HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill Presentation 11/15/2010� nit
h
DATE: November 15, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation on the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive the presentation on the status of the Sonoma
County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG), and on its priorities and objectives for
implementing a regional long -term solid waste option, and provide feedback as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors formed the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory
Group (SWAG) last December, to develop a regional long -term solid waste strategy. The group
consists of representatives of Sonoma County and its incorporated cities. Councilmember Renee
represents Petaluma; Mayor Torliatt serves as her alternate. The Group is chaired by Supervisor
Zane and supported by County Public Works staff.
DISCUSSION
At a facilitated discussion conducted at the SWAG's September 20, 2010 meeting the group
developed conceptual priorities and objectives. These priorities and objectives have already been,
or will be presented to each City Council, to allow each Council the opportunity to ask questions
and provide comment. Following the scheduled presentation, your Council will have the
opportunity to provide feedback, as appropriate, to its SWAG representatives.
The attached materials provide an update on the SWAG's activities, its rules of governance, and the
conceptual priorities and objectives to be discussed at your November 15, 2010 meeting.
FINANCIAL. IMPACTS
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. SWAG background materials
Agenda Review:
City Attorney Finance Director
City Manag
I
AGENDA TITLE:
Sonoma City /County Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Seek concurrence from the city on SWAG's priorities and objectives for
developing a regional long -term solid waste option.
BACKGROUND:
Creation of SWAG
On December 8, 2009, the County Board of Supervisors approved the formation
of a regional advisory group for the expressed purpose of developing a long -term
Solid Waste strategy. On December 17, 2009, the Board Chair sent letters to
each of the City Mayors inviting their participation and asking each Council to
appoint a representative and an alternate member.
As a precursor to the first advisory group meeting g special study session was
convened by the Mayors' and Council Members' Association of Sonoma County
on January 22, 2010. This study session provided an opportunity to discuss solid
waste history, future challenges and possibilities as well as the framework for
developing a regional strategy.
Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group
C/O County of Sonoma Department of Transportation and Public Works
2300 County Center Drive, Suite B100
Santa Rosa, California 95403
Phone: (707) 565 -2231 Fax: (707) 565 -2620
http:// superx,isors. sonoina- county. org ,lboard.s_and_cominissions.aspx
The first meeting of the SWAG was held on February 22, 2010. The meetings
are chaired by Board Supervisor Shirlee Zane and are Co- Chaired by
Councilmember Gary Wysocky, Santa Rosa, and Steve Barbose, Sonoma.
The voting members and alternatives include:
County of Sonoma — Supervisor Shirlee Zane
County of Sonoma — Supervisor Efren Carrillo
City of Sonoma — Mayor Steve Barbose , Alt. Laurie Gallian
City of Healdsburg - Councilmember Jim Wood, Alt. Tom Chambers
City of Santa Rosa — Councilmember Gary Wysocky, Alt. Marsha Vas Dupre
City of Cotati — Councilmember Susan Harvey, Alt. Mark Landman
City of Rohnert Park — Councilmember Pam Stafford, Alt. Gina Belforte
City of Cloverdale — Councilmember Joe Palla
Town of Windsor — Councilmember Deborah Fudge, Alt. Robin Goble
City of Sebastopol = Mayor Sarah Glade Gurney, Alt. Kathleen Shafer
City of Petaluma — Councilmember Tiffany Renee, Alt Pam Torliatt
The Rules of Governance (Attachment A) were adopted by the SWAG on March
15, 2010 and included both voting protocols as well as Guiding Principles. It is
important to note that the SWAG is a Brown Act noticed advisory committee.
Each jurisdiction continues to maintain their authority and responsibility in making
future solid waste decisions.
Planning Phase
Since March, 2010, the SWAG has been engaged in the planning phase of the
regional strategy development process. This phase has consisted of preparation
of schedules /timelines (Attachment C), education and awareness of
issues /options and the prioritization of the Guiding Principles with definition of
measurable objectives,.
Through facilitated discussion on September 20, 2010 the SWAG developed the
conceptual priorities and measurable objectives for those priorities (Attachment
B). The discussion began with an examination of the Guiding Principles
including the identification of key words that define each of seven principles.
Each of the SWAG members was then asked to independently prioritize each of
the principles by scoring the highest priority with seven points and down to the
lowest priority with one point. In totaling the scores as shown on the attachment,
the SWAG members' highest priority principles included Waste Diversion,
Economic Efficiencies and Local Control. The next activity involved each of the
SWAG members independently identifying a weighted priority in percentages to
each of the seven Guiding Principles. In totaling all the percentage scores as
shown, the SWAG members' not only rated Waste Diversion as the highest
priority but also assigned a much higher weighting than the other principles.
