HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.B 06/07/2004CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
7
L.
i
®,
'.7
AGENDA BILL June 7, 20C
. Agenda Title
Meetina;Date: June, 7, 2004
Preliminary Evaluation - of For'Re'fuse Collection Services,
Meeting Time '❑ 3:00 PM
7:00 PM
, Category (check one) D Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑'New Business
Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department
Director
Contact Person
Phone Number
City Manager.
Micl ael'Biennan
Michael Bierman
778 -4347
Cost of Proposal n/a
Account Number
Amount Budgeted n/a
Name of'Fund•
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item
Evaluation review from Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
Reference'Check Summaries
Summary Statement
City consultant and staff have been engaged in evaluation of the proposals from Empire Waste
Management, Green Waste Recovery Norcal and North Bay for refuse collection services. Consultant and
staff are prepared to provide a preliminary evaluation of their reviews to date.
Recommended City Council Action /S:xigg6ted Motion
It is recommended that the Council hear the preliminary evaluation summaries and provide direction
regarding proceeding with evaluation, of all four companies. Also, Council to provide direction regarding
the evaluation process as to scenarios (options) to be evaluated, subjects, to be evaluated, details to be
provided, an estimate of City costs to provide programs and services currently handled by the. Regional
Agency, and a cost analysis for Scenario J reflecting use of Redwood Landf ll and composting site.
Reviewed by Finance.D'irector:
Reviewed by City Attorney
Date:
Appro ve4liv Citv Manager
Date:
Date:
Today's Date
Revision # and Date Revised:
File•Code:
,,.
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA REPORT
for
Prelmina Evaluat
• ry' ion of osals for Refuse Collection Services
June
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City issued a revised Reque.st.For „Proposals for Solid Waste, Recyclable
Materials, and Yard' Trim mings Services January 6, 2004: Three new proposals were received and one
proposer opted to have their original proposal considered for evaluation. The four proposals have been
presented to the City Council. Consultant and staff have interviewed the four companies and have
begun an evaluation of their proposals. Consultant and staff wish to present their preliminary evaluation
and obtain direction from the Council regarding the next steps in the evaluation process, including the
scope of the, collection and disposal alternatives they desire to be 'evaluated. Staff and consultant plan to
return to Council in the next four to six weeks with a final evaluation report and request to Council to
select the future collection contractor.
2. BACKGROUND Hilton Fanikopf & Hobson developed, and Council approved a revised Request For
Proposals that included additional ii forination and options for proposers to consider in relation to the
submission' of proposals to the City. Two proposers responded to the= original RFP and three proposers
p p `' „
p to the revised RFP. One of the original ro ose'rs North ay, opted to utilize their original B
responded e
submittal and submitted.a letter.to'that effect. There has been some question. as to whether or not the
North Ba
Bay proposal, using their original proposal, was "non - responsive” to the revised RFP. While staff
has not made a determination that it is not, since many of the changes in the revised RFP were optional,
staff elected to allow North Bay to make its presentation to the Council and to participate in the
interview process along with the other proposers. Staff s position is that the original proposal was
responsive and that, should the Council decide to require components that North Bay chose not to
respond to, they could be dropped from consideration. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the
Council with all update on the preliminary evaluation of the proposals and to obtain Council direction in
several areas of the proposal evaluations.
Our'Risk.Manager is engaged in investigating compliance records with various agencies having
jurisdiction over the various proposers operations, equipment and facilities' including the California
Highway Patrol and regulatory agencies. Those investigations are continuing. Final results will be
reported to the City through the office of the City Attorney.
Mike Moore, Community Development Director, contacted. several agencies regarding history and
p
possible issues relating to any Conditional Use Permits that may apply to the various proposers. The
cities of San Francisco and Gilroy both reported orted no on -going land, use problems associated with Norcal.
Sonoma County was also contacted and reported no outstanding violations of permits or applicable
codes.pertaining to Industrial Carting. Sonoma County officials reported that both North Bay and
Empire Waste Management have on- ,going conditional use permit, building and, fire code violations
abatements. The'violations exist at.multiple sites and settlement negotiations have been oil- going. The.
exact natures of the violations were not disclosed due to the on -going nature of settlement talks.
3. ALTERNATIVES
a. Allow the consultant to.contiriue with the evaluation of all four proposals.
b. Direct staff to continue with only evaluation of some of the proposals.
c. Direct staff as to which alternative scenarios they would like considered..
d. Direct staff on additional detail or evaluation subjects to be examined.
e. Provide estimates of City costs to provide programs and services currently provided by the
Regional Agency.
f. Provide a cost analysis for scenario 1 reflecting use of Redwood Landfill and composting site.
4. F+'1NANCIAL IMPACTS
Subject to Council direction.
5. CONCLUSION
Consultant and staff need Council direction regarding the above issues in order to proceed with the
evaluations.
F. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS 14AT'WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR COMPLETION:
Consultalt'and staff obtain direction'froiz Council regarding the options presented.
7. RECOMMENDATION
Accept the preliminary report and provide direction as requested.
t
•
13
City Manager's .office, 11 English Street, Petaluma; CA 94952
(707) 778 -4345 Fax (70) 778 -4419 E- mail: : citym.zr&xi.petaluma.ca.us '
'DATE: May 25, 2004.
TO: Mike Bierman, City Manager
FROM: Gene.Beatty, Interim Asst. City Manager
SUBJECT: Reference On Solid Waste Collection Companies
Attached you will find copies of the summaries of reference checks made regarding the
four proposers for solid waste ,collection services. While a few of the reference agencies
have not as yet responded, asignificant number of contacts were made. Nothing in any
of p e that any of the four-proposers would.not'be able to perform the
required. functions ren dicat
q While a fewmegative comments froth individuals were made, none of
the responders indicated any issues of dishonesty or non - performance on the part of any
of the proposers. Some of the responders requested anonymity which I have tried to
provide in order to get honest responses.
The first page indicates the agencies contacted and those responding. The next section
lists the comments received divided by each of the four companies. The responses are
not in any particular order.
Other; more detailed background investigations are being conducted by outside
consultants.
•
DEFERENCE . CHECKS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
City of Mission Viejo*
City of Petaluma*
City of Cotati*
City of:Healdsburg*
City of Sebastopol*
City of Lake Forest
GREEN WASTE
City of'San Jose*
City of Woodside*
City of Red Bluff*
Tehama County
City of Portola Valley
Lexiigton'HilIs (unincorporated Santa Clara Co)'*
Santa Clara. County*
N.ORCAL
City of Rocklin*
City of Los Altos
City of Eureka*
City of Gilroy /Morgan Hill'*
City of'San Jose*
City of Vacaville*
City of Vallejo
Yuba County*
City of San Francisco*
City of San Bruno
City of Oroville /Chico
City of Mt. View
City of Wheatland.
