HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1.B 08/22/20051.B
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA August 22, 2005
AGENDA BILL
Agenda Title: Meetine Date:
Review, Discussion, and Action on Resolution Selecting Preferred August 22, 2005
Contractor for Refuse Collection and Disposal Services and Meetine Time: ❑ 3:00 PM
Authorizing City Manager to Complete Franchise Negotiations and ® 7:00 PM
Enter Into Franchise Agreement and to Negotiate and Enter Into
Refuse Disposal Agreement
Cateeory (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business
® Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department:
City Manager
Director:
Mike Bierman
Cost of Proposal: $67.1 million NPV
Amount Budeeted: n/a
Contact Person:
Mike Bierman
Phone Number:
707 778 4345
Account Number: n/a
Name of Fund:
Attachments to Aeenda Packet Item:
Report from Hilton Famkopf & Hudson, LLC regarding status of negotiations and proposals
Resolution Authorizing City Manager To Finalize and Execute Franchise and Disposal Agreements.
Summary Statement:
Since the last Council meeting, staff and consultant have met with the remaining proposers to review their
current status. A comprehensive report from the consultant is attached showing the final outcome of those
discussions and the impact on service level, disposal options and proposed rates for both residential and
commercial services.
Based on the final discussions and analysis, consultant and staff recommend that the contract be awarded to
Green Waste Recovery with service starting January 1, 2006.
Recommended Citv Council Action/Sueeested Motion:
Select Green Waste Recovery as the preferred proposer and authorize the City Manager to execute the final
contract documents.
Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Dir:
Date:
Todav's Date:
Reviewed by City Attornev:
Date:
Revision # and Date Revised:
Approved by fyity anaeer:
Kz�y Date:
File Code:
HILTON FARNICOPF & HOBSON, LLC
Advisory Services to
Municipal Management
MEMORANDUM
Northern California
Southern California
To:
Michael Bierman
From:
Robert Hilton
Date:
August 17, 2005
Subject:
Negotiations with Companies for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and
Organic Materials Collection Services and Street Sweeping Services
On February 23, 2005, the City Council in the City of Petaluma (City) directed staff to
negotiate with Empire Waste Management (EWM) for collection, street sweeping, and
disposal services with the goal of achieving 60% diversion. Since that time, numerous
issues have arisen and the terms and conditions of the deal have been changed by EWM.
Because these changes were substantial, City staff contacted the other two proposers,
GreenWaste Recovery (GWR) and Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. (Norcal) to explore what
options are currently available. Norcal declined to enter such discussions. GWR is
willing to enter an agreement for services with the City.
This memorandum provides a summary of the discussions with the three companies
and a recommendation to enter into a collection franchise agreement with GWR, and
enter into negotiations for disposal services with Norcal and Republic, in order to
achieve possible savings over the arrangements proposed by GWR.
EWM Negotiations
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC (HF&H) and City staff have met with EWM on several
occasions and had numerous phone conversations since Council provided direction on
February 23, 2005 to negotiate a franchise and disposal agreement. In May, 2005, staff
provided Council with a status report on the EWM negotiations. At such time, Council
asked staff to hold off on executing an agreement until EWM resolved its labor matters
with the Operating Engineers, or until EWM agreed to include labor harmony
provisions in the franchise agreement that would protect the City and its customers in
the event of labor disputes, strikes, or other labor actions. Below is a summary of the
status of EWM negotiations:
Disposal component - The disposal offer for use of Redwood Landfill at
$36.87 per ton is no longer available, because: (1) EWM offered the capacity
to Sonoma County through the County's RFP process, and (2) on August 16,
2005 the County Board of Supervisor's voted to award EWM a disposal
agreement for Redwood Landfill. As a result, the City needs to arrange
disposal service if they enter into a collection agreement with EWM. The
C:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LR7D\Negotiations_EWM and
GWR 082205 clean.doc
2
:�
HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
TiffiTireNT-MNIFIN
Page 2
most likely arrangement would be disposal at the Redwood Landfill through
the Sonoma County agreement with EWM. Under this scenario, disposal
would cost the City approximately $71 per ton, necessitating in a 24% rate
increase. Alternatively, the City could negotiate with the County to have the
County relinquish EWM's obligation to the County for the Petaluma landfill
capacity. T11is would allow EWM to honor its $36.87 -per -ton disposal
proposal. City staff does not believe this is a viable alternative. Lastly, the
City could arrange for disposal arrangements at an alternative landfill such
as Potrero Hills landfill. This would result in cost savings, but would require
a transfer station, which is not currently available.