Dividing these totals by the 10 raters provides the average relative weights also
shown on the attached. The last exercise was a group effort in developing
desired objectives for the three priority Guiding 'Principles — Waste Diversion,
Economic Efficiencies and Local Control. These objectives are identified for
each of the two groups as shown on the attached. Each group developed very
similar objectives and can be summarized as follows:
A. . Waste Diversion Objectives
® 80% Diversion by 2015; this can be accomplished by removing organics
from waste stream as° well as thru increased education programs.
® 90% Diversion by.2020; additionally conduct analysis to identify how to get
to 100% Diversion.
® 100% Diversion as Long -term Goal (25 -50 years); may include mining, of
existing recyclable, material currently buried at Central Landfill.
B. Economic Efficiencies
® Develop Upstream Regional Fee System by 2012; fee collection for total
waste services at the "curb" rather than current disposal -based tip fee.
'Regional Fee to allow for maximizing diversion and minimizing costs.
® Re- open /Re- permit Central Landfill; provides revenues for regional
liabilities.
o. New Regional Compost Facility; key for increased diversion of organics.
® Central landfill mining; may provide, additional revenues to ,address
liabilities.
C. Local Control
® Create a Regional Governance model; joint city and county decision -
making body comprised of elected officials.
® Develop Franchise Agreements that reflect the Focal (Regional) priorities.
® Identify and articulate the regional benefits of jurisdictional flow
commitment.
K
r
The next step in the planning phase is to check -in with each of the jurisdictions to .
make sure that the jurisdictions concur with the SWAG's conceptual direction.
Once each city has provided feedback to their SWAG representative, the SWAG
representatives will be asked to vote on the conceptual direction.
A Research Committee comprised of jurisdictional staff, possibly elected officials
and public will be convened to develop waste diversion options consistent with
the SWAG's measurable objectives. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
comprised of City and County staff will also be convened to develop potential
governance options, an upstream fee collection model and an equitable
allocation formula for residual landfill liabilities.
The planning phase will be. concluded by the conceptual selection of a. waste
diversion option or a short list of options by the SWAG with another check -in with
the individual jurisdictions.
Analysis Phase
With the conceptual selection of the waste diversion option(s), the next phase will
involve a third party detailed feasibility analysis.. The TAC will serve as the initial
review body for the analysis of waste diversion options.
The TAC will have also completed analysis of governance options as well as a
construct in moving revenue collections upstream. Upon the completion of
analysis, the TAC will be recommending to the SWAG a waste diversion
strategy, a governance model and a methodology with schedule for moving
revenue collection upstream. The SWAG will be asked to select the long -term
solid waste strategy with another check -in with each of the individual jurisdictions
to make sure they concur with the SWAG direction.
Implementation Phase
The implementation phase will involve establishing the selected governance
model, establishing the selected waste diversion programs /facilities and
establishing the selected upstream revenue collection option.
The implementation phase will also require final approval from the individual
jurisdictions. As part of the approval, jurisdictions would be approving a residual
landfill liability allocation as well as a long =term commitment of waste flow to the
governing agency yet to be determined.
Attachments
SWAG Rules of Governance ..............Attachment A
Results from Facilitated Discussion......Attachment B C
Decisions Making Timeline .................Attachment C �J
Attachment A
KNEES OF GOVERNANCE
ARTICLE I
NAME
This Task Group shall be known as the "Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group" and is a
California `Brown Act' committee formed by the respective legislative acts of the County of
Sonoma, the incorporated cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa
Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Town of Windsor.
ARTICLE II
PURPOSE AND GUIDING PRINCIPALS
Section 1. Purpose
The purpose of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group is to make recommendations
on solid waste system planning and operations, such as, appropriate regional solid waste projects,
priorities, schedules and funding sources to be considered by the Member Jurisdictions. The Task
Group shall develop its recommendations through an open and transparent process which encourages
input, cooperation and coordination with all stakeholders, including: the local task force, the Sonoma
County Waste Management Agency and the public.
Section Z. Guiding Principles
The Guiding Principles of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group are:
a. Local Control: Local decision making bodies retain their - authority to set rates, commit their
waste flow and control their waste management system to meet their respective goals.
b. Regional Services: A multi jurisdictional partnered approach that allows varying levels of
community participation in a solid waste management system. It creates opportunities to
optimize services regionally, including consistency of services and rates, economies of scale,
effective use of sites and facilities, and other community goals.