City of Live Odk
City of Marysville
City of Yuba City
NORTH BAY
City of Santa Rosa*
City ofRohnert Park*
Town of Windsor*
*Responses received
City uma Proposer"Name: Empire Waste Management
Proposal Evaluation E valuator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
The following agencies responded':, Mission Viejo, ,Cotati;.Healdsburg, Sebastopol,
Petaluma
Questions
Res onse
How is the company'to work with? Is the
We are extremely satisfied. The company is
City satisfied? Are customers satisfied?
excellent to work with sand very responsive to our
needs.
We have had a good working relationship with
Empire. They have been responsive to our needs
and to individual customers when necessary. The
three or four customer complaints we have had
over the past ..5 years have been addressed by the
company in a proactive manner with good results.
For the past two years Waste Management has
been very responsive: We receive very few
customer complaints. The City is satisfied, with a
few concerns.
Outstanding. The City and customers are very
I
leased with Waste Management —the
outstanding quality of service, attention to detail,
and their willingness to get the job done right.
Excellent. Very few customer complaints
concerning WM
f issues arise, can you work with the
ontractor to solve theirs?
Yes, we have, a great contact person and she gets
it done, from street sweeping issues to whatever.
All issues have been resolved to our satisfaction
in a timely manner. The management has been
very responsive to all service and contract
requests.
We have found that the key factor in our
relationship with EWM is the effectiveness of the
liaison with the City. At the present time our
Empire Waste Management
0
Empire Waste Management
liaison is great and takes care of `all our problems.
Absolutely. Staff is knowledgeable professional,
and always are responsive to the City, our
residents and businesses.
Absolutely
Do they proyid'e you with the required
Yes
contractual 'information and is that
information submitted.,pn schedule?
All information'is provided in a timely'fashion.
Annual adjustments to the franchise Tees_
collected have sometimes. been, ,late, but to the
disadvantage of the contractor, not the city.
Yes.
Yes. Their printed materials, are: excellent and
WM gives: the City the courtesy to review
important materials (i.e. related :to the rollout of a
new fully automated system) before they are
distributed.
Are they timely in preparing- 'information
Yes, very.
requested from the city?
Yes, for any requests they have responded in a.
reasonable time frame.
Yes
Yes
Yes
When the 'city rnakes a decision, does the
We work. very well as a team. Don't heed to
company go ahead with the decision or
eh_ange things much. It=just works.
drag the situation out and slow down the
process?
'We have not had any problems in this area. The
-implementation of additional services has
happened within agreed'upon time frames.
Havt not had this situation present itself as a
problem in the past ten years.
WM. l as a history of working well with.the City.
They are responsive to our, requests and" they ,help
Empire Waste Management
Has,the.company threatened or filed a
lawsuit. against your city?
out when needed even if 'it is not "required" in
their contract.
_ Any decision made has been done mutually and
has been carried out in -a timely fashion.
Never in 30 years
No, and we would..not expect them to.
No
No
Not to my knowledge
you
y ad to make a decision today, would
Y
Yes
o u ext end'the.eurrent companies contract
another 5 years?
Last year we extended the contract for four years
for additional'services at a fraction of the actual
cost. The negotiated extension was very
beneficial to the city and residents. We actually
reduced some monthly service fees.
Given the terms of our contract, yes!
Yes.
Yes, if they implement single stream.
Has the company been pro- acuve.° n
Yes. They were very pro- active in getting us to
proposing changes that will increase
where we are today, and very early on in the
diversion ,,improve the'quality of service
recycling game, as well. Their trucks are kept in
and %or reduce costs?
good condition, too. We like that.
Yes, they proposed single stream recycling and
greenwaste pickup. The implementation went
smoothly with a great deal of their efforts helping
us to present the program to the. City Council.
They have, also been receptive to our proposals to
improving services.
Yes. EWM has recently implemented single
stream recycling for comrnercial and industrial
clients without any prompting from the City.
Empire Waste Management
\Z
Yes, That, is one of the reasons why they were
successful in adding the residential service
contract1when they previously only had the
commercial, contract. They increased
commercial, diversion rate by 20% o and we have
been able to maintain it.
Hipire Waste Management
City of Petaluma
Proposal Evaluation
Proposer Name: Green Waste
Evaluator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
f
County agen r
mclSLexineton Hills), f Valley. � of Woodside, City of Red Bluff,
g Port la
Questions
Response
How is the company to work with? Is the
Excellent service Provide yard waste and street
City satisfied? Are customers satisfied?
sweeping services
The company gets high.marks for actual service
and innovation and we, hear very few complaints
from the customers. Sometimes the
administrative response leaves a liftle'to be
desired, but they do correct when this is noted for
them.
We just transferred Greenwaste contract to Waste
Connections` recently, so; unable to answer.
Green Waste is easy to work with, very
responsive to issues.
We have two types of franchise agreements with
Green Waste — full ;garbage, recycling and yard
waste services for Lexington Hills, a small
unincorporated area of 1100+ households, in
effect since 2000, and yard waste services only
for approximately 1000 unincorporated San Jose
households, in place. since Oct 1993. We have
had few complaints of any kind for the full
service area.
For the yard waste only contract, customers have
had more issues, partly because services vary,
with "loose on the street" collection in some areas
and tarps or cans in other'areas. Still, surveys
rate 80 to 90 percent of customers as satisfied to
very satisfied for yard caste services and
customers comment that they don't want to
change the service.
County staff is satisi_f ed with company services
Green Waste
•
•
Green Waste
and. responsiveness.
Great. Fantastic. Good customen.service. No
little • from vehicles.
If issues arise, can you work with the"
Yes
contractor to solve them?
Green Waste is responsive and easy to work, with
to resolve issues.
No issues to date
No issues
Do they provide you with the required'
contractual:information and-is that
Usually yes. They had a personnel turnover issue
information submitted on schedule?
for a while and they got way behind on required
reports, but are now caught up and :onitrack.
We have no issues or problems with submission.
of required information.
Sometimes :a little late, but`they respond_ well
when called.
Are they timely in preparing information
requested from the city?
J actually don't recall ever asking for anything.
Not'as well as expected.