• Collection component - EWM increased its cost proposal for collection
services, requesting a 24% increase over current rates. This 24% increase
combined with the 4% rate increase granted to EWM on July 1, 2005 results in
a net increase since February 23 Council meeting of 28%. This cost proposal
by EWM assumes the City would be responsible for arranging disposal
services.
If the City arranged for the County to relinquish EWM's obligation for
Redwood Landfill capacity, and the City entered into a disposal agreement
with EWM for disposal at Redwood Landfill, EWM would reduce its
requested collection cost increase to 10%, plus the 4% granted on July 1, 2005,
for a total increase of 14% since February 23, 2005. It is unlikely that the
County would agree to this.
• Combined collection and disposal components - At this time, the most viable
arrangement with EWM would involve the City entering into only a
collection agreement with EWM (24% rate increase) and arranging for
disposal at Redwood Landfill through the County agreement (24% rate
increase). In addition, the City would include a 2% rate increase for JPA
household hazardous waste program costs. Thus, the combined impact of
the increased cost of disposal and the increased cost of collection by EWM
totals approximately a 50% increase over current rates.
Alternatively, the City could contract with EWM and arrange for disposal at
another landfill, which may reduce the rate impact. In the unlikely event the
County relinquished some rights to Redwood Landfill capacity for the City,
the City could enter into a disposal agreement directly with EWM for
Redwood Landfill at $36.87 per ton and the estimated rate increase would be
approximately 12% (i.e., 10% collection cost increase, and 2% JPA household
hazardous waste cost increase).
C:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK7D\Negotiations_EWM and
G W P._082?05_clean.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 .SNI
3
HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
Diversion proposal - EWM separated the commercial food waste collection
from the proposal requesting an additional 5% rate increase to implement the
service. This reduces their diversion proposal from 60% scenario to "50%
plus" scenario.
• Commitment to new terms - EWM requested revisions to several of the
business terms of the draft franchise agreement they had previously not
taken exception to, and significant changes to the draft disposal agreement to
reflect their proposed revisions to the collection and disposal arrangements.
However, they have not provided a complete list of contract modifications
they are requesting and alternative language for the City's consideration.
Estimated rate impact - Preliminary analysis indicates the impact to current
rates would be a 50% rate increase. In this scenario, the City would contract
with EWM for collection and arrange disposal at Redwood through the
Sonoma County at approximately $71 per ton.
• Labor matters - Labor matters are not resolved: EWM has not met with the
Operating Engineers for several months; EWM has not agreed to the labor
harmony provisions proposed by the City; and, unfair labor practice
grievances have been filed against EWM by the union.
City staff initiated discussions with the two other proposers, GWR and Norcal, because:
• EWM has significantly increased the costs of the proposal EWM had on the table
in February 2005;
• The diversion services proposed by EWM have been reduced;
• EWM has proposed substantial changes to the business terms of the agreement,
but has not provided a complete list of such changes and alternative language to
finalize an agreement that the City could execute; and,
• EWM has not addressed the City Council's concerns regarding its labor
relationships which bring into question the ability of EWM to provide reliable
services.
Norcal Discussions
The City contacted Norcal and discussed their interest in the Petaluma contract. Norcal
stated in writing that at this time, they were not interested in pursuing the collection
agreement. Norcal did, however, indicate that they had landfill disposal capacity
available at their Hay Road landfill site in Solano County, and would be willing to
discuss a disposal agreement with the City. Attached is Norcal's July 27, 2005 letter
documenting their position.
C:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\0LK7D\Negotiations_ EWM and
GWR_ 082205_clean.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AM
01-HLTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
11_ N PTZT-Irklau
Page 4
GWR Negotiations,
GWR was contacted and expressed their interest in pursuing a collection and disposal
agreement with the City. Since February 2005, when Council selected EWM as the
preferred proposer, GWR made several business decisions that now prevent it from
providing the 70% diversion scenario they previously proposed. However, GWR has
worked over the past month to assemble an alternative "50% plus" diversion proposal
for the City's consideration. Its current proposal is summarized below:
• Diversion arrangements - GWR has made other business arrangements that
resulted in the loss of capacity at Z -Best composting facility to compost
Petaluma's municipal solid waste. As a result, GWR cannot offer the 70%
diversion level previously proposed, but rather offers a "50% plus' diversion
scenario. The programs are similar to that proposed by EWM. GWR will
transport recyclable materials and yard trimmings to the Napa Materials
Recovery Facility for processing.
• Disposal arrangements - GWR originally proposed to haul solid waste
residue from its Z -Best composting facility in Gilroy to Potrero Hills Landfill
in Solano County. Since February 2005, GWR has renegotiated its disposal
arrangements with Republic (owner of Potrero Hills Landfill) and no longer
has the right to dispose of Petaluma's solid waste residue at the Potrero Hills
Landfill. In the absence of this option, GWR has proposed three disposal
options:
- Option 1 - Disposal of solid waste at Waste Connections John Smith
Landfill in Hollister, through an agreement GWR has with Waste
Connections. Solid waste would be loaded into transfer vehicles at
Industrial Carting's Santa Rosa facility, when the necessary permit is
secured, and hauled to the disposal site. This option would be used if the
Industrial Carting permit is secured and no lower cost disposal
arrangement has been negotiated by the City or GWR.
- Option 2 - Direct haul solid waste to Marin Sanitary Service's (MSS's)
transfer station in San Rafael, where material would be loaded into
transfer trailers and disposed at Waste Management's Redwood Landfill
or Republic's Potrero Hills Landfill (through disposal agreements MSS
has with these landfills). This option would be used if the permit for the
Industrial Carting site is not secured.
- Option 3 - Disposal at Republic's Potrero Hills Landfill (through an
agreement between the City and Republic) or disposal at Norcal's Hay
Q\Documents and Settings\mbiermm\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK7D\Negotiations_EWM and
GWR_082205 dem.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AM
--�-�� HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
MEMORANDUM
Page 5
Road Landfill (through an agreement between the City and Norcal, or
between GWR and Norcal). Solid waste would be loaded into transfer
vehicles at Industrial Carting's Santa Rosa facility, when the necessary
permit is secured, and hauled to the disposal site. This option would be
used if the Industrial Carting permit is secured and a lower cost disposal
arrangement (compared to the John Smith Landfill cost in Option 1) has
been negotiated by the City or GWR.
• Residential collection method - GWR originally had proposed use of only
one collection vehicle, which was a dual -body vehicle to collect solid waste
and yard waste in one chamber and mixed recyclable materials in the second
chamber. Because composting of the solid waste is no longer an option,
GWR will use two collection vehicles. One vehicle will be dedicated to solid
waste collection. The second vehicle will be a dual-chamber vehicle that will
haul yard waste on one side and mixed recyclable materials on the other side.
GWR's use of the split -body vehicle reduces wear and tear on the residential
streets.
• Increased collection costs - Generally, fuel costs, equipment costs, and labor
costs have increased since GWR originally proposed costs to service
Petaluma. As a result, GWR has increased its cost proposal to reflect current
market conditions.
• Estimated rate imuact - Preliminary estimates anticipate that the GWR
proposal will result in increases to current rates of approximately 35% for
Option 1 or 2, and less if Option 3 is implemented.
• Commitment to new terms - GWR provided only a few exceptions to the
terms of the franchise agreement and is in the process of revising the
agreement to present its new proposal. The City anticipates the following
types of modifications will be made to the franchise agreement:
- Specify use of split -body vehicle for recyclables and yard waste
- Document use of Napa Materials Recovery Facility for recyclables and
yard waste
- Document disposal options and GWR's commitment that costs for Option
1 and 2 will be the same, although GWR will incur additional costs if
Option 2 needs to be implemented. Costs would be reduced for Option 3
in accordance with the procedures outlined in the franchise agreement for
a City -directed change in scope.
C:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7D\Negotiations_EW1V1 and
GWR_082205_cl ean. doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AM
6
�. HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
11 14Ilei ' ►o 11
Page 6
- Indicate that GWR intends to establish a facility in or near Petaluma for
vehicle maintenance, truck parking, and transfer of recyclables and yard
waste. In the event the facility is not sited as planned, GWR will assume
the liability for costs of its alternative siting location and increased
hauling time, if any.
- Specify a diversion goal of 50%
- Revise commencement date to be January 1, 2005
- Finalize cost proposal exhibit
- Document rates to be effective for the first two years of the agreement
- Amend provision related to market test of rates to address GWR's
concerns
- Finalize implementation plan exhibit
- Identify subcontractors (Industrial Carting, Waste Connections, and MSS)
- Amend agreement to document that City will set "maximum rates' for
collection services, and require contractor to charge customers in an
equitable manner based on level of service not to exceed the maximum
rates set by the City.
- Increase amortized costs for City -incurred consulting fees related to
procuring the franchise contractor (which will be recovered through the
rates)
- Add annual costs for JPA household hazardous waste program into the
rates
• Implementation date - GWR is prepared to commence services on January 1,
2005, but this is contingent on award and execution of the franchise
agreement immediately to secure the collection equipment and containers
necessary for implementation.
• Labor matters - GWR met with the Operating Engineers, and has expressed
their willingness to enter into an agreement with them. GWR has some
matters to finalize with the Operating Engineers but anticipates the
outstanding issues can be resolved.
Proposal Summary
The attached table provides a side-by-side comparison of the EWM's February 2005
proposal and current proposal; and GWR's February 25 proposal and current proposal.
Putting the Rate Increase in Perspective
We wish to put the rate increase into context regarding by: (1) listing increased services
the community will receive, and (2) providing rates of other Sonoma County
communities, and (3) presenting the average rates in the Bay Area.
C:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7D\Negofiations_EWb1 and
GWR_0820205_clean.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AM
WILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
MEMORANDUM
Page 7
Service Enhancements
Under the terms of the new franchise agreement, several enhancements will be made to
the current collection services, including the following:
• Residential
- Collect commingled recyclables (rather than separated) weekly
- Collect yard trimmings weekly (rather than every other week)
- Provide backyard and side -yard service at no charge to disabled
• Multi -family - Collect commingled recyclables (rather than separated)
weekly
• Commercial
- Provide commingled recyclables collection service
- Require yard trimming collection at additional fee
- Charge businesses for special services (e.g., enclosures, heavy containers,
cleaning, rental, push/pulls)
• Downtown litter containers - up to 3 times per week collection
• Street sweeping
- Residential streets - weekly (November 1 to February 28) and every other
week (March 1 to October 31)
- Downtown district - daily sweeping and after special events; twice
monthly washing
- City facilities - Weekly sweeping of two City facility/public parking lots;
every other week sweeping of 5 City facility/public parking lots; and
sweeping of 5 public lots after July 4 holiday
Rates in Sonoma Countv and Bav Area
The table on the following page shows Petaluma s current rates and rates estimated for
EWM and GWR under the current proposals. For comparison purposes, we also present
rates in Sonoma County cities and the average rates for those communities. Lastly, we
provide the average 12 -county Bay Area rates for two customer categories.