C. Waste Diversion: To meet and exceed legal mandates by recovery of resources from the
wastestream and reducing dependency on landfilling.
d. Economic Efficiencies: Balancing the achievement of respective community goals while
recognizing the need for responsible fiscal management and fiscal restraints.
e. Reliability: A commitment to provide high - quality, consistent and dependable
long -term waste management services.
I
Attachment A
f. Flexibility: An integrated system that is flexible to:accommodate both advances in
technologies and various levels of jurisdictional participation in system components.
g. Climate Change: A commitment to meet goals established in the Sonoma County
Community Climate Action Plan dated October 2008 for the Solid Waste Sector.
ARTICLE III
MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. Membership
a. The Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall be composed of eleven voting
members which shall consist of one elected city council official from each of the incorporated
cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol,
Sonoma, and Town of Windsor and two board of supervisors from the County of Sonoma
(hereinafter "Member Jurisdictions ").
b. Each City Member Jurisdiction shall appoint an elected official to serve on the Sonoma
County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group, along with a designated alternate, who shall also be an
elected official. The designated alternate shall attend Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory
Group meetings in the event that the appointed Member is unable to attend. It shall be the
responsibility of the appointed Member to inform their designated alternate when they are unable
to attend a meeting of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group. The name of the
alternate shall be on file with the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group .
c. One of the Two County Members shall serve as the Chair of the Sonoma County /City Solid
Waste Advisory Group. The other County Member shall be the alternate Chair when the Chair is
absent.
Section 2. Termination
Membership in the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall cease upon formal action
by the legislative body of the respective Member Jurisdiction terminating that Jurisdiction's
,membership on the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group.
ARTICLE IV
GOVERNANCE
Section 1. Quorum
A simple majority of the Member Jurisdictions shall constitute a quorum at any duly noticed meeting.
Section 2. Voting
2.
Attachment A
The Member Jurisdictions understand that the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group is
only an advisory committee and cannot bind any one jurisdiction if such jurisdiction does not agree
with the recommendation of the Advisory Group. Policy recommendations of the Sonoma
County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall be determined by consensus agreement. whenever
possible. Where consensus is not reached, two or more recommendations shall be identified by the
Advisory Group. If consensus cannot be reached on what recommendations and/or alternatives to be
forwarded to the Member Jurisdictions for their consideration, then the Chair shall call for a final
vote and the policy recommendation that receives a majority of the jurisdictions with a majority of
the population shall be forwarded to the Member Jurisdictions for their consideration. An abstention
shall not be deemed to be either "yes" or "no" vote. When any Member abstains or is disqualified
because of a conflict of interest, that Member shall be deemed absent during consideration of that
matter for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. A Member who abstains for any
other reason shall be considered present for purposes of a quorum.
Section 3. Chair/Vice Chairs
The Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall have a Chair and two Co -Vice Chairs.
One of the two County Members shall be selected as the Chair, with the other County Member
serving as the alternate Chair when the Chair is absent. Two of the 9 city Members shall be selected
as the Co -Vice Chairs. The Chair, or in their absence the alternate Chair, shall preside at all meetings
of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group and he /she shall exercise and perform such
other duties as may be assigned to him /her from time to time by the Sonoma County /City Solid
Waste Advisory Group. In addition, the Chair, the Co -Vice Chairs and the alternate Chair shall be
responsible for the administration of all meetings, including, but not limited to, maintaining order,
agenda facilitation and recognizing speakers, both as to Members of the Sonoma County /City Solid
Waste Advisory Group and members of the public. Other than the selection of the Chair, Co -Vice
Chairs, and alternate Chair there shall be no officers or directors of the Sonoma County /City Solid
Waste Advisory Group.
ARTICLE V
MEETINGS
Section 1. Notice
The Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall hold meetings at times and places to be
determined by the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group. All meetings of the Sonoma
County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall be called, noticed and conducted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.).
Section 2. Agenda
The Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group Chair, Co -Vice Chairs and alternate Chair
shall be responsible for the agenda and shall ensure that all items of interest to the Member
Jurisdictions shall be included in the agenda.
3
0
Attachment A
Section 3. Rules of Order
Except as otherwise provided by law, or these Rules of Governance, Robert's Rules of Order shall be
the parliamentary authority of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group.
Section 4. Meeting Minutes
Action level minutes shall be prepared for each meeting of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste
Advisory Group and provided at the following meeting.