Yes
Yes, see above
When the city inalces.a decision, does the
company go ahead with the decision. or
They implement in a responsive manner
drag the situation out and slow down the
process?
They have been helpful with our efforts
implement mandatory trash collection.
We have had no implementation issues.
•
•
Green Waste
•
•
0
Green Waste
ly 1 and a'half years into a 6 yr agreement. No
problei its Had 'a major change in collection
r
R
when s tarti ng.
Has the company threatened or filed, a
lawsuit against "your city?
No
Not so far.
No lawsuits or threats. We have had a much
more pleasant relationship than this question
anticipates.
No
If you had to make a decision today; would
you extend the current companies contract
We just did last year, so yes.
another S years?
.
Because: °we have only recent experience with
Waste Connections, it would be a shorter time
period.
Yes, we would recommend extensions based on
current services. In fact, staff has recommended
an extension' of the two yard waste service
contracts to continue through 2007. This action
has been supported -by a committee of the Board
of Supervisors and will'be considered by the
Board on June
Absolutely
Yes
Has the company been pro- active :in
Absolutely
proposing changes that will increase
diversion, .improve the quality of service
Yes
and/or reduce costs?
Yes
Yes
0
Green Waste
City of Petaluma Proposer Name: Norcal
Proposal Evaluation Evaluator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECk"864MARY
U
The following agencies responded: Rocklin, Gilroy/Morgan Hill,'Vacavil I le, Yuba C
' . Eureka, I' ounty,
San Francisco, San Jose, Eureka, Yuba County
Questions
Response
How is the company to - work with? Is the
r ,
We are very e y liappy with our relationship. They
City satisfied? Are customers satisfied?
are very responsive to our needs.
They have,'been great to work with. Their staff is
very respoiis ive to us, and we have an excellent
working relationship overall. We have worked
cooperatively:on a more formal basis in
developing`, ai d:implementing new programs
such as curbside recycling, HHW and yard
waste, and also" on a more informal basis on
programs such as out annual Give Winter Garb a
Second Chan'ce and blanket drive. Our
greatest indication of customer satisfaction is the
low level, of complaint calls that we receive.
When, wedo: have A complaint, we are able to
work successfully to address it.
Very cooperative on most issues for the past six
years. Yes and largely yes. Prior to six years
ago, the localmaria,ger and the City had a very
contentious relationship. Norcal ultimately got
rid of this manager and replaced him with
managers° that have been much more cooperative.
We have,had threeJocal managers since then -and
they have all. been fantastic to work with (if only
I could say the same about our cable company).
A rough relationship to be kind.
Pretty good on the pure collection end.
We just transferred Green Waste contract to
Waste Connecticiis recently.
The company gets high marks for actual service
and innovation and We hear very few complaints
Norcal
Norcal
from the customers. Sometimes the
administrative response .leaves a little to be
desired, but they do correct when this is noted:for
them.
Great to work with. City and customers are
satisfied. 'Work,. with permit no contracts.
We are very satisfied with the service: received.
They are supportive of the .City''s efforts in waste-
diversion and recycling.
The county is satisfied as are the majority of the
customers.
If issues arise, can you work with the
Yes. Very definitely, yes
contractor to solve them?
When issues arise, we. work directly`with the
Operations Manager and. Operations Supervisor.
They are responsive to ours requests and work to
remind, their drivers, if necessary,, of required
service,levels. The Operations Supervisor, in
particular, will respond personally arid' go to the
•
_
customer's residence in man y instances. When,
issues arise, I am always confident, that Will
be able to resolve theirs.
Always for the past six years.
Have had problems with subcontractor.
Yes.
Good to work with when issues arise.
Yes
Yes.
Do they provide you with'the. required
Yes
contractual information aiid is that
information submitted on schedule?
They do provide us with required: information,
Information,that we have specified both in
contracts and, informally include monthly
curb side_ recycling and yard waste %set -out and
tonnage figures; quarterly HHW, BOP and oil.
participation, disposal quantities and costs,
monthly CRT and other e- waste units aiid
Norcal
u
�n
•
Norcal
weights. They have always been receptive to
compiling the.information we request.
Adrni�ttedly, we do have to occastionally call in a
reminder, but nothing to the extent that I would
deem it a problem.
Yes
No
Usually yes. "They had a personnel turnover
issue for a while and they got way behind on
required reports, but are now caught up and on
track.
Information is provided on schedule.
Yes.
Yes.
Are they timely in preparin&.information
Yes
requested from the city?
Except as noted above; yes they do provide
information on a timely basis the- majority of the
time.
Yes
Not as well as expected.
No
I don't recall ever asking for anything.
Generally, they are timely.
Yes. The City's franchise requires monthly,
quarterly and annual reporting.
Yes.
When the city makes!� decision, does the
They are very responsive and proactive
company go ahead witll.the decision or
drag the situation°out and slowdown the.
They have moved forward in implementing
process?
programs and kept us apprised when issues have
arisen that have affected timeliness. They work
with us to develop reasonable implementation
Norcal
C -
•
Norcal.
schedules and work hard to .meet them. Our
programs have always started. on the day that we
have agreed upon.
I have no complaints with their - ImPlernefitation
schedule.
Depends. At face value, they seem willing.
Delivery, is another. story.*
They have been helpful with our efforts to
implement mandatory trash collection..
They implement in a responsive: manner.
They have been timely.
They have been supportive of City decisions and
have often provided helpful solutions.
It is iinpleiriented "ex editiously:
Has the ,cornpany threatened �or filed a
No
lawsuit against°your city?
Not to my knowledge at, any. time.
Not °that I am aware of
Nome so far.
No
-None
No
No
If you had`to make a today, would
I would recommend continuation of the contract:
you extend the current companies contract
another 5 years?
Yes, I would.. I firmly believe that the City and
contractor have maintained the best working
relationship under a franchise: ag eeme"nt of'all.
the cities in my county. Wehave worked
together to implement very successful prograrris
including'the first HHW collection facility in the
county and: the only full e -waste drop off.
program. From 1994 to the P resent we have
•
Norcal.
•
implemented° -all' of our major diversion
programs, including curbside recycling,
yardwaste all HHW° collection programs and e-
waste with only a 14 % overall increase in rates.
This also included providing all single family
accounts with two 96 gallon toters (garbage and
yard waste) as part of the basic service. I would
definitely extend the contract.
Labor agreements weren't shored up prior to
start.
Has the company been pro - active iii'
proposing changes that will .increase
diversion, improve the quality of service
And/or reduce costs?
Yes
Yes and we are in the process of negotiating a
proposed extension.