C:\Documents and Settings\mbiennan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7D\Negotiations_EWIVI and
GWR_082205 clean.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AID[
8
0-0 HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
MEMORANDUM
Page 8
Pe alums So loma Cou ity
v
N
E N a Y N
o m a m o <
a a rn v n r of o m o d
U m 55 L° `v E a v <
5 >o
U W 0 Q U U 2 K N N N m
(Est. Increase 50% 35%
gam
120 -gal 4% $5.14 $7.71 $6.94 $7.41 $9.84 $6.47 $7.42 $5.40 $7.87 $7.55 $4.90 $9.84
132 or 35 -gal 32% $9.11 $13.67 $12.30 $10.06 $13.85 $9.09 $10.04 $9.90 $9.14 $10.08 $8.00 $10.41 $17.92
160, 64, or 68 -gal 56% $15.94 $23.91 $21.52 $17.63 $22.30 $23.81 $14.71 $14.35 $13.49 $21.90 $17.40 $13.05
190 or 96 -gal 7% $26.99 $40.49 $36.44 $26.23 $29.25 $36.70 $20.06 $22.40 $24.15 $33.76 $26.75 $16.79
12 cy bin, 1x1Wk 16% $158.93 $238.40 $214.56 $132.15 $129.80 $140.58 $172.82 $91.60 $171.54 $129.31 $100.70 $120.86 $178.27
13 cy bin, lxtwk 13% $212.65 $318.98 $267.08 $177.23 $162.21 $175.87 $241.05 $137.40 $207.48 $175.16 $151.00 $167.68
14 cy bin, lxlwk 19% $233.64 $350.46 $315.41 $214.16 $192.41 $209.44 $289.13 $183.20 $258.69 $173.42 $201.50 $205.45
___ ____ ____ _ _ __ __-------
_ - _ _ _ _
Effective Dale Jul -05 Jan -06 Jan -06 Sep -05 Jul -05 Jul -05 Jun -05 Jan -05 Jan -05 Jul -04 Juk(15
Pending
Approval
'Source: 12-coun y survey conducted by Armanino McKenna LLP in November 2004.
Conclusion
While Council directed staff to negotiate with EWM, the negotiations process has not
yielded results originally intended, and have not yielded a contract we can even present
to Council for consideration. EWM has not resolved its labor issues. The low cost
disposal option at Redwood landfill is now unavailable. EWM's cost proposal
significantly increased. Combined, these changes in conditions result in uncertainty
regarding EWM's ability to consistently provide a high level of service, a rate increase of
approximately 50%, significant changes in diversion programs, and significant changes
to the terms of the draft franchise agreement.
Given the status of the EWM negotiations, we suggest that the City enter into an
agreement with GWR for collection and disposal services for the following reasons:
• GWR's current proposal will result in a rate increase that is lower than the
rate increase that will result from EWM's current proposal.
• GWR states they are prepared to work with the Operating Engineers.
• GWR is prepared to work quickly to finalize a franchise agreement.
• GWR represents that it can implement services on January 1, 2006 if a
franchise agreement is executed by the end of August.
C:\Documents and Settings\mbiermm\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\0LK7D\Negotiations_EWM and
GWR_08220s cIem.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AM
9
HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
MEMORANDUM
Page 9
Furthermore, we recommend that the City pursue the disposal options of Hay Road
Landfill and Potrero Hills Landfill through negotiations with Norcal and Republic,
respectively. These disposal arrangements would result in a lower rate increase.
Q\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK7D\Negotiabons_EWM and
GWR 082205 clean.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AM
10
Diversion scenarios
12 -month revenue
requirement
Estimated rate impact
Residential collection
Collection method
Single stream
Weekly yard waste
Food scraps
Solid waste composting
50% and 60%
hit"iile�-'e.-:,.':,e;e,,•e.oc unatn�:: :.�
$6.4 million (50%)
$6.6 million (60%)
1.6%(50%)
3.8%.(60%)
ie;;
l:mrs:¢
50% 60%
3 trucks 3 trucks
Attachment 1
Petaluma Solid Waste Procurement
Proposal Comparison as of August 22, 2005
Costs not provided.
Expressed cost increases in
terms of rate increases.
50%
50% plus
3 trucks
!t'8gp!R1i:k;rv:: s:n;"�t Nu::B2tAt'I ::p,':;,i �,.�.�iupfglg PI IAI"'-1iA!!';U'—.`?G;7;''dljAYfixq[:�xi icl':TN.;fir.-i.im::;�rrr.:nill:x-::
ILLIL¢LSIIIh Fi.1F:'I'::9U:I,llr :::ai ti1:1f:h:Ntlq..,. ,.:4 Lut..1 ..: s... .,,IP: ;r.:::d.h:i:i!il:aacUA
.:........f ..v. ....�.. _...._.............
