 0 c? O O 0•`0 O -O O-C� O O O t 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t O O O d• C tO O to - (V -` - . . - W r _ - - - to 0 t- o N Oi n Y -r F 0 0 0 O O t O O w 0 0 0 0 M O M O O M O O O O O O O O O O N t t c0 O O Z 0) N LO 0) t W 0) O M O N LO 0 0) Wrn M N 0 O M O N V t t C O N CO V 0) O r M0 N N0) C M M M N Cl) Cl) W m 0) c9 n n a (- ❑ o O o C)O O- CD a o 0 0 0 o a_o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0? 00 w> -t. F- t-- > (na� LO 0 O O t O G O O N C) r 0 0 6) 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 M co O(0 O0) M W 0O Loco to (D O O N O 0 MLO tt (n O r t o n O N N t O r 0 co N O O t O M O 0 N N r O t M N Z Nt ' O 06 L O M t 6 O N r W V 6- C, (6 r M W M t N Z) U 6) M N N N r O N 0 N t N O 'O 0) ,-- r M r r Cl) Cl) U wn a' M M -O O O N O - tO-O O O- r CO O 0 O CD r 0 0 C� 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0'.t O t t co ,IFt --- t nM tt fA _ too- -00) mO<O -0000 00- O co to to000 .t'a; Q 'S^tl- 'It Iq-_ V -� 6)to '-CD 0)McO C0 ONtOO Ot (,0 M Mt Mr - Q C4 U)* - N t to CD CO to N r— .Co m (0 r r CO 01 m t- O O O O O O h t O O O O O O t 0 0 W O O O O O O O O O O (D CO CO h O y M M O O O M O OO t- O COO (D O O O (D r- (D NOM M -O a) M O O 0o co O 'O r M OC) ' O t O to (D O t t u-) 6) t W (L(p�N t o0 0 N O N OmO Otto N mr M t0 t0 t tN N >- ❑ r - r CDN O) r r M M N N M r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r - r 0 0 0 0 Lo.(v N O O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h d' r r O' M_ 0O O- r N - - CNOrn _ UtOO _N -Cl M tr 70 >0 nN- to - - -0 (0 Mn <O CO co co M r r r r r n. c m a) L o tea) (n c n w N a a) o a) u rn C (U N W a) U N U_ 7> N tz U>- > n C L J V Q > to O 0 U W O2 LL > C m n W a a) m�.E °) m m NCn aa)) c� c m N E >0 a) o aN c mW of 0 W Q w� c 0) o � m C) C) o (r rn cl W c oCD c� � o m W o o_ o m m Z a) t) a) a) m m � o t0 CO c c I_ arL�� m o.�Z W T� m W N� v Mna`) a) a) N �mQ o 0UW �Q�� 3QZ NU, mo-.- "W tnw m'� a)� 31n -C�- N o >' dF�-- a)H W Via)- a) o�> �Q=Qa)ma)c -Amo=a)w� a sc� OQ�mOa W oc°n moF ~W ma00-� ooa (3)8)aacimoox o iomU!-FroW U) Z u) -(n:�i0O J ZUJ1E:EUa000WJQQQWIrWIL�--C) 13�OUD� U W CD CD CD CD 04 (n to a U > O O cy)O N t 0 N~ a O C D 0 0 0 N t 1- m N M N" L (D M (D O O T- N t F w X�NN t t t tO W SCO CND(MIt o (D(D((f) (D (OD(OD COO (OD coO(Dc(DD(MD r- CO rr Omo O Z tr This page is intentionally blank. m This page intentionally left blank. w Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority (2 member agencies) Humboldt Waste Management. Authority (6 member agencies) . South Bayside . Waste Management,, 'Authority (12:member agencies) $3,036,919 $10,133,587 $38,242,600 4.5 Staff -1 Director -1 Program Manager/Clerk -2.5 Administrative Positions (Administrative Assistant, Account Clerk, Part -Time Account Clerk) 27 Staff -1 Director -26 Program and Facility Staff 8 Staff -1 Executive Director -1 Recycling Programs Manager -1 Office Manager -1 Environmental Education Coordinator -1 Environmental Education Associate -1 Contracts Manager -1 Finance Manager -1 Recycling Outreach and Sustainability Manager - Owns one large and two rural transfer stations; operated by contractors - Rate setting and approval - Facility administration - HHW program management - Public education and outreach - AB 939 reporting - Solid waste planning - Operate 1 landfill, 2 transfer stations, 1 HHW program, and 1 composting program - Rate setting and approval - Public education and outreach - Enter into disposal agreements - Owns a transfer station and MRF - Negotiates franchise agreements for member agencies - Public education and outreach - HHW program management - Contract for operation of transfer stations and HHW program - Operate 1 landfill, 2 transfer stations, 1 HHW program, and 1 composting program - Operate transfer station and MRF R:\Projects\Petaluma - JPA Alternatives - 114035\Reports\Attachments (Intial Findings Memo)\Attachment G- Benchmarking Table-102814.docx - Facility JPA. Budget- Staffing Activities Operation/ Management 6 Staff - Public education and - Contract for -1 Executive Director outreach HHW and -1 Department Analyst - AB 939 Reporting composting Sonoma County -1 Senior Office Assistant - HHW program /organics program Waste -3 Waste Management management operation Management = Specialists (1 for - Composting and organics Agency $2,022,971 composting/ organics and program management planning and reporting, 1 - Solid waste planning (10 member for the HHW program, 1 agencies) for education and outreach) -(Contracted from County) Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority (2 member agencies) Humboldt Waste Management. Authority (6 member agencies) . South Bayside . Waste Management,, 'Authority (12:member agencies) $3,036,919 $10,133,587 $38,242,600 4.5 Staff -1 Director -1 Program Manager/Clerk -2.5 Administrative Positions (Administrative Assistant, Account Clerk, Part -Time Account Clerk) 27 Staff -1 Director -26 Program and Facility Staff 8 Staff -1 Executive Director -1 Recycling Programs Manager -1 Office Manager -1 Environmental Education Coordinator -1 Environmental Education Associate -1 Contracts Manager -1 Finance Manager -1 Recycling Outreach and Sustainability Manager - Owns one large and two rural transfer stations; operated by contractors - Rate setting and approval - Facility administration - HHW program management - Public education and outreach - AB 939 reporting - Solid waste planning - Operate 1 landfill, 2 transfer stations, 1 HHW program, and 1 composting program - Rate setting and approval - Public education and outreach - Enter into disposal agreements - Owns a transfer station and MRF - Negotiates franchise agreements for member agencies - Public education and outreach - HHW program management - Contract for operation of transfer stations and HHW program - Operate 1 landfill, 2 transfer stations, 1 HHW program, and 1 composting program - Operate transfer station and MRF R:\Projects\Petaluma - JPA Alternatives - 114035\Reports\Attachments (Intial Findings Memo)\Attachment G- Benchmarking Table-102814.docx Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority $1,716,379.44 (6 member . agencies) Marin County Hazardous and "Solid'Waste Management Joint Powers $3,448,718 Authority (11 member agencies) Alameda County Waste Management, Authority $11,107,689 (1.7 member agencies). 6 Staff -1 Executive Director -1 Executive Assistant -1 Administrative Assistant -2 Program Managers -1 Finance Manager 5 Staff -1 Program Manager -4 Program Staff -(Contracted from County) - Administers franchise agreements for member agencies - Rate setting and approval - Public education and outreach - HHW facility management - Recycling guides - Some public education and outreach - Grant implementation - Recycling events - AB 939 reporting - Solid waste planning - Solely administrative actions - Contract for HHW and composting /organics program operation 26 Staff - Grant programs - Solely -1 Executive Director - Source reduction and administrative -1 Recycling Director recycling programs actions -1 Chief Financial Officer - Market development -1 Administrative Services - Technical assistance Director - Public education and -17 Program/ Senior/ outreach Communications Managers -1 Program Specialist -4 Executive/ Administrative Assistants R:\Projects\Petaluma - JPA Alternatives - 114035\Reports\Attachments (Intial Findings Memo)\Attachment G- Benchmarking Table-102814.docx Consulting Group, Inc. Resources Respect Responsibility May 13, 2014 Mr. Henry J. Mikus Executive Director Sonoma County Waste Management Agency 2300 County Center Drive, Suite B100 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 ATTACHMENT 4 1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220 Roseville, CA 95661 Tel: 916-782-7821 Fax: 916-782-7824 www.r3cgi.com Re: Evaluation of Current Activities and Service Delivery Options Dear Mr. Mikus: R3 Consulting Group Inc. (R3) was engaged by the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (Agency) to provide an evaluation of current activities and service delivery options. This letter report presents the results of our evaluation. Summary Findings ■ The Agency's current surcharge of $5.95 on