No. Would not recommend.
Because we only have recent experience, it
would be 'a shorter time period.
We just did last.,year, so yes. Our relationship
dates back to 1996 by the way.
No contracts ;Here, but would definitely extend
the permit.
While they Have been very good to work with, I
believe competitive proposals contribute to a
cooperative, economic relationship.
Yes. Implemented green waste program, a
conunercial cardboard collection program, and a
free dump day as well as street sweeping
services.
They are a very customer - service oriented
company.. That includes services to their actual
customers as well as to the City for whatever
requests we make. They are very conscious of
the bottom line and world to improve efficiencies.
A couple of examples would be issues related to
lab packing vs. bulding hazardous materials
investigating a paint can opener /drainer system
that would greathly decrease labor, the use of
automated vehicles, and reviewing routing. T hey
Norcal
keep a very Well maintained fleet with a
:reasonable depletion schedule; When we are
planning, a new program, they offer very good
inputt oil the various aspects of'structur ngthe
program in order to balance service, cost and
efficiency..
Just the opposite.
Reasonably so — as much., as I would: expect any
hauler to do. These kinds of ideas generally
come from the City in my experience.
Yes.
Absolutely.
Pro-active in diversion efforts.
Yes on all three accounts.
Yes.
•
Norrcai
i
City o f Petaluma Proposer Name: ` North Bay
Proposal Evaluation Evaluator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECK 'SUMMARY
The', following agencies responded; Santa Rosa, Rohneri Park, Cotati
Questions
Response
How is the company to work with? Is the
They serve the community well and have been
City satisfied? Are customers satisfied?
generally easy to work with overall.
North Bay,has;only provided service since 2003
and during the transition period they have been
able to make'a smooth conversion from the
previous contractor They also instituted the
single stream recycle program during that period
along with -a green, 'Waste program. Customer
satisfaction is hard to gauge.
We had some problems with faulty equipment
early on.' Breakdowns, etc.
You get what you pay for.
We are more,: satisfied with RPD now than we
were a few years ago, following the transition
from another company to this one. We forward
all customer complaints directly to RPD:
If issues arise, can you work witl'the
We have been able to resolve any issues that have
contractor to solve them?
risen during the current franchise :agreement.
Yes.
Usually
Do they provide you with the, required
Yes
contractual information and s1hat
For the most part, however, they have missed the
information submitted `on schedule?
deadlines for a few of the required reports.
Unable to answer
Are they timely in preparing information
Yes
requested from the city?
For the most part, however, they have missed the
North Bay
0
North Bay
deadlines for a few of the required reports.
Unable to answer
When. the city makes a decision,, does• the
The company responds to all' requests or
company
pigland decision, or
in a tinelymanner. '
a ' decisions
d he suation out ow down the
g
process?
The:company appears to want to work -with the
City and has demonstrated a willingnessto
cooperate if at all possible.
To my knowledge, they have not been resistant to
changes implemented, by us,
" Has the company threatened or filed , a
No
lawsuit against your city?
Not to my knowledge. -
NO
If you had to make a decision today, would
Our ordinance prohibits extensions.
you extend the current companies• contract
another 5' years?
It isloo early to make an1nformed decision .
regarding any extension.
- Today.. ; yes.
Has the company been pro = active in
The company proposed implementation of single
proposing changes that will increase
stream:recyclig in 2002 in order to achieve the
diversion, improve•the quality of service
state itandated 50% reductions.
and /or reduce costs?
Not to this point. I should point 'out, however-
that they are discussing development of axsingle
stream facility'but it is unknown if that would
result, in an increase in their required diversion or
simply reduce the costs to , company - ..
No
0
North Bay
City of Petaluma
Collection and Disposal Services
Preliminary Evaluation of Proposals
City Council Presentation
- June 7, 2004
PiJeliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City.Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Outline of Presentation
Background
'Diversion Approaches
Collection Methods and Facilities
Vehicle Impact Analysis
Proposed 'Staffing Plans, Routes and Route Hours
Diversion Levels in Communities Served by Companies
Service Enhancements
Costs and Estimated Average Rate Impacts
➢ Summary of Companies' Key Strengths
Schedule
Council Direction Requested
Attachments
Exe-ept ions to Franchise Agreement
Additional Background Information J
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page No•
2
3-4
5 11
12
13 — 14 .
1.5
16- 17
18-19
20
21
22
23
24 -26
Page 1
0�1
a
PrelinfinaeZ Evaluation
City_ of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Cou n Meeting= Procureihent Process
Background'.
a
W3
a
E
- D _U P
-issued January 20,_2004
-i-vesponses received March 1.9,,' 2004.
Proposals
® - Empire Waste Management (EWM)
0 GreenWaste Recovery (GWR)
® Norcal Waste. Systems, Inc. (Norcal)
Letter cominitment
North Bay Corporation submitted a letter committing to its April 30, 2003
proposal_
Proposal summary and company presentations May 3, 2004
Company interviews May 13, 2004
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 2
Prel iiii ihary `Evol uat i on
June Z„ 2009 Ci , Council Meetin Ci - Petaluma
t 7 g Franchise Procurement Process
Diversion Approdches
North Bay, during its interview with the C- ity on May 1.3, offered residential food waste upon contract;commencement. ,
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
•
Page 3
0 - . --
EWM
G'WR
__7 Scenario
Norcal
North Bay
1
Compliance
Comply with Regional Agency programs and policies*
'2
50 % Diversion
• Residential food waste
GWR did not: submit
Norcal to work with City
Did not propose
• Accomplish by June 2006
separate proposals for 50,
60 and 70% diversion, but
to define programs for
different diversion levels.
60 %Diversion
• Coinrnercial food waste
rather GWR proposes to
Norcal proposed costs and
• Aggressive .comity. recycling
achieve 70 % or more
programs for 70%
• Aggressive variable:rates
diversion tliro.ugh the
diversion as follows:
• Accomplish. by June. 2008
following:
• New,1Vl,RF in: City - with
• Composting'.residential
sort lines for
" solid waste acid. organic
recyclables, C &D,
materials
commercial solid waste
Wet /dry collection. for
• Residential and
multi- fainily and
commercial food waste
commercial;
collection
4
70% Diversion
Grant exclusive rights to all
composting wet
• Diversion rate to be
materials
materials sorting
g ry
quantified using AB 939
• Ban paper from solid' waste
. Accomplish " b mid-
Y
methodology
• Wet /dry commercial
2OQ5
collection; sort dry at future
• Programs for different
County facility
types ,of businesses
• Accomplish by June 2010
Accomplish by 2007
North Bay, during its interview with the C- ity on May 1.3, offered residential food waste upon contract;commencement. ,
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
•
Page 3
0 - . --
Preliminaw Evaluation
Cit) o Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council. Meeting Franchise Procui_emenfProcess
IrV
eversion Approaches (cont.