$7.7 million (50%) $9.1 million
$6.1 million (70%)
22% (for 50% diversion)
50%
2 trucks (split -
body for solid
waste and
recycling)
70%
1 truck (split -
body: solid
waste with
yard and food
waste;
separate
recVclinq)
✓ (mixed with
solid waste)
✓ (mixed with
solid waste)
\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7D\Negotiations_EWM and GWR_082205_clean.doc
19/2005 10:30:05 AM
35% (John Smith Landfill or Marin
Sanitary Service Transfer Station)
50% plus
2 trucks (split -body for yard waste
and recycling; regular truck for
solid waste)
Commercial collection
Single stream
Food scraps
Dry materials
Solid waste c
Equipment
I Containers
Collection vehicles
Alternative fuel
50% 60%
New and used
Used initially; replaced by
Rate Year 6
No additional cost for
biodiesel; extra $228,000
per year for LNG
✓ (requires additional 5%
rate increase)
I
I New and used
Used initially; replaced by
Rate Year 6
No additional cost for
biodiesel; extra $228,000
per year for LNG
50% 1 70% 50% plus 1
✓ I✓ ✓ I
✓ (mixed with
solid waste)
I✓ I
,;.ni: t!!,,.,.. •t.. :.t r:p,a,r mt•i-;a:�a;!c; m:pf;J a.=::� t:}ri�i!r:,il w
rltall,tti!n'!�flhli(i!r'=,it.!5i11!i;ljj!!1;±n,L;(I:I:SuIEe!v �i�liAhlit6oN!a :LFG:::�.ra 5511,01,
Ml
-_ tl n
I
New New I
New
Annual cost impact not provided
:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLK7D\Negotiations_EWM and GWR_ 082205_clean.doc
.119/2005 10:30:05 AM
N
New (a few used trucks will be
used if solid waste hauled to MSS)
Not proposed at this time.
Biodiesel could be considered in
the future.
Facilities
Recycling
EWM (Santa Rosa)
EWM (Santa Rosa)
Industrial Carting (Santa
Napa Material Recovery
Rosa)
Facility
Composting
EWM Redwood (Novato) and
EWM Redwood (Novato) and
Z -Best (Gilroy)
Napa Material Recovery 1
Z -Best (Gilroy)
Z -Best (Gilroy)
Facility
Transfer for
EWM Redwood (Novato)
EWM Redwood (Novato)
Industrial Carting (Santa
Develop new facility (in/near
recyclables or
Rosa)
Petaluma); use Industrial
compost
Carting site in the interim
Yard/maintenance
EWM (Santa Rosa)
EWM (Santa Rosa)
Industrial Carting (Santa
Develop new facility (in/near 1
Rosa)
Petaluma); use Industrial
Carting site in the interim
Solid waste disposal
EWM Redwood (Novato)
EWM Redwood (Novato)
EWM Redwood (Novato) for
Opt 1: Transfer at Industrial
arranged through an
arranged through Sonoma
50%; Republic Potrero Hills
Carting (permit modification
agreement between the City
County's agreement with EWM
(near Suisun) for 70%
required); disposal at John
and EWM at $26.87 per ton.
at approximately $71 per ton.
Smith Landfill (Hollister)
Opt. 2: Transfer at Marin
Sanitary Service (San
Rafael); disposal at Redwood
(Novato) or Republic's
Potrero Hills (near Suisun)
Opt. 3: Transfer at Industrial
Carting (permit modification
required); disposal at Norcal's
Hay Rd (near Dixon) or
Republic's Potrero Hills (near
Suisun)
I_..__..._,..,....,..:...