solid waste tons disposed at the Central Disposal Site is equivalent to an annual expenditure of approximately $4.59 per capita. ■ Based on our review, it does not appear that the Member Jurisdictions could realize an overall net cost savings by pursuing alternative services to the four core programs provided by the Agency. ■ On an individual basis, the Agency's current programs appear to be more cost effective than the identified alternatives in almost all cases, specifically: o Composting/Organics — The current per ton fees for composting charged at the Central Compost site (including transfer costs) are lower than 4 of the 6 alternative compost sites that could accept Member Jurisdictions' compostable materials. All Member Jurisdictions would incur higher costs to direct compostable materials to identified alternative compost facilities due to farther transfer distances, higher tip fees, or and/or longer travel distances for packer trucks. The existing Composting/Organics program offers a regional composting solution that provides free compost and mulch products back to the Member Jurisdictions at no additional cost to the Member Jurisdictions. While the Composting/Organics program is not essential to public health and safety, it is required in order to meet State mandates regarding diversion of materials from landfill. o Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) — The Agency's current cost per HHW participant is approximately $66.29 per user and includes both use of a staffed drop- off site and on-call collection. Siting a new HHW drop-off site could take several years years at a substantial cost and would likely require some form of interagency cost sharing agreement if more than one Member Jurisdiction directs HHW to the site. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 2 of 20 Arranging for alternative HHW collection on-call services would incur estimated costs of approximately $120 per pickup, which represents an 81 % increase over the Agency's current cost per user. Maintaining an HHW collection program is essential to public health and safety, and is required by law as part of each Jurisdiction's Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) filed with CalRecycle. o Education and Outreach — Eliminating the Agency's Education and Outreach program may have an adverse effect on the quality of the Agency's other core programs and may result in a loss of regional educational consistency. The cities of Santa Rosa and Petaluma could feasibly provide for Education and Outreach services using existing staff / franchised hauler resources at a reduced cost. However, this may result in a loss of regional education uniformity. Other Member Jurisdictions do not have the existing staff resources to support expanded Education and Outreach efforts, and would have to rely on their franchised haulers for these services. The Agency's Education and Outreach efforts are not essential to public health and safety, and appear to be in addition to the amount of outreach required in each Member Jurisdiction's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) (each Member Jurisdiction currently also has separate individual education efforts). o Planning and Reporting —The Agency's current regional Planning and Reporting function appears to be very cost-effective. If any jurisdictions were to opt out of the current regional reporting agency (as recognized by CalRecycle), all Member Jurisdictions would incur additional costs in order to complete required new "base year" waste generation studies, and additional waste tracking methods would need to be implemented to support the change. The cities of Santa Rosa and Petaluma could feasibly provide their own Planning and Reporting using existing City staff. The Agency's Planning and Reporting function is not essential to public health and safety, but is required for compliance with CalRecycle planning and reporting requirements. ■ The Agency's current surcharge structure would need to be revised in the event of any programmatic changes, or in the event that any Member Jurisdictions choose to pursue alternative programs to those provided by the Agency. ■ Due to the Agency's current surcharge structure, certain Member Jurisdictions receive greater value out of their membership in the Agency than others. For example, Member Jurisdictions located farther from the Central Disposal site receive less benefit from the Agency's Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) programs. ■ Essentially, Member Jurisdictions which dispose more tons do not necessarily receive a greater level of service from the Agency's four core programs. Therefore, R3 recommends that the Agency and Member Jurisdictions explore alternative surcharge structures to provide more even benefits to all Member Jurisdictions. ■ R3 recommends that the Agency (and Member Jurisdictions) continue to provide the Agency's current four core services'on a regional basis. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 3 of 20 The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (Agency) was formed in 1992 as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in response to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). The Agency is comprised of the following 10 local governments (Member Jurisdictions): ■ City of Cloverdale; ■ City of Cotati; ■ City of Healdsburg; ■ City of Petaluma; ■ City of Rohnert Park; ■ City of Santa Rosa; ■ City of Sebastopol; ■ City of Sonoma; ■ Town of Windsor; and ■ County of Sonoma. The Agency currently provides four core services to its Member Jurisdictions, including: ■ Composting/Organics — The Agency processes approximately 100,000 tons of wood waste, yard waste and organics per year at the Central Compost Site. ■ Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) — The Agency provides programs for the collection and disposal of toxic materials, chemicals, E -Waste, and used oil products. ■ Education and Outreach —The Agency produces an annual "Recycling Guide" and helps to coordinate County -wide educational efforts, among other things. ■ Planning and Reporting — The Agency completes all required planning and reporting documents for submission to CalRecycle on behalf of all the Member Jurisdictions. The Agency's Composting/Organics processing program is funded by yard waste and wood waste tipping fees charged at the Central Compost Site, while the other three programs are funded through the Agency's surcharge of $5.95 per ton of solid waste disposed at the Central Disposal Site. A small amount of additional funding is received through contract revenues and grants. The Agency has six full time employee positions, including: ■ One Executive Director; ■ One Department Analyst; ■ One Senior Office Assistant; and ■ Three Waste Management Specialists — one responsible for the Composting/Organics program and Planning and Reporting, one responsible for the HHW program, and one responsible for directing Education and Outreach work. Limitations R3's evaluation of current activities and service delivery options is intended to provide the Agency with a planning -level evaluation of the Agency's core services and the potential for alternatives to those services. Our evaluation is based on financial information provided by the Agency, as well as additional information gathered from internet research and R3's knowledge of industry practices and market conditions. Our evaluation does not include: Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 4 of 20 ■ Review of Agency management structure, management practices, or reasonableness of staffing levels; ■ Review of Agency operational standards and/or Agency Board Rules of Governance; ■ Review of the reasonableness of Agency and/or County administrative costs; ■ Analysis of changes in Agency costs due to: o One or more Member Jurisdictions choosing to opt out of their Agency membership; or o One or more Member Jurisdictions choosing to not participate in individual Agency programs. Evaluation of Current Activities and Alternatives Composting/Organics Current Activities The Central Compost Site is the only permitted large capacity compost facility within