Scenario
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Pros /Cons
Pros .Phased implementation
Pros Achieving 70% or
` Pros : City can provide
Did _nof propose=
-
allows for phased costs
more can'be accomplished
-.
input to planning and
Cons Achieving 70 %o
immediately
design process for new
requires policy changes
Cons Iii some applications
facility. - -
solid waste composting has
Cons Siting and
been problematic because
permitting a material
of concerns related to
recovery facility in the
marketing materials and
City may be challenging.
enviromnental standards.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 4
t
Preliminary Evaluation
City o Petaluma
June 7, 2004 C4)> Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Resident i 0 al Collection Method
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
•
Page 5
EWM,
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Routing
Single- purpose vehicles (3
Scenario 1: : Split -body vehicles
'Single- purpose vehicles
Multi- purpose
Method
passes by separate drivers)
solid waste in one chamber and
(3 ;passes by separate
vehicles (3 passes by
recyclables in another-; separate
drivers)
1 driver)
vehicle for yard waste (2 passes by
2 drivers).
Scenarios 2 —4 Split - body
vehicles solid waste /organics .in.
_
one chamber and recyclables in
another.(1 pass by 1 .driver)
Collection
Used (average manufacture
New
Used (age.not specified)
Used /reconditioned
Vehicles
date 1,998)
(1990 . or newer)
Carts
'Existing carts for solid
New
New
New
waste and .yard trinunings;
new carts for, recyclables
Pros /Cons
Pros Collection of all
Pros Split -body truck reduces
Pros Collection of all
Pros One driver
containers can occur- at
traffic loading on streets and
containers can occur at
serves each house
same time of day
increases safety in residential areas
saute -time , of day.
and "knows"
Cons Used vehicles may
due to fewer: passes.
Cons Used vehicles
customer.
cause more route disruption
Cons Use of split =.body trucks
-may cause more route
Cons Used vehicles
due to breakdowns and may
may have volume b
disruption. due to
may cause more
be more prone to fluid
problems
breakdowns, and may be
route disruption due
leaks; used carts may have
more prone to fluid
to breakdowns and
high&breakage rate
leaks.
may be more prone
Um
to fluid leaks,
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
•
Page 5
Preliminary Evaluation City ofPetaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council.Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
C Collection Method
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 6
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Routing
Scenarios l — 3
Scenario l : Standard
Standard
Standard.
Approach
Standard
Scenarios 2 — 4 Wet /dry
Scenario 4 : Wet /diy
method
method
-
Collection
Front loaders Used
New
Front loaders Used
- .Refurbished (1990 or
Vehicles
(average manufacture
(average manufacture
newer)
date 19'99)
date 2004)
Drop box Used 1998
Drop box Used (age
not specified)
Containers
New and used
New
New
New
Pros /Cons
Pros - Wet/dry collection
Pros Wet/dry collection
Cons Refer to previous
Cons Refer to previous
may result in increased
may result in increased
page regarding used
page regarding used
diversion.
diversion
vehicles.
vehicles.
Cons Refer to previous
page.regarding used
vehicles.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 6
Prelinfinga Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2064 Cio Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Facilities -Vehicle Yard and Office
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 7
EWM
GWR,
N
North Bay
Vehicle Yard
EWM facility in Santa
Industrial Carting's Santa
Propose new facility in
Propose, new North
and Office
Rosa
Rosa facility
Petalurna or.just. outside
Bay facility in Santa
City limits (Alternative-
Rosa
existing; facility in Santa
Rosa area)
Distance from
13-2 miles
.12.1 miles,
0 to 15 miles depending
.1 4.j miles
City Centroid
on. site se-lected assuming
(One -Way)
site in City limits..
Pros/Cons
Pros- Existing permitted
Pros,:: Existing, p6nnitted
Pros: Least collection
Pros:. Existing,,
facility. Same, site as
facility. Hauling
Vehide�off-route
permitted facility
currently used.
arrangements similar to
hauling,
Cons: As compared to
Cons: As compared to site
current situation.
Cons: .Proposer has not
s ite ite in City, long
in City, long collection
Cons: As compared to site
secured site; site may
collection vehicle
vehicle drive time to and
in City, long collection
require, land use permit
drive time to and from
fro m site each day
vehicle drive l time to and
and capital,
sit 6 each day
from site each day
improvements; proposer
may select site located
elsewhere (i.e., in Santa
-Rosa).
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 7
Preliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Facilities — p
1S 05 .1 Site
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 8
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Disposal Site
Scenario l : Central
Scenario 1 Central
Scenarios l — 4 Central
Scenario 1 : Central
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Scenarios 1 — 4 :_ Central or
Scenarios ,2 —'4 Po_ trero
- Redwood Landfill
Hills Landfill.
Distance from
Central'LF: '9.3 miles
Central LF: _9.') miles
Central LF: 9.31 i iles
Central LF: 93 miles
City Centroid
Redwood LF` 1 iniles
P- otrero .Hills LF: 52.6
(One -Way)
miles (from Z- Best -to
Potrero Hills ,LF)
Per -Ton
Central Landfill: $70
Central Landfill: $70
Central Landfill: $70
Central Landfill: $70 _
Tipping Fee
Redwood Landfill: $36.97
Potrero Hills, Landfill:
-
less than $20
Pros /Cons
Pros Low cost compared
Pros Low cost
Pros City commitment
Pros City u
to Central; Redwood , LF
_
C Long haul to
to JPA; close to City
- Y
commitment to JPA;
close to City thus limited
Potrero LF (however only
close to City
traffic and_air impact ,
residue from composting
Cons High cost;
Cons Redwood is out -of-
and recyclables processing
uncertainty related to
Cons "High cost;
county thus may require
delivered to .Potrero LF);
future costs, particularly
uncertainty relate_ d to
departure from JPA and
LF is out of county, thus
given current landfill
future costs,
City provision of (and
may require departure
problems
particularly given
payment for) services
from JPA and City
current landfill
currently handled by JPA
provision of (and payment
problems
for) services currently
handled by JPA
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 8
Preliminary Evaluation
City of Petaluma
Jane 7, 2004 City Council Meeting Ti anchise Procurement Process
Facilities —Recyclable s Processi
Hilton Farnkopf &Hobson, LLC
Page 9
• s •
E) VM
GWR
Norcal
North ,Bay
Recyclable
EWM- facility°in Santa
Global Materials
Scenario 1 : California
Proposed` new North
Materials
Rosa
Recovery /Industrial Carting
Waste Solution facility in
Bay facility in Santa
Processing Site
facility in. Santa Rosa
Oakland -
Rosa to be operational
Scenarios .2 — 4 Proposed
by end of 2005; use
new facility in or just
existing North Bay
outside City; alternative
processing facility in
proposal to acquire site
Santa Rosa °untilnew
elsewhere in County.
facility con pl6te.