ARTICLE VI
COMMITTEES
The Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group may create and dissolve such advisory
committees as it deems advisable in carrying out its responsibilities. All members of such
committees shall serve at the will and pleasure of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory
Group. Committees may be ad hoc or standing committees.
ARTICLE VII
AMENDMENTS TO RULES
These Rules of Governance may be amended by a majority vote of the full Membership. No such
amendment shall be adopted unless the amendment was first introduced and considered at a prior
meeting of the Sonoma County /City Solid Waste Advisory Group. The amended Rules of
Governance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the "Sonoma County /City Solid Waste
Advisory Group.
Adopted on: March 15, 2010
4
L �yi
Attachment B
Facilitated Discussion on Priorities and Objectives
D
20 September 2010
Examination of Guiding Principles
KEY WORDS
Local Control
• Decision
• Final authority
• Commitment
• Policy & services
Regionnl Services
Cooperation
Fairness
Optimization
• Partnership
• Common goal
Community
approach
Waste Diversion
Practical environmental solutions
Best technology Reduce
Environment
.Beyond.comipliance
Examination of Guiding Principles
KEY WORDS
Economic Efficiencies
• Affordability * Responsible
• Fiscal management * Financial stability
• Money 100% participation
Reliability
Dependable * Success
Consistent * High quality
Essential government function
In front of the curve
Flexibility
• Changeable
• State -of- the -art
• Integrated
Innovation
Adapting
"Non - committal"
Climate Protection
• Future Achievement
• Benchmark Commitment
• Reduce GHG emissions
'10
Rates
Control
Local control
Ownership
• Partnership
• Common goal
Community
approach
Waste Diversion
Practical environmental solutions
Best technology Reduce
Environment
.Beyond.comipliance
Examination of Guiding Principles
KEY WORDS
Economic Efficiencies
• Affordability * Responsible
• Fiscal management * Financial stability
• Money 100% participation
Reliability
Dependable * Success
Consistent * High quality
Essential government function
In front of the curve
Flexibility
• Changeable
• State -of- the -art
• Integrated
Innovation
Adapting
"Non - committal"
Climate Protection
• Future Achievement
• Benchmark Commitment
• Reduce GHG emissions
'10
I
I.
SONOMA COUNTY /CITY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY GROUP
Fadiltated Discussion. Notes
20, September 2011
Guiding Principles
PRIORITIES
Score
Priority
A
Local
58
33
Control
B
I
Regional
39
Services
C
Waste
61
0
Diversion
D
Economic
60
0
Efficiencies
E
Reliability
49
F
Flexibility
25
7❑
G
Ctimate
44
0
Protection
Guiding Principles
/EIGHT
Weight
Rank
A
Local
150
Control
B
Regional
50
Services
C
Waste
275
0
Diversion
D
Economic
225
20
Efficiencies
E
R'eIriab:iIity
95
F
Flexibility
40
7�
G
Cl imate
165
Protection
i
,
SONOMA COUP TTY/CITY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY GROUP
FeciiitAted Dic cussgon Notes
20 September 2011
Ia
6uidiny Principles
RELATIVE WEIGHT*
SWAG Weight Staff Weight
A
Local
15%
25%
Control
B
Regional
5%
8%
Services
C
Waste
28%
20%
Diversion
D
Economic
23%
18%
Efficiencies
E
Reliability
10%
18%
F
Flexibility
4%
3%
G
Climate '
17%
10%
Protection
TOTAL
102 % **
102 % **
This chart created by consultant'based on data from
discussion
**
Exceeds 100% due to rounding
Ia
li
SONOMA COUNTY /CITY SOLID>WASTE ADVISORY GROUP
Faciliitated Discussii ®n Notes
20 September 20.11
Desired Objectives /Ends
WASTE DIVERSION
Group 1
Objective 1
80 Diversion by 2015
90 Diversion by 2020
.100% Diversion by 2025
Objective 2
By 2020 conduct an analysis to
identify what it would take. to get to
100% (residual markets)
Desired Objectives /Ends'
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCIES
Group 1
Objective 1
By 2012 ;identify a regional 'fee 'sgstem
that maximizes diversion and
minimizes costs
Increase education
.Organics
Objective 2
By 2012 create a model regional fee
system that meets our identif ied
diversion goals with revenues from
entire waste system including
recyclable commodities
Desired Objectives/Ends
WASTE DIVERSION.
Group 2
Short Term - 2015 .