,., I , .r .i
„a.. f.. t rr. .l r:uf ..
ai..r....il.il. ��i n{ ! I I
,i.f! 1, 1. ,.,.iv1. ., �•., ••:�Yup¢Yi: ��:���
1 .....l.,,, .,,..:::�:a:a, �.�,r]=.i. e;� �:: • F-n;"+ar;
fL.,_vv....,_..u...a.L.ll.:... { r:
,...... _.... ,,.....,
. ... ....r .. ... ....ar i.. ,.... i:_ .............. ....
I
.,....r...._,........:.....:.._.-.,..:_:....,..,.......c.:{.,
._,...,.:...._...,.._....t..�....t,4,.:l::u_..ra.:r..,u. �. _
..... .....t_..... ..,...... ....r.....)._..._L�,.. .,..I I, !. d._n.
..ir:,.u.i...... r.,:: ,_._.>: ._.-r:. ,.tr..>.._:..,r_._,
.,.... , ,4 ..,..�{ .
..,.,_.:nr_. tF .3.{__L.. a b: L.. rill �i,I
it - ..
(t, G.d ..i.�,,.,::dnfi 1, a{.::_.7r�:.�f_a:i.t.,
,.:. ut,.,,i.......::.... r�_...r,1....L,...
al.td Il, i.l..�fa.:... �..i...m
..r adit
....._:...
..,,,., ,.._.._.. In,:.: ,...-.-.-...
C:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7D\Negotiatlons_EWM and GWR_ 082205_clean.doc
8/19/200510:30:05 AM
W
Service enhancements
Weekly, year-round
Weekly, year-round
None
None
residential street sweeping
residential street sweeping
Additional street sweeping
Additional street sweeping
route in Oct., Nov., and Dec.
route in Oct., Nov., and Dec.
Free disposal for annual
Free disposal for annual
clean-up items
clean-up items
....nu ...... ... ,..e.,-,... _. ,. .:
.-,::t,,.:-.,. le,. ,; .._:•-_.L..It
..... �.. .....,.n n. n,.._.i, i,., : ..r
d4!..._... 1:. :n..,v,l:i.::..r:;:,l S. ,., ,,
m, :J v .li, tlJ, 1
t I .13..1. d
9,. t .: 1 , i i ,.I14
.. (..i ii i.. 2L7 r ., !.,. .,
t. t t � , t., _' I ! � f r
r.. it ,.,.� I rr
Jll.lit..)(161..�.,.t�..n.,.,..,_t.N1at.Ns i !
.f v.l ...t t f. ...
.i 1 .I It. � .. ..
I , , i } v. uL,v,. r
..y, :!. ., _.I!"M41- !.i..,_..l i,::..rl.
E... i .8 ,.� . i r ..,. t
» i.l,t.. .i. i..
�:_ !i..v.:a,!..:1:6;'v.�..r.,ii?i�::'•val:,-ar::�iN:`"j�";'
..{,..+. ,. ...i .. ,t. .t ....o„..
L.t. , ,.,.. 1........
»..,.,..,.rJ...u.
Implementation time
..
Early implementation of
.J rllPr.J.) .t.6f..1,Rl��ilu.l��idi.!!!I.r�J:::1..,l..al....i�n�l.lyl.�ia.�.,..:r.,IIC.:..,-L!�r.e...t,..,.�,�...,_r-..
Implementation of residential
Nearly immediate
January 1, 2006
frame
residential single stream and
single stream and weekly
implementation of 70%
weekly organics (April 2005)
yard trimming collection
diversion
Achieve 60% by June 2006
(November 2005)
.....
-_....__._.. ....._....r. ........-.... : .,.none..,...._.... rzr: n :r, .,_.. _ .f ,
o:..._.l...vv, ._,._n ___ _.. _ .... ........ :......_., vi. .. ...:v r_iv._I [........ '1 I1.5...v.
i.... ....__ ..,.. v.._.__.__'L.. .,. v!..r. _.v._.. ...:.u_1:., �L4i_ 11 ...--.F.!t.. 1 rlu rn. Le x.. _....