Distance from
13.2 miles _
12.1 miles;
Approximately 45 miles
14.1 miles -
City Centroid
assuming transfer site in
(One -Way)
in City limits
Per -Ton Net
W 1 0)
$5= residential materials
($7.65),re "sidential mtls;
($»
Cost (.Revenue)
$50 cominercial dry mtls
($319.60) commercial mtls
Pros /Cons
Pros Existing, permitted
Pros Existing, permitted
Pros Minimal collection
Pros New state-of-the-
facility.
facility.
vehicle off- route.hauling;
art facility; site selected
Cons Additional
Cons Additional
new -state-of-the-art
Cons Use and
collection vehicle drive
collection vehicle drive
facility
capital improvements
time to and from site
time to and from. site each
Cons Proposer has not
needed; additional drive
each day compared to
day compared to site in
secured site; permits may
time to and from site
site in City
City
be challenging and /or time
each day compared to
consuming secure; may
site in City.
select site elsewhere, long
haul to recycling facility
compared 'to others
Hilton Farnkopf &Hobson, LLC
Page 9
• s •
P, reliminaay Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
F acilities -Y as e l
��' Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 10
EWM
GWR -
Norcal
North Bay
Proposed Yard Waste
Processing Site (Scenario
Central Landfill'- composting operation
1 Only) _
Distance from City
9.3 miles
Centroid (One -Way)
Per -Ton Tipping Fee
$31.00 per ton
��' Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 10
Preliniinarl) Evaluation City ofPetalurrra
June 7, 2004 Cib) Council Meeting Franchise. Procurement Process
• i ties •
F�.C11 — Org a n ics P S c enarios 2 - 4 ( )
Hilton Farnkopf &'Hobson, LLC
Page T1
EWM
GWR
Norcal'
North Bay
Proposed Organic
Propose EWM "s ,Redwood
GWR's affiliate's Z -Best
Norcal's Jepson. Praise
Not applicable
Materials
Facility in Novato 'subject to
Facility in Gilroy via transfer
Facility near Vacaville
(North Bay did
Processing and
periit,approval; alternative
of materials, at Industrial
not propose
Composting Site
GWR's affiliate's Z -Best
Carting''s Santa Rosa
Scenarios 2 — 4)
(_Scenarios 2 — 4)
Facility in. Gilroy via transfer
facility. Note: Proposing
of materials at EWM's
to compost solid waste and
Red woo d facility in Novato
organic waste.
Distance (One-
Ceritroi&to Redwood LE
Centroid,to trans_ fer station:
Centroid to transfer station:
Way)
13.4 miles
12.1 miles
0'to - 3.5 miles depending on
Transfer station to
site; ,transfer station to
processing site: - M.2 miles
processing site: 69.4 miles
Tipping Fee
Costs not included
$42 per ton
-$3`5 per ton
Pros /cons
Pros Z -Best permitted and
Pros Z -Best permitted and
Pros Site is permitted and
operational site with proven
operational site.
operational; proven track
track record of composting_
Conn Solid waste
record for yard and food
yard waste and food. waste.
compostng,been
waste composting.,
Cons Long haul that
problematic in some.
Cons Long haul that
contributes, to Bay Area.
applications; ,transfer at
contributes to Bay Area
traffic and air emissions.
lndustrial .Carting. s site
traffic and air emissions
requires regulatory
approval.;" ong haul that
contributes to Bay Area
' traffic and air. emissions.
Hilton Farnkopf &'Hobson, LLC
Page T1
Preliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Vehicle Impact Analysis (Miles per Year)
Notes: Analysis does not reflect mileage associated with hauling recyclable or compost materials to
market. Assumes City centroid is the intersection of E. Washington Street and Ellis Street.
=` Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 12
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Ave rage
-Residential Route Miles
32
21,632 (Seen 1)
32,448
32,448
29,744"
1.0,816 (Seen 4)
Residential and Commercial Non- Route Miles
Scenario 1: Non -hwy miles
44,78:1`
39,32.4
29;241
60,-)
43,415
Hwy miles
104,893
119;823
89,414
114,474
107,15.1
Total miles
149,674
159,147
118 ,655
174,790
150,5566
Scenario 1 Optional: Non -hvvy miles
10,926
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Hwy miles
191,223
Total miles
202,149
Scenario 2: Non -hwy miles
10;,891
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Hwy miles
190,460
Total miles
201,351
Scenario 3: Non -hwy miles
11,330
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Hwy miles
195,832
Total miles
207,161
Scenario 4: Non -hwy miles
12,309
30,538
33,220
Not applicable
25,356
Hwy miles
198,185
409,259
118,023
241,822
Total miles
210,494
439,797
151,243
267,178
Notes: Analysis does not reflect mileage associated with hauling recyclable or compost materials to
market. Assumes City centroid is the intersection of E. Washington Street and Ellis Street.
=` Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 12
Prelinfinmy Evaluation City ofPataluma
June 7, 2004 City Council Mee-ti.nLy Franchise Procurement Process
Proposed Staffing Plans (scenario - i)
Hilton Farnkopf &_Hobson, LLG
•
Page 93
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Average
Route Personnel
Collection route
17.0
16.0
20.73
13.0
17.9
ping
Street sweep
h
2.0
3.27
10
1.0
Total
18.6
18.0
24.0
15.0
18.9
Other Personnel
General. manager
0.25
Lo
1.0_ -
0
0.6
Operation manager
0.25
1.0
1,0
1.0
0.8
Community relations/public ed.
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
0_5
Maintenance
1.0
3.0
5.5
1.5
.2.8
Other.
5.75
5.9
6..0
4.0
5.4
Total
7.75
10.9
.14.0
7.5
10.1 _
T otal.Personnel
2
28".9.
3
215
29.