Sonoma County, with a maximum permitted capacity of 612 tons per day (tpd) and average throughput of approximately 300 tons per day. The site processes approximately 100,000 tons of wood waste, yard waste and organics per year. The Central Compost Site is owned by Sonoma County, with supervision of operations provided through the Agency. The Agency in turn contracts with Sonoma Compost Company for operation of the facility. Accordingly, while the Central Compost Site property is owned by Sonoma County, the County does not have any direct control over the site's operations. The Composting/Organics processing operations at the Central Compost Site are funded by compostable materials tipping fees paid by program customers and by revenue shared between the Agency and its contractor, Sonoma Compost Company. The current yard waste tipping fee at the Central Disposal Site is $34.10 per ton (transfer stations charge $36.20 per ton), which is roughly 1/3 of the solid waste tipping fee at the Central Disposal Site, and the current wood waste tipping fee is $27.60 per ton (transfer stations charge $29.70). The Composting/Organics program does not receive any funding from the Agency's $5.95 per ton surcharge on solid waste tons. Table 1 below provides the total wood waste and yard waste tons delivered to the Central Compost Site by customers within each Member Jurisdiction in FY 2012-13. The total tipping fee revenues shown in Table 1 below do not include the additional $2.10 per ton charged for tons delivered through transfer stations (applies to tons originating from Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Sonoma City, Windsor, and parts of Sonoma County). Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 5 of 20 TABLE 1 FY 2012-13 Organics Tipping Fee Revenue Member I Wood Waste ($27.60/ton) Jurisdiction Tons Tipping Fees JCloverdale 96 $2,654 Cotati 92 $2,551 �Healdsburg 478 $13,198 Petaluma 514 $14,192 Rohnert Park 133 $3,667 Santa Rosa 1,641 $45,283 Sebastopol 222 $6,121 Sonoma 685 $18,906 Sonoma County 1,296 $35,775 l Windsor 1 262 $7,240 1 Total 5,420 1 $149,586 1 Green Waste ($34.10/ton) I Overall Overall Tons Tipping Fees Tons Tipping Fees 1,515 $51,646 1,611 $54,300 1,228 $41,870 1,320 $44,421 3,814 $130,064 4,292 $143,263 12,516 $426,797 13,030 $440,989 5,930 $202,209 6,063 $205,876 25,012 $852,911 26,653 $898,194 2,368 $80,744 2,590 ( $86,865 6,111 $208,391 ( 6,796 $227,297 27,702 $944,624 28,998 $980,398 5,617 $191,545 5,879 $198,785 91,812 $3,130,801 ( 97,232 $3,280,387 In addition to overseeing the operations of the Composting/Organics processing operations, the Agency also offers free compost and mulch products to the Member Jurisdictions. The value of free mulch and compost allocated to Member Jurisdictions in FY 2012-13 is shown in Table 2 below. TABLE 2 FY 2012-13 Free Compost and Mulch by Member Jurisdiction' Member Value of Free Jurisdiction Compost and % of Total Mulch* Cloverdale $ 1,067 2% Cotati $ 888 1 % Healdsburg $ 3,031 5% Petaluma $ 8,447 13% Rohnert Park $ 3,836 6% Santa Rosa ( $ 17,729 28% Sebastopol $ 1,778 3% Sonoma $ 4,755 7% Sonoma County $ 18,890 29% 1 Windsor $ 3,817 1 6% Total $ 64,238 1 100% * This column does not include an additional estimated $326,000 in financial benefits received by Santa Rosa and its regional Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant partners. ' Figures based on data provided by the Agency. Member Jurisdiction allocations are based on % of incoming tons at Central Compost Site, using costs of $7.25 per ton for mulch and $12.00 per ton for compost. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 6 of 20 In addition, the Agency reported that it provides approximately 10,000 tons of ground yard debris free of charge each year to the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant in Santa Rosa. Since the Agency pays Sonoma Compost Company to process this material, the Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant in Santa Rosa receives an approximate value of $326,0002 in avoided costs by not having to purchase an equivalent amount of ground yard debris. Potential Alternatives Existing compostable materials processing capacity in the surrounding area is limited. The Agency's Central Compost Site is the only existing large -volume composting facility in Sonoma County and the next closest composting facility is the Redwood Landfill, which currently has a higher tipping fee and lower maximum permitted throughput than the Central Compost Site. Table 3 below provides a comparison of green waste / yard waste tipping fees in the surrounding area. TABLE 3 Tipping Fee Comparison Greenwaste Compost Site Rate (per ton) Cold Creek Compost* $ 26.67 Jepson Prairie Organics $ 32.75 Napa Garbage Service $ 38.00 Redwood Landfill $ 40.00 WCC Organics* $ 117.02 Potrero Hills Compost $ 53.00 Central Compost Site $ 34.10 *Calculated by converting cubic yard charge to tons. Miles from Maximum Central Throughput Disposal (tons per Site day) 70 400 73 750 36 200 16 170 41 1,134 56 320 - 300 As shown, only two facilities (Cold Creek Compost and Jepson Prairie Organics) have tipping fees that are less than the Central Compost Site, and both of those facilities are over 65 miles away from the Central Compost Site. However, it should be noted that the Cold Creek Compost facility is somewhat closer to the Healdsburg Transfer Station and may be a feasible compost delivery option for Member Jurisdictions that utilize that transfer station. The Redwood Landfill facility is also a notable alternative due to its close proximity to the Central Compost Site (approximately 16 miles away). Therefore, it appears that the two most potentially favorable alternative compost facilities would be: (1) Redwood Landfill, due to its close proximity to the current Central Compost Site; and (2) Cold Creek Compost, due to the fact that it is the closest facility with a tipping fee lower than that of the Central Compost Site. Table 4 below provides the distance from each Member Jurisdiction (or the Transfer Station it utilizes) to the Central Compost Site, as well as the distance to the Redwood Landfill and the Cold Creek Compost facility. As shown, Petaluma and Sonoma (City) are actually slightly closer to the Per the Agency, at a wholesale price of $7.25 per cubic yard and a conversion factor of 4.5 cubic yards perton. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 7 of 20 Redwood Landfill. The Cold Creek Compost facility represents a significant additional distance for all Member Jurisdictions. TABLE 4 Distance to Central Compost Site and Alternative Facilities Distance to Distance to Distance to Member Transportation Central Redwood Landfill (miles) Cold Creek Compost (miles) Jurisdiction Method Compost Site Total Additional Total Additional (miles)* Distance Distance Distance Distance Cloverdale Healdsburg Transfer 31 42 11 54 23 �Cotati Direct -haul 4 15 11 80 76 Healdsburg I Healdsburg Transfer 31 42 11 54 23 Petaluma I Direct -haul 9 8 -1 89 80 Rohnert Park I Direct -haul 5 17 12 79 74 Santa Rosa I Direct -haul 12 23 11 72 60 Sebastopol I Direct -haul 10 24 14 79 69 Sonoma I Sonoma Transfer 22 18 -4 100 78 Sonoma County I Various 14 25 11 70 56 Windsor I Healdsburg Transfer 31 42 11 ( 54 23 * Distance measured from Transfer Station of origin for jurisdictions which utilize a Transfer Station, and distance measured from City Hall (or equivalent) for Jurisdictions which direct -haul materials to the Central Compost Site. Distance measured from General Services office for Sonoma County. Tables 5 and 6 below provide the estimated additional costs required to utilize the Redwood Landfill and Cold Creek Compost facility, respectively. These estimates are based on: ■ The FY 2012-13 overall organics tonnages for each Member Jurisdiction; ■ The additional travel distance determined in Table 4 above; ■ The difference in tipping fees as shown in Table 3 above; and ■ An estimated additional travel cost of $0.40 per ton -mile. TABLE 5 Estimated Additional Costs to Use Redwood Landfill Compost Facility Addl. Additional Overall Distance to Member Transfer Cost Additional Total Organics Redwood Tipping Fee Additional Jurisdiction (at $0.40 per Tons Landfill Cost* ton -mile) Cost (miles) Cloverdale 1 1,611 11 $ 7,087 $ 9,503 ( $ 16,590 �Cotati 1,320 11 $ 5,809 $ 7,790 $ 13,599 Healdsburg 4,292 11 $ 18,887 $ 25,325 $ 44,212 Petaluma 1 13,030 1 -1 ( $ (6,255) $ 76,878 1 $ 70,624 1 Rohnert Park 1 6,063 1 12 $ 28,131 $ 35,770 $ 63,901 Santa Rosa 26,653 ( 11 $ 115,140 $ 157,251 $ 272,391 Sebastopol 2,590 14 $ 14,709 $ 15,279 $ 29,988 Sonoma 6,796 -4 1 $ (10,874) $ 40,097 1 $ 29,224 1 Sonoma County 28,998 11 1 $ 129,910 $ 171,087 $ 300,997 Windsor 5,879 1 11 1 $ 25,870 $ 34,689 $ 60,559 Total) 97,232 1 NIA 1 $ 328,414 ( $ 573,670 1 $ 902,084 1 *Based on overall organics tons and difference in per -ton green waste tipping fees. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 8 of 20 TABLE 6 Estimated Additional Cost to Use Cold Creek Compost Facility Member Jurisdiction l Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Sonoma County 1 Windsor Total Overall Addl. Distance to Additional Additional Total Organics Cold Creek Transfer Cost Tipping Fee Cat per Additional Tons Compost ton -mil ton-mile) Cost* Cost (miles) 1,611 23 $ 14,818 $ (11,967) $ 2,851 1,320 76 $ 40,137 ( $ (9,810) $ 30,327 4,292 23 $ 39,490 1 $ (31,893)1 $ 7,598 13,030 80 ( $ 415,925 1 $ (96,815)1 $ 319,111 6,063 74 $ 178,487 1 $ (45,046) 1 $ 133,441 26,653 60 $ 637,533 ( $ (198,030) $ 439,504 2,590 69 ( $ 71,682 1 $ (19,241) 1 $ 52,440 6,796 ( 78 $ 212,041 1 $ (50,496) $ 161,545 28,998 56 $ 651,869 1 $ (215,453) $ 436,416 5,879 23 $ 54,091 1 $ (43,685) 1 $ 10,407 97,232 ( N/A ( $ 2,316,074 1 $ (722,435) $ 1,593,639 *Based on overall organics tons and difference in per -ton green waste tipping fees. As shown in Table 5, it is projected that customers from all Member Jurisdictions would incur additional costs as a result of utilizing the Redwood Landfill as a composting alternative, due mainly to additional costs incurred from increased tipping fees. As shown in Table 6, it is projected that customers from all Member Jurisdictions would incur additional costs as a result of utilizing the Cold Creek Compost facility as a composting alternative, due mainly to increased transfer costs. In addition, it should be noted that the Redwood Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of only 170 tons per day for compostable materials, as compared to the Central Compost Site's maximum permitted capacity of 612 tons per day and average daily throughput of approximately 300 tons. This means that the Redwood Landfill's current composting operations would not be able to accept the overall compost tonnage from all 10 Member Jurisdictions, based on the Redwood Landfill's current permitted daily capacity. Our review of alternative compost facilities also noted the following with regards to maximum daily facility throughput: The closest active compost facility with a permitted daily throughput that is equal or greater to the Central Compost Site (300 average daily throughput tons) is the Potrero Hills Composting Facility in Suisun City. This facility is located approximately 56 miles from the Central Disposal Site, and has a maximum permitted throughput of 320 tons per day and a tipping fee of $53.00 per ton, which is much higher than the Central Compost Site's current tipping fee of $34.10. ■ The compost facility in the surrounding area with the largest daily capacity is the Jepson Prairie Organic Composting Facility at Hay Road in Vacaville. This facility has a maximum permitted throughput of 750 tons per day, and is located approximately 73 miles from the Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 9 of 20 Central Disposal Site. The Jepson Prairie facility has a tipping fee of $32.75, which is slightly lower than the Central Compost Site's current tipping fee of $34.10. It should also be noted that, in the event that an alternative composting site were to be utilized, Member Jurisdictions may be required to modify their exclusive garbage haulers' franchise agreements in order to allow for delivery of materials to an alternate facility. Findings The Central Compost Site represents a County -wide composting solution and is favorably located for the majority of Member Jurisdictions. Based on our review, R3 believes that the use of alternative composting facilities is not a favorable option for Member Jurisdictions, with the possible exception of Member Jurisdictions that utilize the Healdsburg Transfer Station, which may be able to utilize the Cold Creek Compost facility in Mendocino County at a reduced cost. All other Member Jurisdictions would require additional funding to cover increased tipping fees and/or transfer distances in order to utilize any out -of -County compost sites. Specifically, the Member Jurisdictions' franchised hauler costs would increase as a result of: ■ Increased cost required to use transfer stations / transfer vehicles; and ■ (Potential) increased organ ics/compostable material tipping fees. In addition, the Member Jurisdictions' current participation in the Agency's Composting/Organics program grants them the added value of receiving compost and mulch products free of charge. Assigning the operations of the Central Compost Site to an alternative operator (i.e., an operator other than Sonoma Compost) would require a competitive bidding process and may require a "flow control" agreement with the Member Jurisdictions in order to guarantee that a certain quantity of organics tonnage is consistently delivered to the facility. It is unlikely that such a competitive process would result in lower organics tipping fees, as the Central Compost Site already has one of the lower tipping fees in the region. Therefore, procuring an alternative operator, or changing the current owner/operator/management relationship of the Central Compost Site, would most likely not result in any significant cost reduction. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Current Activities The Agency operates a Toxics Collection Facility at the Central Disposal Site through Clean Harbors Environmental Services, and conducts weekly Community Toxic Collection Events and monthly Community E -Waste Collection Events. In addition, the Agency partners with two used oil collection locations, and offers a "Toxic Rover" on-call pickup program. Member Jurisdiction residents and business dispose of HHW materials through these services free of charge, with the exception of the Toxic Rover service which has a fee of $50 per pickup (or free for seniors over 80 and housebound residents). In FY 2012-13, over 24,000 residents/businesses participated in the Agency's HHW programs by using the Toxics Collection Facility and related programs. The Agency's actual HHW program costs (including related Agency administrative expenses) allocated to each Member Jurisdiction for FY 2012-13 are provided in Table 7, and participation levels by Member Jurisdiction are provided in Table 8. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 10 of 20 TABLE 7 FY 2012-13 HHW Program Costs by Member Jurisdiction Member Agency HHW % of Total Jurisdiction Progam Costs Cloverdale $ 14,650 1 % Cotati ( $ 53,495 3% Healdsburg $ 30,029 2% Petaluma $ 359,084 23% Rohnert Park $ 132,908 8% Santa Rosa $ 513,205 ( 32% Sebastopol $ 191,640 12% Sonoma ( $ 58,466 4% Sonoma County $ 189,717 ( 12% Windsor 1 $ 49,849 1 3% Total $ 1,593,043 1 100% Member Jurisdiction Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol 1 Sonoma Sonoma County Windsor Total TABLE 8 FY 2012-13 HHW Program Participation HHW % of Total Population Participants (2010 Census) 221 807 453 5,417 2,005 7,742 2,891 882 2,862 752 24,032 * Participation Rate = Census) 1% 3% 2% 23% 8% 32% 12% 4% 12% 3% 100% HHW Participants 8,618 7,265 11,254 57,941 40,971 167,815 7,379 10,648 145,186 26,801 483,878 divided by Participation Rate` 3% 11% 4% 9% 5% 5% 39% 8% 2% 3% 5% Population (2010 3 Actual expense total for FY 12-13 (as shown inmost recent Agency budget) including associated Agency administrative expenses, allocated to Member Jurisdictions based on % of total HHW program users in each jurisdiction (as provided by Agency). Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 11 of 20 As shown, the Agency's HHW program costs vary by Jurisdiction, based on the number of actual HHW program participants. Of the total Agency HHW program costs provided in Table 7, approximately $1.1 million (69%) are costs associated with HHW contract services (Clean Harbors Environmental Services), while the remaining costs represent Agency administrative and office expenses. As shown in Table 8, Member Jurisdictions that are closer in proximity to the Toxics Collection Facility generally have higher rates of HHW program participation. Specifically, the City of Cloverdale, Town of Windsor and unincorporated Sonoma County have the lowest participation rates, with approximately 3%. The City of Sebastopol has the highest HHW participation rate at 39%. The Member Jurisdiction with the next highest participation rate is the City of Cotati, with a rate 11%.4 Based on the total HHW costs of $1,593,043 and total participants of 24,032, the Agency's HHW program cost for FY 2012-13 was approximately $66.29 per user, which includes Agency administrative expenses related to the HHW program. Not including Agency administrative expenses (i.e., including only the cost of HHW contract services), the calculated cost for FY 2012- 13 would be approximately $45.49 per user. However, because the HHW program is funded primarily through the Agency's $5.95 per ton surcharge collected at the Central Disposal site, Member Jurisdictions do not pay any more or less based on their level of HHW participation. Therefore, the Member Jurisdictions located closer to the Toxics Collection Facility essentially receive greater value from the HHW program than Member Jurisdictions located farther from the facility, due to their increased levels of participation. Potential Alternatives The majority of Jurisdictions contacted by R3 did not express interest in assuming responsibility for their own local HHW collection programs. The Cities of Santa Rosa and Petaluma, however, did express interest in exploring alternative HHW program possibilities, such as: (1) having the City contract directly for HHW services with a vendor; (2) contracting for HHW services through their franchised hauler; or (3) forming a working group with other local Jurisdictions to arrange for HHW services. While these options are feasible, R3 does not believe that the same level of HHW services could realistically be provided at a lower cost than that currently provided by the Agency. The current market cost for HHW collection using a third -party vendor is approximately $120 per pickup, which is 81% greater than the Agency's current cost of $66.29 per user. Table 9 below provides the estimated HHW cost to each Member Jurisdiction, assuming a number of pickups equal to current overall participation levels at $120 per pickup using a third -party vendor. 4 Participation Rate = HHW Participants divided by Population (2010 Census) Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 12 of 20 TABLE 9 Estimated Annual HHW Costs at $120 per Pickup Member Current Agency HHW Costs at Jurisdiction HHW Progam $120 per Pickup % of Total Costs Cloverdale $ 14,650 $ 26,520 1 % Cotati $ 53,4951 $ 96,840 3% Healdsburg $ 30,029 1 $ 54,360 2% Petaluma 1 $ 359,084 1 $ 650,040 23% Rohnert Park $ 132,908 ( $ 240,600 8% Santa Rosa ( $ 513,205 1 $ 929,040 32% Sebastopol $ 191,640 1 $ 346,920 12% Sonoma 1 $ 58,4661 $ 105,840 1 4% Sonoma County $ 189,717 1 $ 343,440 12% Windsor $ 49,8491 $ 90,240 3% Total $ 1,593,043 1 $ 2,883,840 100% As shown, at a rate of $120 per pickup and assuming current levels of participation, the City of Santa Rosa's HHW collections would require total annual funding of approximately $929,000, as compared to the Agency's current HHW program costs of approximately $513,000 for the City of Santa Rosa. Similarly, the City of Petaluma's HHW collections would require total funding of approximately $650,000 at a rate of $120 per pickup, as compared to the Agency's current HHW program costs of approximately $359,000 for the City of Petaluma. It should also be noted that, unless a new HHW collections facility was sited and built by one of the Member Jurisdictions, residents and businesses would experience a significant loss of convenience due to a reduction in HHW collection service options. As stated previously, the Agency currently offers the following HHW processing options: ■ Drop-offs at collection facility; ■ Weekly toxic collection events and monthly E -Waste collection events; and ■ On-call "Toxic Rover" pickups. In order to offer the same level of service which the Agency currently provides, Member Jurisdictions would be required to site and build a new HHW collections facility, and contract with their franchised garbage haulers to provide periodic local collection events. Because the franchised haulers are not licensed to collect HHW, the haulers would have to in turn contract with a third -party vendor to provide the services. A new HHW drop-off facility could easily require three or more years to establish, and would require substantial funding from rate payers in order to provide for facility siting, environmental review and construction. As an example, the City of Elk Grove (approximately 8% less in population size compared to Santa Rosa) recently established an HHW facility over the course of approximately four years at a total cost of $4.6 million. This requires ratepayer funding of an approximately $1.26 Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 13 of 20 per month rate increase. Elk Grove will charge $75.00 per occurrence for non -Elk Grove residents that use the center. Findings The Agency's HHW collection program provides multiple service options for residents and businesses at relatively low cost per user. If any of the Member Jurisdictions were to contract for HHW services through their franchised hauler or an outside vendor, costs would be expected to increase significantly and residents and businesses would lose the additional convenience of having a local drop-off facility and periodic collection events. It appears that Member Jurisdictions located closer to the Agency's Toxics Collection Facility have higher participation rates in the HHW program, and as such the Agency should explore the possibility of establishing a satellite HHW collection facility in the northern area of the County so that Member Jurisdictions benefit more equally from this program. However, it should be noted that the Agency may incur significant additional costs in establishing a satellite HHW facility, and additional costs may be required in the event that Member Jurisdictions are required to update their Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) planning documents. Education and Outreach Current Activities Education and outreach programs provided by the Agency include: ■ Organizing and coordinating County -wide education efforts; ■ Publishing an annual "Recycling Guide"; ■ Maintaining the Agency's website at www.recvclenow.ora; ■ Answering questions via the "Eco -desk" telephone and email address; ■ Attending and staffing booths at local events such as fairs, symposiums, farmers' markets and conferences; ■ Home composting education by UC Cooperative Extension; ■ Used Motor Oil/Filter Recycling education; ■ Spanish Language Outreach (all Agency education programs have English and Spanish language components); and ■ Mandatory Commercial Outreach (MCR) program — includes database that lists the commercial entities in Sonoma County subject to State recycling requirements. The Agency's actual Education and Outreach program costs allocated to each Member Jurisdiction for FY 2012-13 are provided in Table 10 below. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 14 of 20 TABLE 10 FY 2012-13 Education and Outreach Program Costs by Member Jurisdictions As shown, the Agency's Education and Outreach function required a total of $337,594 in program costs in FY 2012-13. This total includes all educational materials and associated Agency administrative costs (staff time). A breakdown of the total $337,594 in Agency Education and Outreach program costs is provided in Table 11 below. s Actual expense total for FY 12-13 (as shown inmost recent Agency budget) including associated Agency administrative expenses, allocated to Member Jurisdictions based on % of total Recycling Guide, Eco - desk, web, and events services in each Member Jurisdiction. Agency Member Education & /o o of Total Jurisdiction Outreach Program Costs Cloverdale $ 12,817 4% Cotati ( $ 3,825 1 % �Healdsburg $ 14,135 4% Petaluma $ 37,877 11% Rohnert Park ( $ 29,710 9% Santa Rosa $ 152,021 45% Sebastopol 1 $ 21,642 1 6% (Sonoma $ 29,188 9% f Sonoma County $ 22,939 7% Windsor $ 13,439 1 4% Total ( $ 337,594 1 100% As shown, the Agency's Education and Outreach function required a total of $337,594 in program costs in FY 2012-13. This total includes all educational materials and associated Agency administrative costs (staff time). A breakdown of the total $337,594 in Agency Education and Outreach program costs is provided in Table 11 below. s Actual expense total for FY 12-13 (as shown inmost recent Agency budget) including associated Agency administrative expenses, allocated to Member Jurisdictions based on % of total Recycling Guide, Eco - desk, web, and events services in each Member Jurisdiction. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 15 of 20 TABLE 11 FY 2012-13 Education and Outreach Program Cost Breakdown Description Cost % of Total Communication Charges $540 0% Liability Insurance $1,292 0% PG&E Grant Expenditures $42,067 12% Office Expenses' $15,149 4% 1 MCR Program Staffing $28,556 8% County Services $3,566 1 % Contract Servicesz $20,438 ( 6% Admin Costs3 ( $187,206 55% 1 Legal Services $23,454 7% Accounting Charges 1 $1,832 ( 1% JAnnual Audit Cost $3,000 1% (Building/Booth Rentals $8,243 2% (ISD (Computer) Charges $1,797 1% Computer Replacement Fund Allocation $454 0% Total $337,5941 100% ' Includes expenses shared with other Agency programs. 2 Includes Recycle Guide cover art, proofreading, inclusion in Yellow Pages, and Spanish language outreach agreement with C2 Alternatives. 3 Includes one Agency Education Program Manager, event staffing, and non -Agency County staff time billed to the Agency by Sonoma County. Potential Alternatives The majority of Jurisdictions contacted by R3 did not express interest in assuming responsibility for additional Education and Outreach programs. The Cities of Petaluma and Santa Rosa, however, did express interest in considering additional Education and Outreach functions using City staff and their franchised hauler for assistance. If Member Jurisdictions were to provide for alternative education and outreach services through their franchised haulers, this may result in a loss of consistency in County -wide education efforts. In addition, residents and businesses would no longer have access to the Agency's annual Recycling Guide, and would not be able to contact the Agency's "Eco -Desk" telephone number or email address. To comply with State mandate AB 341 (Mandatory Multi -Family and Commercial Recycling), Member Jurisdictions would be required to develop a system for ongoing monitoring of recycling participation among multi -family residences and businesses. A stated above, the Agency currently provides this monitoring service in the form of a Mandatory Commercial Outreach database that lists the commercial entities in Sonoma County subject to State recycling requirements. The City of Sonoma may be the most susceptible to losses of educational consistency, as a result of having a unique franchised hauler that is not part of the Ratto Group of Companies, which provides franchised collection services to the other Member Jurisdictions. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 16 of 20 Findings The Agency's Education and Outreach services provide regional uniformity in terms of recycling and waste reduction efforts. For the larger Member Jurisdictions such as Santa Rosa and Petaluma, it is feasible that the Agency's current Education and Outreach services could be provided cost- effectively using a combination of City staff and franchised hauler assistance. However, it is does not appear that any of the other Member Jurisdictions have existing staff resources to support expanded Education and Outreach efforts. Planning and Reporting Current Activities The Agency currently completes all required planning and reporting documents for submission to CalRecycle on behalf of all of the Member Jurisdictions. This includes: ■ Electronic Annual Report (EAR); ■ Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE); ■ Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE); ■ Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE); and ■ Five -Year Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) Additional Agency reports also come from the HHW program, including an HHW annual report, E - Waste annual report and others. The Agency's actual Planning and Reporting costs allocated to each Member Jurisdiction for FY 2012-13 are provided in Table 12 below. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 17 of 20 TABLE 12 FY 2012-13 Planning and Reporting Costs by Member Jurisdictions Potential Alternatives The majority of Jurisdictions contacted by R3 did not express interest in assuming responsibility for the Planning and Reporting services currently provided by the Agency. The Cities of Petaluma and Santa Rosa, however, did express interest in completing the required Planning and Reporting functions. The City of Santa Rosa stated that they could fulfill this function using existing staff, while the City of Petaluma stated that an additional half-time staff member may be required to complete the function. If the individual Member Jurisdictions were to begin providing their own planning documents and reports, some Member Jurisdictions would be affected more than others. Larger Jurisdictions may be able to address the planning and reporting workload with existing staff, while smaller Jurisdictions would be required to take on new solid waste management staff (estimated between one half-time and one full-time position). Member Jurisdictions would be required to complete CalRecyle's Electronic Annual Report (EAR) each year, and each Jurisdiction would initially be required to complete a Base Year Study. Currently the Agency completes one EAR each year for all Member Jurisdictions as a whole. In addition, it should be noted that if any jurisdictions were to opt out of the current regional reporting agency (as recognized by CalRecycle), all Member Jurisdictions would incur additional costs in order to complete required new "base year" waste generation studies, and additional waste tracking methods would need to be implemented at regional facilities in order to identify tonnages received from each jurisdiction. s Actual expense total for FY 12-13 (as shown in most recent Agency budget), allocated evenly to each Member Jurisdiction (each Member Jurisdiction receives substantially the same Planning and Reporting services regardless of size). Agency Member Planning & Jurisdiction Reporting Program Costs Cloverdale $ 2,810 Cotati $ 2,810 Healdsburg $ 2,810 Petaluma $ 2,810 Rohnert Park $ 2,810 Santa Rosa ( $ 2,810 Sebastopol $ 2,810 Sonoma $ 2,810 f Sonoma County $ 2,810 Windsor 1 $ 2,810 Total 1 $ 28,096 Potential Alternatives The majority of Jurisdictions contacted by R3 did not express interest in assuming responsibility for the Planning and Reporting services currently provided by the Agency. The Cities of Petaluma and Santa Rosa, however, did express interest in completing the required Planning and Reporting functions. The City of Santa Rosa stated that they could fulfill this function using existing staff, while the City of Petaluma stated that an additional half-time staff member may be required to complete the function. If the individual Member Jurisdictions were to begin providing their own planning documents and reports, some Member Jurisdictions would be affected more than others. Larger Jurisdictions may be able to address the planning and reporting workload with existing staff, while smaller Jurisdictions would be required to take on new solid waste management staff (estimated between one half-time and one full-time position). Member Jurisdictions would be required to complete CalRecyle's Electronic Annual Report (EAR) each year, and each Jurisdiction would initially be required to complete a Base Year Study. Currently the Agency completes one EAR each year for all Member Jurisdictions as a whole. In addition, it should be noted that if any jurisdictions were to opt out of the current regional reporting agency (as recognized by CalRecycle), all Member Jurisdictions would incur additional costs in order to complete required new "base year" waste generation studies, and additional waste tracking methods would need to be implemented at regional facilities in order to identify tonnages received from each jurisdiction. s Actual expense total for FY 12-13 (as shown in most recent Agency budget), allocated evenly to each Member Jurisdiction (each Member Jurisdiction receives substantially the same Planning and Reporting services regardless of size). Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 18 of 20 As an alternative to the Agency's Planning and Reporting function, Member Jurisdictions would be required to develop (or update if possible)' the following planning documents for submission to CalRecycle: ■ Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE); ■ Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE); and ■ Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE). In addition, the County of Sonoma would be required to develop a Five -Year Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) for submission CalRecyle every five years which includes: ■ The SRRE for each Jurisdiction; ■ The HHWE for each Jurisdiction; ■ The NDFE for each Jurisdiction; ■ Countywide Siting Element (SE) (for County as a whole); and ■ Summary Plan (SP) (for County as a whole). If assistance is required from third -party contractors, the following estimated costs would apply: ■ CalRecycle Annual Report preparation: $5,000—$15,000 per Jurisdiction (depending on size); ■ Base Year Study: $20,000—$40,000 per Jurisdiction (depending on size); ■ Updated planning documents (SRRE, HHWE, NDFE): $15,000—$100,000 per Jurisdiction (depending on size); and ■ Updated CIWMP: $20,000—$30,000. Findings The Agency's current Planning/Reporting function is very cost-effective. Rather than requiring each individual Member Jurisdiction to provide planning documents and annual reports to CalRecycle, the Agency can complete the planning and reporting requirements for all Member Jurisdictions as a whole. This greatly reduces the collective reporting workload of the County and its Member Jurisdictions. In addition, if any jurisdictions were to opt out of the current regional reporting agency (as recognized by CalRecycle), all Member Jurisdictions would incur additional costs in order to complete required new "base year" waste generation studies, and additional waste tracking methods would need to be implemented to support the change. As such, R3 does not recommend eliminating the Agency's Planning and Reporting function. Original Planning Documents would be required for the Town of Windsor and unincorporated Sonoma County (i.e., Windsor was previously unincorporated, and Sonoma County's Planning Documents included unincorporated Windsor). Other Jurisdictions may have suitable Planning Documents already, but those will need to be updated. Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 19 of 20 Overall Findings Table 13 below provides each Member Jurisdiction's surcharge contributions (i.e., user fees) as compared to the Agency's total program costs for FY 2012-13. TABLE 13 FY 2012-13 Surcharge Contributions and Agency Program Costs (as reported by Agency) -,- o C O O O O '+� N Ih O co 0) M 00 O t-- 00 O) 0 O II O aI CO N O) M 0 O N O) O M C C O > N U) v a) a) ( co (n to '� U). Z 64 Efi Eft Eft 69 ui 63 64 63 (fl V) - (n II 4- IT 9 E O O V t- V' 00 V O 0) (D V' V• O (0 (0 t- (n U U a) •E W y to CM O O N N r 00 N cl O) O 0) a E N {' 3 a) (1 O W M M tl- M V' M N (n Mn 0 N C Q > M M (n O O W M CO (D Ntj d" CD N N O (O U a) +LL -,) N O U 0 a) a) o a Q } CO EFi 64 63 EfT 64 69 63 Eft UT Eft UT Q Q U N a) O U a) >. C C (6 0- r- ti W t- O M 00 M O ti 00 O O > O O C "O y C (D 00 M d' M N t-- (n 0 M O a) C a) V O 0O O 't' 00 N ti ti CO CO N -O -O a O O v E f+t r 000Mr�tWM'T — O a) 111 O N c) T O a) R o Q ns m O o c a) > L) 69 61k (fl 60- H -T 64 (A Eft Eft 64 EFT T a) N0 70 O) O) O) -a O C a) 0000000000 IS a o E 06 p) OC 00 00 M W OC0O CO 00M 0 -O � � C � C 2 C N N N N N N N CV N N W > U U •� C O 0 •C N2 N Q a) a) -O a) a) n C O U J L 64 64 69 ER 6'T Wt 69 (FT 64 Eft 64 N 0 O O ti N (n t- O N 00 O) O) 't in a) (n C (n E .O O 00 N 0. O t O 0 N co r- N IT c0 co co 0 oO OJ CO O (D (A 'T Lr O E O — O E N C) i N O 0 •d M M N u N N � M fl -C C C C N _ =i IT Q O 0 LU KT 69 64 HT (FT VY 69691 64 64 EFT — -0 ._ = U ( L U) O -r- Q U) M C W 'O O C (n - • 0 0 N _ 'a I 00 (f) O (O ti M M O() 0t' (n 0 N 00 O O V' CD 'c - � E •n (0 A5(� W a) to > SL 0 O 0' N � U) (D 0 0 0) N (D V_ ti 0O C a) a) C O N O O= O= -z M O M N M W M O M r ((7 M (!� 0 (f') M 0 O M U i ('7 -O CO i C i -0 6g (6 E (n N .M- C0 In Ln C (6 0 N a a) M } LL 0W f C >, CU LL ("n LL U ) _ _ C O O � O Y O "� C O a) E 69 fFT ER 63 Eft 64 69 (FT (ft 64 69T O a) 0 0 — O 0 O o >, 0 N 0) h V O (n CO N V' CO O (EQ O O 42 _M ti O N N ti in tl_ 0 0 O M O CO N �t O O ti O) 0 0 a)10- 'O t- N 00 (n O M co (D 0cu (nn C (On W W C C a) cd 7 M N CO N M (n (D (n t-- r- U aa)) 0 to 0 70 W 0 t N .- (D co (0 >O_ X> X O CI5; CL -0 F W a) 2 0 o o m SZ N (/1o O :3 :3 :50 :3 ti C V 64 EAU) b369, EA EFT 09, EfT Eft GaZ Q Q Q Q Q O 4 m U L7 W O C h0 v a) 2) m vim) U CL o_ '� n E e 02 o (a a) o E E ._ a) w to > ca C c o o-0 m o o a) o M a) 0 0 U U 2 d- elf (n (n () U) Mr. Henry J. Mikus May 13, 2014 Page 20 of 20 Based on the financial data in Table 13 above, it does appear that some Member Jurisdictions are receiving Agency services valued greater than their surcharge contributions, while other Member Jurisdictions are receiving Agency services which are valued as less than their surcharge contributions. For example, the City of Sebastopol received services valued at approximately $159,000 in FY 2012-13, as compared to Sebastopol's surcharge contributions of only $58,000 for that same time period. During the same fiscal year, the City of Healdsburg received services valued at approximately $50,000 while contributing over $82,000 in surcharges. This does not necessarily mean, however, that certain Member Jurisdictions could realize overall cost savings by pursuing alternative services to those provided by the Agency. The total surcharge amount paid to the Agency by customers/ratepayers in each Jurisdiction is based on the amount of garbage tons landfilled by the Jurisdiction at the Central Disposal Site and transfer stations. However, based on the information provided in Table 13 above, Member Jurisdictions which dispose more tons do not necessarily receive a greater level of service from the Agency's four core programs. For example, the Agency's administrative costs for Planning and Reporting services are similar for each Member Jurisdiction, regardless of tonnage quantities, and HHW program costs for each Member Jurisdiction are greater for Member Jurisdictions located closer to the Toxics Collection Facility. Therefore, R3 recommends that the Agency and Member Jurisdictions explore alternative surcharge structures to provide for more even benefits to all Member Jurisdictions. It should also be noted that the Agency's current surcharge structure would most likely need to be revised in the event of any programmatic changes, or in the event that any Member Jurisdictions choose to pursue alternative programs to those provided by the Agency. JPA Comparison Attachment A provides additional information regarding various Joint Powers Authorities with solid waste management functions in Northern California. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to the Agency. Please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (916) 782-7821, or by email at rterwin a r3cgi.com, if you have any questions regarding this submittal. Yours truly, R3 CONSULTING GROUP INC. Richard Tagore-Erwin Principal R:\Projects\Sonoma County -Program Review 114009\Report\FINAL SCWMA Letter Report 051314.doc 'These include dedicated sources of revenue. Revenue received through various grant programs Is not listed, however most JPA's receive some funding through grants. Page 1 of 3 Attachment A Northern California Solid Waste Management Authorities Name of Authority Marin Hazardous and Western Placer Sonoma County Salinas Valley Humboldt Waste Del Norte Solid Monterey Central Contra South Bayside West Contra Solid Waste JPA County Waste Waste Solid Waste Management Waste Regional Waste Costa Solid Waste Waste Management Costa Solid - Management Management Authority Authority Management Management Authority Authority Waste Authority Item Authority Agency Authority Authority Member City of Belvedere Lincoln Cloverdale City of Salinas City of Eureka Crescent City Carmel -by -the -Sea Town of Danville Atherton EI Cerrito Agencies Town of Corte Madera Rocklin Cotati City of Gonzales City of Arcata County of Del Norte Del Rey Oaks City of Lafayette Belmont Hercules Town of Fairfax Roseville Healdsburg City of Greenfield City of Blue Lake Marina Town of Moraga Burlingame Pinole City of Larkspur County of Placer Petaluma City of King City of Rio Del Monterey City of Orinda East Palo Alto Richmond City of Mlti Valley Auburn Rohnert Park City of Soledad City of Femdale Pacific Grove City of Walnut Foster City San Pablo City of Novato Loomis Santa Rosa County of County of Sand City Creek Hillsborough Contra Costa Town of Ross Sebastopol p Monterey (South) Humboldt Contra Costa Menlo Park County west ty (west) Tom of San Anselmo City of Sonoma County of Monterey County County (east) Redwood City City of San Rafael Windsor (North) San Carlos Town of Tiburon County of City of San Mateo County of Marin Sonoma County of San Mateo West Bay Sanitary District Board Members One member per 2—County of Placer One member per 3—City of One member per 2—Board of One member per 12 Total One member per 3—Richmond jurisdiction — Either an t — Lincoln jurisdiction — an Salinas jurisdiction — an Supervisors jurisdiction — an 2 perjurisdiction— jurisdiction. 1 -member per elected official or 1 _Rocklin elected official or 2 — County of elected official or 2—City Council elected official or an elected official or Position is fired by: jurisdiction — Member Agency staff. 1 — Roseville appointee Monterey appointee 1—Public member appointee appointee City Manager, 1—Coun of County Auburn & Loomis — 1 — each Asst. City Manager, Contra Costa non vofing members City of Gonzales Executive Finance Director, or (non-voting) City of Greenfield Committee consists Public Works Members are an City of King of City & County Managers from Director. elected official or City of Soledad each jurisdiction. No elected officials. appointee Voting Process One vote per member One vote per One vote per One vole per One vote per One vote per One vote per One vote per One vote per member One vote per member member member member member member member member except County seat Residential / Commercial 70,400 / 86,000/ 130,000! 48,0001 40,000/ 10,0001 47,000/ 62,0001 86,000/ 25,000/ Accounts 5,800 20,000 13,000 5,000 5,000 1,100 6,200 3,000 10,000 5,000 (approx) AB 939 Reporting Regional Authority No Regional Individual Individual Regional Authority Individual Individual Individual Individual Authority Jurisdictions Jurisdictions Jurisdictions Jurisdictions Jurisdicfions Jurisdictions Source of Revenue Tipping Fees and grants Ti in Fees pP 0 Tipping Fees pP 9 Tipping Fees Ti Tipping Fees Franchise Fees Tipping Fees Franchise Fees &e Receding Revenu Tipping fees Tipping Fees 'These include dedicated sources of revenue. Revenue received through various grant programs Is not listed, however most JPA's receive some funding through grants. Page 1 of 3 member agencies Page 2 of 3 Attachment A Northern California Solid Waste Management Authorities Name of Authority Marin Hazardous and Western placer Sonoma County Salinas Valley Humboldt Waste Del Norte Solid Monterey Central Contra South Bayside West Contra Solid Waste JPA CountyWaste Waste Solid Waste Management Waste Regional Waste Costa Solid Waste Waste Manageent m Costa Solid Management Management Authority Authority Management Management Authority Authority Waste Authority Item Authorhv Acencv Authority Authority Agency Staff Program Manager and Assigned from Director and Staff Director and Staff Director and Staff Director and Staff General Manager Director and Staff Director and Staff (6) Director and Staff (# of full time staff (5) I County Solid Waste (6) I (22) (27) (8) and Staff (over (4) I (6) staff) Department (7) 100) Staff Employer I Contracted from County I Waste I Contracted from Waste Authority Waste Authority Waste Authority Waste Waste Authority Waste I Waste Authority And, County Authority Auihorfly Publicly OvmedI t — Landfill Facilities None None 4—Transfer None None None None None None None Stations Issue Revenue I No I Yes I No I Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ( Yes Bonds Facilities Owned None 1—Landfill 3—Landfills 1—Landfill t — Transfer Station 1—Landfill t—Buy Back& 1—Transfer Station 1—Landfill by Waste 1—MRF 3— Transfer 2— Transfer 1—HHW Facility, i—MRF Drop oft Center 1—MRF (closed) Authority i — HHW Facility None Stations Stafions (all on same site) t — HHW Facility 1 —Green Waste 1 — HHW facility 1 — Composting 1 -HHW i —HHW t —Composting Drop off (all on same site (all on same site) 1 - Composfing (all on same site) I — HHW Facility Public & Agency None Contracted By County and Contracted Waste Authority Waste Authority Operated by Waste Private Contracted Contracted Ovmed Private operators staff staff Authority staff Facility Operations Privately Owned None None MRF's Transfer Station, t — MRF i -MRF 2 -Transfer 2—Landfills 1—Landfill 2—Transfer Facilities MRF& 1—C8D Station, 5—Transfer Stations Composting 1 - MRF & StationsURF 1 — FARF 1 - Composfing 2— Composting I—HHW Facility 1 —Composfing (all on same site) Facility Designation No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Flow Controp Rate No; Approved by Review& Review& Setting/Approval I Member Agencies Recommend Rates, No I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recommend Rates, Yes roved b member y approved by member :pp gencies gendas Rales for Vary basedon service Vary based on Vary based on Member requirements of service I I service requirements I Agencies member agencies Same requirements of Equalized Equalized Same Same Same of member agencies Same member agencies Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Northern California Solid Waste Management Authorities ' Nameot Authority Marin Hazardous and Western Placer Sonoma County Salinas Valley Humboldt Waste Del Norte Solid Monterey Central Contra South Bayside West Contra Solid Waste JPA County Waste Waste Solid Waste Management Waste Regional Waste Costa Solid Waste Waste Management I Costa Solid I Management Management Authority Authority Management Management Authority Authority Waste Authority Item Authority Agency Authority Authodtv Closure & Post Closure Monitoring & No Yes I County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No I Yes Maintenance Solid Waste Planning Yes Yes I Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes I Yes Public Education Some; most done by & Outreach Member Agency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes haulers Enter Into Collection No Yes No No I No No No Yes Negotiale — Approved No Franchise by member agencies Agreements Enter into I Facility Operating No Yes Yes I Yes Operated by Yes Operated by Yes Yes Yes Agreements Authority Authority Enter into Operated by Disposal Agreements No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Authority Yes Yes Yes Enter into Processing No Yes I Yes No No Yes Operated by I Yes Yes I Yes Agreements Authority Permanent HHW Facility in region Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pro HHW Program I Yes Yes Yes I Yes Yes Operated by I I Operaled by Yes Yes Yes Mena Authority Authority Enter into HHW Operating I Yes I Yes Yes I Yes Operated by Yes I Operated by Yes Yes Yes Agreements Authority Authodty Page 3 of 3