4 Remove organics from wastestream
(plastic bags, CZ)
4 Increase education (school
partnerships)
Long Term - 2015 -2020
4 90% Diversion
Long Term - 50 Years
Negative diversion
Mining existing landfills
Desired Objectives/Ends
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCIES
Group 2
4 Move away from "tip fee" model of
funding
4 Move to "curb fee" model
Charge for total service
Grey, green, blue cans pay a fee
for each
4 Reopen /Permit Landfill
Revenue stream for
closure /post closure costs
4 New compost facility
4 Mining landfill to reduce liability
1
SONOMA COUNTY /CITY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY GROUP
Facilitated Discussion Notes
20 September 2011
Desired Objectives /Ends
LOCAL CONTROL
Group 1.
Create a governance model where
there is joint decision making and
authority between cities and county.
• "Trash Commission"
• Elected officials with staff support
• - Revisit JPA waste management
authority and composition (as 14
model)
Desired Objectives /Ends
LOCAL CONTROL
Group 2
4 Local franchise agreements to
reflect local priorities/ "goals"
Franchise fee revenues
4 Coordinate regional efforts for
economy of scale
4 Regional benefits of "flow control"
(commitments) must be clear
l�
Attachment C
p y
VIS Ih �I' W, n �' i fi ` ` N4 r TO DEVELOP A LONG
�4�I� �' d'Y. WAS RESOUR SO
March, 2010 1) PHASE 1— SWAG STRUCTURE, RULES OF
GOVERNANCE, GUIDING PRINCIPLES
a) ;SWAG Guiding Principles — already adopted as part of the
Rules of Governance
�i) Local Control (i.e. public vs. private ownership)
��ii`) Regional Services
iii) Waste Diversion
iv) Economic Efficiencies
!v) Reliability
wi) Flexibility
;vii) Climate Protection
b) ;SWAG Rules of Governance — adopted, establishing
,membership, and voting
[6 12months] 2) PHASE 2 PLANNING
a) Timelines — presented
b) Education and Awareness of Issues and Options
i) Financial Overview — Expenses and Funding Structure -
presented
'ii) Facility Tours — [July and August]
!iii) Presentations on Technologies and Education and
Enforcement Strategies [July through September]
c). ,?Facilitated Discussion with SWAG of Guiding'Principlesto
;Develop Measurable Objectives [September and /or
October SWAG Meeting]
i) Assign Priority i.e. which Principles are the most
important which are the least?
] ii) Eliminate Options the SWAG is not interested in if there
are any
!iii) Define Measurable Objectives for the Principles i.e....
(1) What level of diversion defines success?
(2) What level of GHG reduction defines success?
f),Determine a list of acceptable Options that feasibly address
Objectives
i) Establish a Research Committee (RC) of public, industry,
business, environmental, county and city managers /staff
ii) Report results'of RC analysis offeasible options back to
SWAG
g) Determine Short =List of Options to Analyze
i) SWAG discussion to reach consensus on a short list of
i Options
[6 -9 Months] 3,) PHASE 3 — ANALYSIS— DETAILED TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY
a)
Detailed third =party analysis of the short list of Feasible
Options
i) Cost- benefit.
ii) Life cycle cost
iii) Sensitivity analysis — participation, generation, economy
etc.
iv) Reliability /Proven technology
b)
Review and Critique of preliminary analysis by a Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of City and County
Managers, counsel, and staff
C)
Finalize Analysis
d)
Consider how liabilities might be addressed under each
option (on -going discussions between County and Cities —
Managers and Attorneys groups)
�b
(3) What is the definition of'economically efficient?
What is the range of fiscal constraint?
(4) What level of,ris in technology is acceptable?
4,) PHASE 4 — SW,,AG SELECTION OF REGIONAL SOLUTION
[2-3 months] a) Presentation . of Analysis to SWAG
b) SWAG Discussion (Facilitated) to develop consensus on a
recommended regional solution
c)` Full ;Councilf Board Reports present ....... ..
recommended
q
5) PHASE 5 — DEVELOP FRAMEWORK FOR
[6-9 months] IMPLEMENTATION OF RE SOLUTION
al TAC to develop recommendations on:
i) A Governance Model —who implements? County, new
or existing JPA,'private sector owner or operator?
,ii) Resolutidn't o Remaining, Liabilities
iii) A Sustainable Fanding,Mechanism
iv) Participation Framework (flow commitment?)
v) implementation Process/Steps
Present Preliminary TAC Recommendations to SWAG for
Input
C)
ena tsto gef ee ac on
k
S
[d6p6h-dent 6) PH I ASE 6 — IMPLEMENT
upon
solution]
f7