Hilton Farnkopf &_Hobson, LLG
•
Page 93
•
•
Preliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
Iarrie 7, 2004 City Council Meeting _ Franchise Procurement Process
Pro I 10:S d, - outes and. Route,Hours (Scenario -1)
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 14
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Average
Number of Routes
Residential
12.71.
13.20
13.34
10.13-
12.35
Commercial
3.54
3.30
4.6
3`=:34
350
Drop box
0.95
1.00
1.15
0.91
L:0.0
Street sweeping
1.40
2.00
138
1.83
2
Total
18.60
19.50
22.47
16.21
14 - 19
Route Hours per Year
Residential
26 5 429
27,456
27
21
2509
Commercial
7,371
6
9,5.55
6
7,683
Drop box
1,976
200
2
1,898
2 5 084
Street sweeping
2,912
4,160
7,020
3,796
4,472
Total
38
40
46
33
39
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 14
Preliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council. Meeting Franchise.Procurement Process
o
Diversion- Level ii1
Communities Served by Comp
ani,es*
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North. Bay
318 %o
Sonoma County,
65% :
Woodside
62 %
San Jose
38 % Windsor, Rohnert
Healdsburg,
62 %
San Jose
53%
Vacaville
Park, Santa Rosa,
Sebastopol, Cotati
61`%
Unincorporated Santa
46 %
Rocklin
Cotatit
through Regional
Clara Count y
o
45,/o
Gilroy
Agency Reportir"igt-
66% o .
Albany*
43%
Tehama- County
41%
Morgan Hill
54 %
Union City **
32%
Portola
34%
Yuba County
50%
Oakland * *
31 % o
San Francisco
50%
Newark
46%
Livermore
Preliminary 2002 diversion_ rate as reported by the State; subject to. approval by the State. The diversion levels do not
directly'reflect.the franchise,l auler's commitment to diver "sign programs because the diversion levels are impacted by
numerous factor's' including, but,tnot limited to, the hauler "s performance, the: number and nature of diversion programs, rate,
structure'incentives, - Aix of`residential and commercial customers,. education level of residents,, economic conditions, etc,
** 2002 diversion rate as reported by the city to the State. .Subiect to approval by - the State.
j Sonoma County preliminary results of its base year adjustment process 'indicates a revised diversion rate of 53.8 %0, subject
to review and approval of 'the State.
Hilton Farnkopf. & Hobson, LLC Page 15
Preliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council.Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Servi,*:ce EnhancementS.
EWM
Street sweeping -after special events
Expanded list of recyclable materials (non -.CRT e:- scrap; small appliances)
Free disposal at Landfill .for annual_ - clean = of bulky items (if
Redwood Landfill. is selected as disposal site)
Early implementation of single- stream collection and weekly yard - waste
® GWR
Expanded list of recyclable materials (small scrap and cast aluminum,
small scrap .metal.; textiles; batteries, polystyrene)
® Norcal
— Leaf pick =up crew to precede street sweeper from Nov. 1 to Feb. 2.8
— Expanded list of recyclables materials for Scenarios 2 — 4 (textiles; scrap
metal; all plastic including film and polystyrene)
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 16
Pre-hininarV _Evaluation
Ci o Petaluma
June 7, 2004 Cit)) Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Service Enhancements (coast.)
® North Bay
— Annual $300,000 contribution to City for use in, funding civic goals
Additional franchise fees of approximately $132,00`0 annually from recyclables
revenues and portable toilet business
Free collection fo= public schools and Santa Rosa Junior College if schools"
include recycling,. estimated $21,,000 savings
Free portable toilet service at all City - sponsored -and non-profit events
-
— Residential. food waste collection at start -up .(processed at Central Landfill)
— Street sweep at municipal events
— Free conu - nercial recycling (depending -on the rate structure selected)
Free multi- fam -ily and commercial yard trimming collection if they perform
.their own landscaping and do not use outside contractor
— Expanded customer service hours (Sat '7 a..m. to 1 °p.m,.)
— Curbside collection of loose. holiday trees (rather than cut .and placed in, carts)
Accept. TVs and CRTs fora fee at their - existing buy =back and drop -off facility,
at 2:543 Petaluma Blvd. South, and .during annual drop -off event fora fee
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 17
Preliminary Evaluation
Cit� ofPetaluina
June 7, 2004 City Council Meeting -_ Franchise Procurement Process
ate Pefliod One Costs and (minions)
Notes:
1. First rate period costs reflect Central Landfill solid waste fee increase from $50 per ton to $70 per ton and yard waste fee
increase from $29 to $31 per ton. Costs do not include estimate of costs to leave the Regional Agency.
2. NPV does not include franchise or vehicle impact fees, $70 disposal cost adjustment, or costs for leaving Regional Agency.
3. EWM costs for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 do not include costs of programs that are implemented in later years.
4. Norcal guarantees not to exceed the high end of the cost range shown for Scenario 1, but proposes to initially set rates
assuming the low end of'the cost ; range, review actual costs, and make future rate adjustments for any shortfalls.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 18
Scenario LL
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North'B`ay
1
AB 939 through Regional Agency
First Rate Period (16 mos.)
$ -12.6
$12.:1
$12.8. - $15.1
$8.5
NetPresent Value of Contract
$64.1
$59.5
$64 - $76.7
$41.3
1.0
AB 939 through Agency; Redwood Disposal
First Rate Period (16 mos.,)
$11.2
Net Present Value of Contract
$62.5
2
50% diversion
To be
First Rate Period (16 mos.)
$_11.2
- --
determined if
Net Present Value of Contract
$62.5
selected
3
60% diversion
To be
First Rate Period (16 mos.)
$1:1.9
- - -.
determined.if
Net Present Value of Contract
$63.8
selected
4
70% diversion
First Rate Period (16 mos.)
$.12.0
$1.0.8
— $21.3
- --
Net Present. Value of Contract
$64.8
$59.4
—$112.2
Notes:
1. First rate period costs reflect Central Landfill solid waste fee increase from $50 per ton to $70 per ton and yard waste fee
increase from $29 to $31 per ton. Costs do not include estimate of costs to leave the Regional Agency.
2. NPV does not include franchise or vehicle impact fees, $70 disposal cost adjustment, or costs for leaving Regional Agency.
3. EWM costs for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 do not include costs of programs that are implemented in later years.
4. Norcal guarantees not to exceed the high end of the cost range shown for Scenario 1, but proposes to initially set rates
assuming the low end of'the cost ; range, review actual costs, and make future rate adjustments for any shortfalls.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 18
Preliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 00) Council Meeting Franchise Nocurement, Process
Estimated Avera e Rate Impact*
Scenario
EWM.