..v._.,-_ ....c....,__:.........L, ...._u..v.. .. _.rl.:.,. ,. !.0 u!....r:.....iY.R..„_..t.a,,..n
r_.._,....._�r...: _..:»_...v_.._......t,.,.:t._..._,_r.,_....0 f�.-.,..,
'h.n.. ,l„„..r. ::.,. N..li I .:,. r. _rn L,, yr
S .. ...i., , L, _, ._ _ ... ..c•, L:. J.I.
,..v...!_. J +.L r. tr. .!
,._.G..__.!..,»
.._.......
v....,nt .,_.._. IL,
_rt,.... o;;!..v._
.N”"
m:v ......:...... .
..... .. .::......_. :. ..:...._vrh_ .. ..v....,
t.....,a.!,....»
-..
__.._.._..._..:.,:!,'.:.,::'::s,:,�-::_.,.::,,,:—.,».:,._...,_-.._.,..:,_._ti:,_
,r, ...rt :,......».,......i»»,s...
....6,.1,....n:t:.�n,..l»i.':,...:..n.....e,,...,rd�r,u
._.:,..,..t
........:.......__._.._.....,..r- _
Franchise exceptions
Moderate
Moderate
Minimal
Minimal
C:\Documents and Settings\mbierman\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK7D\Negotiations_EWM and GWR_082205_clean.doc
8/19/2005 10:30:05 AM
A
July 27, 2005
Mr: Michael Bierman
City Manager
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Mr. Bierman:
People • Service *Environment
NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
RECEIVE -0
JUL 2 8 2005
CITY MANAGER
Thank you for meeting with us on July 20, 2005 and updating us on Petaluma's search for its
next waste collection, recycling and disposal services provider.
We have carefully considered your request to provide you with a new proposal for such services.
Auer much thought, we have concluded that we must respectfully decline to do so at this time.
We understand very well how important pricing of these services is to your community, and
upon reviewing the costs in our original proposal to provide the basic services of garbage
collection, single stream residential recyclables collection and green waste collection, we cannot
maintain that pricing.
Costs of fuel, medical coverage for employees, and trucks and containers have all escalated
significantly. Obtaining trucks in time for a January 1, 2006 start date would require us to
purchase all new equipment, which is more expensive now than when we submitted our earlier
proposal. In addition, only one property in Petaluma could be located that could house our
operation, yet it is in an area where our type of land use may not be welcome. Permitting a
facility outside of Petaluma, considering your decision to withdraw from the Sonoma Waste
Management Authority, may be problematic and certainly not a task we feel could be
accomplished by the end of this year.
We understand that disposal capacity may have become an issue for you in light of the Sonoma
Waste Management Authority contracting for significant capacity at the Redwood Landfill, and
expansion opposition at the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. However, we do have
capacity available at our Hay Road Landfill in Solano County, which you may wish to consider
for your long-term disposal needs. We would look forward to discussing our landfill option with
you should you desire.
Again, thank you for your interest in our services. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
Best regards,
A t-�Sangidmlo_��_ Michael J.
President and Chief Executive Officer
160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 200- SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 • TELEPHONE (415) 875-1000
Proud to be Employee Owned
FAINIE9 04 NEGYGLO FAPEA
15
Resolution Authorizing City Manager To execute Franchise
Agreement With Green Waste Recovery For Solid Waste,
Recyclable Materials, and Organic Materials Collection
Services and Street Sweeping Services
Whereas, The City Council has solicited proposals for the
collection and disposal of solid waste, recyclable materials, and
organic materials collection and street sweeping services, and,
Whereas, The City Council has reviewed the proposals and
received extensive analysis of the proposals from staff and
consultants familiar with the services desired and proposed, and,
Whereas, staff and consultants have recommended a preferred
proposer based upon negotiations and review of the final proposals
presented, now,
Be It Resolved, that the City Council hereby selects Green Waste
Recovery as the preferred proposer and authorizes the City
Manager to finalize and execute the franchise agreement with
Green Waste Recovery without delay.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Council hereby directs the
City Manager to enter into negotiations with Norcal Waste
Systems for Hay Road Landfill disposal and with Republic
Services for Potrero Hills landfill disposal to determine the best
disposal option(s) available.
16