GWR
Norcal
North
Bay
I
Compliance with AB 939
36%
31%
38% — 63%t
(8%)
through Regional Agency
I
AB 939 through. Agency;
21%
---
---
---
Opt.
RWwood Disposal
2
50% diversion
211 %
---
---
---
3'.
60% diversion,
28%
---
4
70% diversion
30%
—130%
Rate.impact reflects Central Landfill soli.d,was.te fee. increase frorn ton, to $70 per ton,, and yard waste fee
increase from $29 to $31 per ton. Rate impact does not include estimate of costs to leave the Regional Agency.
e
Individual customer rates to 'be determined I After contractor selection.
Norcal guarantees not to exceed the high .end ofthe c
ost1drige shown for Scenario 1, but proposes to initially rates
assuming the low end, of -the cost range, review actual -costs, and make ffitar, ate.,adjustmen s for any shortfalls,
future t
Hilton Fartikopf& Hobson, LLC Page 19
Preliminary Evaluation CityofPetaluma
June 7, 2004 Cat) Council Meeting Franchise Procuremeni Process
S a:r of Companies' e Strengths
AMb
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 20
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Estimated Average
36%
31%
38%-63%
(8 %)
Rate Impact
(Scenario l)
_
Key Strengths
•Early
• Aggr- essive diversion
: Potentially may develop
• Lowest cost
implementation of
strategy using :
a new recyclables_
• $300 annual
programs at City's
innovative approach
processing facility_ in or
contribution to City
option
• Reduced residential
near the City, which
=
• Additional franchise
• Transition impacts
street traffic and wear
may result in.less
fees of
limited only to
and tear through use
vehicle impacts-and
approximately
program changes
of split -body trucks
potential economic _
$1;2,000 annually
Known contractor
• Partnered with local
benefits
from recyclables
and track record
company (Industrial
Flexible approach that
revenues and
• 30 7year operating
Carting, Global
encourages strong City
portable toilet.
history in Petaluma
Materials Solutions)
involvement to
business
• Demonstrated
for recyclables
determine services _and
• Existing, permitted
supporter of
processing
costs
facilities
community
- y
Commitment of labor
°Commitment. to
• Existing, permitted
and vehicle resources is
build new
fa. vilifies
higher than other
recyclables
companies
processing facility
• If facility in City, fewest
vehicle miles traveled,
thus least air and traffic
impacts
Page 20
Preliminaii) Evaluation
Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council Meeting
Franchise Procurement Process
0 Council Input
Site visits
Contractor selection
Approval of franchise* agreement
19 Commencement of New Services
To be determined
July 19, 2-004
August 16, 2004 ,
March .1. 2005
Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, LLC
•
Page 21
0
Preliminary Evaluation Cit�ofPetaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
C e este
rectlon whether to proceed with evaluation of
all four - companies
Direction regarding evaluation proices,s
— S cenario s to be evaluated
— Subj to be evaluated
— Details to be provided
— Estimate of City costs to provide. programs and services
currently handled by Regional Agency
— Cost analysis for Scenario l reflecting use of Redwood
Landfill and composting site
— Site visits_ -to. be scheduled
- ` W Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC Page 22
Preliminary Evaluation
City o Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Attachment 1 — Exceptions to Franchise Agreement*
EWM
• Depreciation period less `than
10 years; additional capital
expenditures (not included. in
cost.proposal); during term .to
replace used equipment
• Net _recycling. reVellues (i.e'.,
gross revenues less- processing
costs) are "below the line" so
revenues do not ' reduce profit
• Proposed Rate _Period Two
costs subject to adjustment to
reflect growth
No market test of
• No guarantee ,tor 60% or 70%
diversion' level
• Scenario 4: Exclusive rights
for all materials (including
C &D), or City to establish
comparable diversion
benclunark for haulers
collecting, C &D;and
conunercial recyclables
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Lienprocess to be Compensation for actual See note below
established for delinquent costs plus a 10 % rate of
accounts or right to return in Rate Periods One
terminate :service and Two
• Set rates annually based on
actual costs and operating
ratio
• State diversion calculation
methodology
• Diversion,, certification, and
reporting for haulers
collecting C &D; commercial
recyclables, and materials
froin:public school's
Net recycling revenues (i.e.,
gross revenues less
processing costs) :are: "below
the line" so revenues do not
reduce-profit
Lien process established or
eliminate cap on. bad debt
.No market test of,rates
* Other exceptions taken to franchise agreement that.appear to be negotiable items are not show' h here:-
Hilton Farnkopf &:Hobson, LLC
Page 23
Preliminary Evaluation City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 Cify Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Prncv.cr
Council decis4*on to solicit proposals June 13 2001
• Public outreach,-efforts. from April to. June 200.2
• Council input in June and December 2002
regarding services, contract terms, and RFP
• RFP issued December 3, 2002
• EWM and North Bay proposals received April 30,
2003
• EWM, North Bay, and Marin Sanitary
Service/Nor presentations July 7, 2003
Hilton Farnkopf &.Hobson, LLC Page 24
Preliminary Evaluation
City of Petaluma
June 7,2004 City Council Meeting
Franchise ProcurenientTrocess
Attachment 2
Additional Background Information (cont.)
® Council meeting August 18, 2003 directing extension of
existing agreement with EWM six month revise and
reissue RFP
® Council direction Sept. 1 2003, to revise and reissue RFP
Council meeting November 17, 2003
— Extend existing E) M Agreement to February 28, 2005
— Revise and reissue RFP to reflect. Council - desired changes
— Solicit proposals that us'e
' ,unty disposal and organics
processing facilities
Open competition for , comm , ercial recy
cling in debris boxes
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
1 0,
Page 25
1 * 40
Preliminan) Evaluation-` City of Petaluma
June 7, 2004 City Cour7cil Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Attachm.ent 2
A . dition ,ark o Information (cont.
Council meeting, December 1 5,,'2003
— Revise and reissue RFP
— Request four proposal scenarios
Scenario l: AB 939 compliance through regional agency programs and-
policies (single stream recyclables, weekly yard waste, Central Landfill for
solid waste disposal and yard trimming processing)
® Scenario 2: 50% diversion; programs -and facilities selected by proposers
• Scenario 3: 60% diversion; programs and facilities selected by-proposers
• Scenario 4: 70% diversion; programs and facilities selected by proposers
— Allow collection of commercial recyclables in debris boxes on an open
market basis
® RFP is -sued January 20, 2004
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC
Page 26